Dickson v Capes, Stuart and Tyrrell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 16 January 1855
• Date: 16 January 1855
• Court: Court of Common Pleas (Ireland)

Common Pleas.

DICKSON

and

CAPES, STUART and TYRRELL.

The Case of the MarshalseaENR 10 Co. Rep. 68 b.

noteENR 10 Co. Rep. 76 a.

Barker v. Braham 3 Wils. 378, 386; S. C., 2 W. Bl. 866.

Bates v. PillingENR 6 B. & C. 38.

Bryant v. Clatton 1 . & W. 408.

West v. SmallwoodENR 3 M. & W. 418.

Codrington v. Lloyd 8 A. & E. 449.

Green v. Elgie 5 Q. B. 99.

Cooper v. Harding 7 Q. B> 928.

Kinning v. BuchananENR 8 C. B. 271.

Houlden v. Smith 14 Q. B. 841; S. C., 19 L. J., N. S., Q. B. 170.

Philips v. BironENR 1 Str. 509.

Parsons v. Lloyd 3 Wils. 341.

Cameron v. Lightfoot 2 W. Bl. 1192.

Price v. Severn 7 Bimg. 316.

Blanceny v. Burt 4 Q. B. 707.

Carrott v. Morley 1 Q. B. 18.

Brown v. Chapman 6 C. C. 364.

Goodwin v. Gibbons 4 Bur. 2108.

Rex v. DancerENR 6 T. R. 245.

King v. HarrisonENR 15 East, 612.

Fitzpatrick v. KellyENR Cited in 9 East, 341.

Rundle v. Little 6 Q. B. 174.

Rowe v. TutteENR Willes, 14.

Coomer v. LathamENR 16 M. & W. 713.

Jackson v. HumphreysENR 1 Salk. 273.

Watson v. BodellENR 14 M. & W. 57.

Braham & Norwood 3 Wils. 368.

Bates v. Pilling & LeddonENR 6 B. & C. 68.

Coomer v. LathamENR 16 M. & W. 713.

Carratt v. Morley 1 Q. B. 18.

Kinning v. BuchananENR 8 C. B. 271.

Green v. Elgie and Toulmin 5 Q. B. 99.

Cooper v. Harding and Smith 7 Q. B. 928.

182 COMMON LAW REPORTS. M. T. 1854. CommonPleas. liACKSON v. CAPES, STUART and TYRRELL. Nov. 24. H. T. 1855. Jan. 15, 16, 22. (Common Pleas). C. and S., being judgÂment creditors of D., T., their attorney, ap. plied to the Court for the Relief of InÂsolvent DebtÂors, for an order for comÂmittal. That Court accordÂingly made an order directing D. to be imÂprisoned in Richmond Bridewell. THE plaint in this case alleged that the defendants assaulted the plaintiff, and compelled him to go along certain public streets to a certain prison ,ealled Richmond Bridewell, and imprisoned him there, and kept him in prison there for ninety-two days, until he was discharged by a writ of habeas corpus issued by the court of Queen's Bench. The defendant Tyrrell pleaded separately from the defendants Capes .and Stuart ; but the plea in each case was the same, namely a traverse of the assault and imprisonment, as alleged ; and the issue directed was on the fact of the assault and imprisonment The Court of as alleged. The facts of the case, as they appeared at the trial, Queen's Bench subsequently were as follow :-The defendants Capes and Stuart recovered a discharged D., on the grounds judgment in Michaelmas Terra 1851 against the plaintiff Dickson, that the Court for the Relief for the sum of £150. 5s., on foot of a promissory note due by him, ofInsolvent Debtors had and having issued a capias ad satisfaciendum thereon, the plaintiff no jurisdiction to imprison was) on the 7th of August 1852, arrested, and committed to the him in Rich- Four Courts Marshalsea. After the lapse of twenty-one days from mond Bride well, but his commital, the defendants Capes and Stuart presented a petition, should have imprisoned pursuant to the 3 & 4 Vic., c. 107, for the purpose of having the him in the Four Courts estate and effects of the plaintiff vested in the provisional assignee Marshalsea : Held, that D. of the Insolvent Court, pursuant to the provisions of that statute ; could not maintain an and an order was accordingly made by the Court for the Relief of action of tres pass for assault Insolvent Debtors, in accordance with the said petition, and the and false prisonmentim plaintiff was directed to file his schedule within fourteen days after against C. and S., against notice served upon him at the prison, according to the practice or T. their attor- the act of the Court. By the 10th Rule of the Insolvent Court, a delivery ney; complained of of copies of the vesting order and the order to file a schedule, being the judiÂcial act of a Court of competent jurisdiction, and no malice having been alleged or proved against any of the parties. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 183 to the gaoler, or other known officer of the Court, is deemed good M. T. 1854. service of such order upon the prisoner ; and accordingly, in pur- CommonPleas. suance of this Rule, copies of the above orders were served on DICKSON V. the known officer of the gaol, and fourteen days having elapsed . without the plaintiff filing his schedule, the following order was CAPES made on the 24th of December 1852, by the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors : " Upon motion of Mr. M'Nally, attorney for George Capes and " John Stuart, the petitioning and detaining creditors, and upon " reading, &c., It is ordered that a warrant do issue to commit said " insolvent to Richmond Bridewell, for not filing a schedule as " aforesaid, unless good cause to the contrary be shown, within " fourteen days after the service of this order." It appeared that Tyrrell had employed M'Nally to take the proceedings in the Insolvent Court on behalf of Messrs. Stuart and Capes, whose attorney Tyrrell was. The plaintiff had applied to set aside the order for commitment, and contended that Richmond Bridewell was not the proper...