Creagh v Gamble

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 25 June 1888
• Docket Number: (1887 — O. No. 346.)
• Date: 25 June 1888
• Court: Exchequer Division (Ireland)

Ex. Div.

(1887 O. No. 346.)

CREAGH

and

GAMBLE.

Mr. Broderick Infra, p. 467.

Beckwith v. PhilbyENR 6 B. & C. 635.

Ledwith v. Catchpole Cald. 291.

Samuel v. Payne Dougl. 359.

Davis v. RussellENR 5 Bing. 354.

Hogg v. WardENR 3 H. & N. 417.

Hobbs v. BranscombeENR 3 Camp. 420.

Williams v. JonesENR 3 H. & C. 602.

Welfare v. L. B. Railway Co.ELR L. R. 4 Q. B. 693.

Mersey Docks Trustees v. GibbsELR L. R. 1 H. L. 93, 111.

Parton v. WilliamsENR 3 B. & Ald. 330.

Cook v. NethercoteENR 6 C. & P. 741.

Rex v. WhalleyENR 7 C. & P. 245.

Rex v. Patience Ibid. 775.

Rex v. WeirENR 1 B. & C. 288.

Hoye v. Bush 2 Scott's N. R. 86.

Peppercorn v. HofmanENR 9 M. & W. 618-628.

Abrath v. The North-Eastern Railway Co.ELR 11 App. Cas. 247.

The Mersey Docks Trustees v. GibbsELR L. R. 1 H. L. 111.

False imprisonment Arrest under warrant issued in a county different from that in which arrest in made Information given by district inspector of constabulary to officers of metropolitan police Reasonable suspicion of commission of felony.

458 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. RA. Appeal. that it is a very reasonable practice. A plaintiff who has onee 1888. gone to trial shows his bona fides. The old practice had a great JOYCE, deal of substance and justice in it, and I am satisfied that the TOWNSLEY, & Co. rules in question are clearly against the idea of its having been changed, as they apply to cases where notice of trial has not been BOYLy. served at all. Here the plaintiff made no default as to serving his notice of trial. Appeal dismissed, with three guineas costs (measured by consent). Solicitor for the appellant : Patrick Gallagher. Solicitor for the respondents : Henry T. Stewart. CREAGH v. GAMBLE. (1887-0. No. 346.) False imprisonment-Arrest under warrant issued in a county different front that in which arrest is made-Information given by district inspector of constabulary to officers of metropolitan police-.Reasonable suspicion of commission of felony. G., a district inspector of Royal Irish Constabulary, in charge of the T. district, County Kerry, on the 18th September, 1887, forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police a letter which G. had received from B., a resident at Tralee, in substance charging C., a former agent of his, with embezzlement and other offences. C. was then resident in Dublin, and 0. wrote a memorandum to the Chief Commissioner, with B.'s letter, suggesting that it might be well to keep C. under surveillance pending the receipt of a telegram from him next day relative to the issuing of a warrant. On the 19th September a warrant was issued by a Justice of the County Kerry for the arrest of C. on a charge of forgery, and G. telegraphed to the Chief Commissioner that the warrant was issued, and gave C.'s address and description. On the 20th September C. was arrested by a metropolitan policeman, acting under the directions of his chief inspector. In reply to a telegram from the superintendent of police, announcing the arrest, G. sent an escort with the warrant to Dublin, and before their arrival there, G. telegraphed to the superintendent-" &oat sent up to-day. Please direct them to start by 9 a.m. train to-morrow." ToL. Q. B. & RI. DIVISIONS. C. was accordingly taken next day in charge of the escort to the County K., where he was remanded by a magistrate of the county, and the charge was ultimately withdrawn. In an action brought by C. against G. for wrongful arrest and false imÂÂprisonment, the Judge left to the jury the questions-1, Whether G., at the time of the arrest, and thence continuously until C. was remanded, suspected on reasonable grounds that C. had committed a felony ? 2, Whether the officer who effected the arrest, at the time of the arrest, suspected on reasonable grounds that C. had committed a felony ? The jury having answered both questions in the affirmative, and a verdict having been entered for the defendant G. On a motion for a new trial : Redd, that even assuming the arrest and the detention of C. in Dublin to have been illegal, the defendant G. was not responsible to C. in an action. Where an act can be done in a legal manner, the person giving the direction is not responsible for the act done if it be carried out in an illegal manner, unÂÂless the relation of master and servant exists between the person giving the direction and the person executing it. Knowledge by a police constable that a warrant has been issued by a duly authorized magistrate for the arrest of a particular person for felony constitutes a sufficient ground of reasonable suspicion that a felony has been committed by such person, so as to authorize such constable to arrest him ; and if the warÂÂrant has been granted at a distance from the place where he is to be found, the constable is entitled to bring him in custody before a Justice having jurisdicÂÂtion in the place at which the arrest is made, and to obtain a reasonable remand until the warrant shall arrive, and be backed, pursuant to the 14 & 15 Viet. c. 93. • Held, that in this case the defendant G. was not identified with the custody of C. until his arrival in the County Kerry, when the further acts of G. were justified by the warrant. CAUSE SHOWN against a conditional order for a new trial. The action was brought against the defendant, who was District-Inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary in charge of the Tralee district in the County Kerry, to recover damages for wrongful arrest and. false imprisonment. The defendant by his defence traversed the allegations contained in the statement of claim, and pleaded justification under a magistrate's warrant, and also justification as a police officer suspecting, on reasonable grounds, that the plaintiff had committed a felony. The action was tried before Mr. Justice Holmes and a jury of the city of Dublin during the Hilary Sittings, 1888. The plainÂÂtiff was examined, and proved that he had been for five years 460 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. B.I. Ex. Div. local manager of the Provincial Bank at Listowel. He resigned 1888. the managership on the 25th February, 1887, and then came to CREAGII reside at 34 Garville-avenue, Rathgar. He was there on the 20th v. GAMBLE. September, 1887, and at about 8 a.m. Serjeant Dunne and another man (both in plain clothes) came into his room, and said they had come to arrest him. He asked where was their warrant, and they replied they had none. He said he would not go with them. They replied he must go, as it was a charge of felony. He said he must know the charge. They said it was a charge of emÂÂbezzling a large sum of money from his brother-in-law, Mr. Broderick, a solicitor, of Tralee. Serjeant Dunne searched all his boxes and trunks, and took away all his private papers. Plaintiff was then taken to the Rathmines police station, and detained there for about twenty minutes. The Serjeant in charge there said that he would not detain plaintiff, no warrant being produced. He was then taken by Serjeant Dunne to Chancery-lane police station. Plaintiff asked there to see the warrant. No warrant was produced. Serjeant Dunne said he would go to the Castle and see about it, and be back in half-an-hour ; but did not return till 7 or 8 o'clock p.m., and said that no warrant had arrived, and that plaintiff should remain there all night (1). He was detained until the next evening (Wednesday), and was told that the warÂÂrant had not arrived. About 7 p.m. Serjeant litt'Carthy and another constable arrived from Tralee, and they showed him a warrant, dated the 19th September, 1887, which was given in evidence. The plaintiff said he had been arrested on a different charge-that of embezzlement; and he objected to being detained any longer at the station unless he was provided with a bed, and also asked to be taken to Tralee, which was refused. He was detained in the station till Thursday morning, and was taken to Tralee by the midday train, where he arrived the same night. He was detained in the police barrack there till Friday morning, when he was brought before Mr. Rowan, a Justice of the Peace...