M'Combe v Gray

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 09 May 1879
• Date: 09 May 1879
• Court: Exchequer Division (Ireland)

Ex. Div.

M'COMBE

and

GRAY.

Withers v. HenleyENR Cro. Jac. 379.

Aaron v. AlexanderENR 3 Camp. 35.

Moone v. RoseELR L. R. 4 Q. B. 486; 17 W. R. 729.

Re Thompson Estate, Nalty v. Aylett 43 L. J. Ch. 721.

Greaves v. Keane 4 Ex. Div. 73; 27 W. R. 416.

— Attachment —— Detention of prisoner after expiration of one year —— Governor of gaol — False imprisonment.

432 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND)) [L. R. I. 31'003/BE v. GRAY. Debtors Act (Ireland), 1872 (35 36 Vict. e. 57), ss. 4, 5 4 6-Attachment- Contempt of Court in non-payment of money pursuant to order-Detention prisoner after expiration of one year-Necessity of obtaining order for discharge-Governor of gaol-False imprisonment. The Plaintiff was imprisoned under an attachment for a contempt incurred by him in disobeying an order of the Chancery Division, which directed him to lodge a certain sum of money to the credit of a cause. The attachment order-did not specify the length of time for which the Plaintiff was to be detained in custody. At the expiration of a year from the date of his arrest, the Plaintiff' required the Defendant, who was Governor of the gaol in which he was imÂprisoned, to discharge him, but the Defendant refused to do so, on the ground that the Plaintiff had not obtained an order for his discharge from the Court out of which the process of contempt had issued. Held that, until such order had been obtained, the Plaintiff was not entitled_ to be discharged, and therefore that, as no such order had been made, an_ action for false imprisonment did not lie for the detention of the Plaintiff in custody under the attachment order for a period exceeding a year. Although, since the Debtors Act, 1872, imprisonment for a contempt which consists of the non-payment of money pursuant to the order of a Court, should, in analogy to the statute, be restricted to the limit which the statute has placed upon imprisonment for debt, yet the only remedy for a prisoner detained in cusÂtody under process of contempt for a period exceeding that limit, is by appliÂcation to the Court by which the order for attachment was made. Semble, that, in cases of contempt for non-payment of money, imprisonment for a period of twelve months should be treated as a purging of the contempt. Graves T. Keane (4 Ex. Div. 73) followed. DEMURRER to Defendant's statement of defence. Action for-false imprisonment. It appeared from the statement of claim that the Plaintiff, having failed to comply with an order of the Vice Chancellor to lodge to the credit of a certain cause the sum of £119 5s., was committed under a writ of attachment to the cusÂtody of the Defendant as Governor of Kilmainham prison. At the expiration of one year from the date of the Plaintiff's arrest he applied to the Defendant for his discharge, but the Defendant refused to discharge him, and he was kept in prison for five weeks. Tor.. IV.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. 433 after the year had ended ; and for this detention he claimed .Ex. Div. damages. 1879. The...