Harvey v Mayne

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 31 January 1872
• Date: 31 January 1872
• Court: Common Pleas Division (Ireland)

Com. Pleas.

Before KEOGH, MORRIS and LAWSON, JJ.

HARVEY

and

MAYNE.

Gregory v. HillENR 8 T. R. 299.

Grant v. Moser 2 M. & Gr. 123.

Hudson v. SladeENR 3 F. & F. 390.

Green v. BartramENR 4 C. & P. 308.

Chambers v. Miller and othersENR 3 F. & F. 202.

Bird v. Jones 7 Q. B. 742.

Patrick v. ColerickENR 3 M. & W. 483.

Blades v. HiggsENR 10 C. B. N. S. 713.

Van den Eynde v. Ulster Railway Co.UNKIR I. R. 5 C. L. 328.

in bancENR 13 C. B. N. S. 125.

Chambers v. Miller and othersENR 3 F. & F. 202.

Blades v. HiggsENR 13 C. B. N. S. 125.

False Imprisonment Plaintiff wrongfully in possession of Defendant's goods.

VOL. VI.] COMMON LAW SERIES. 417 HARVEY v MAYNE (1) . False Imprisonment-Plaintiff wrongfully in possession of Defendant's goods. The Plaintiff, having wrongfully in his possession a chattel of the DefenÂÂdants, and being about to remove it from the Defendants' premises and conÂÂvert it to his own use, they demanded it from him, and, on his refusal to give it up, laid hands on him and detained him on their premises, in order to preÂÂvent his carrying away and converting the chattel ; doing no more, and deÂÂtaining the Plaintiff no longer, than was necessary : Held, in an action for assault and false imprisonment, that the detention of the Plaintiff was illegal. Corn. Pleas. 1872. Jan. 31. &Twig for assault and false imprisonment. 2nd plea ,6 That before and at the time of the alleged trespasses, the Plaintiff had wrongfully in his possession a certain chattel of the Defendants-that is to say, a certain cheque drawn by the Defendants upon the Ulster Bank-without the leave and against the will of the Defendants ; and the Plaintiff was then in the office of the Defendants, of his own will and accord, and by the license of the Defendants, and was then about wrongfully and unlawfully to take and carry away the said cheque and convert it to his own use; and the Defendants then reÂÂquired the Plaintiff to refrain from carrying away and converting the said cheque, and to give up the possession thereof to the Defendants, which the Plaintiff then refused to do, and, thereupon, the Defendants gently laid hands on the Plaintiff; and detained him in the said office of the Defendants, in order to prevent his carrying away and converting the said cheque as aforesaid, and not otherwise ; doing no more, and detaining the Plaintiff no longer than was necessary, which are the alleged trespasses." DEMURRER. Kisbey (with him H. Law, Q. C.), in support of...