Thomas Murray v John Rose Byrne and John Talbot Byrne

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 05 June 1855
• Date: 05 June 1855
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench

THOMAS MURRAY

and

JOHN ROSE BYRNE and JOHN TALBOT BYRNE.

Kinning v. BuchananENR 8 C. B. 271.

In re DicksonIR 3 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 101.

Coppinger v. Bradley 5 Ir. Law Rep. 257.

Andrews v. Marris 1 Q. B. 3.

Houlden v. Smith 14 Q. B. 841.

Green v. Elgie 5 Q. B. 99.

Cooper v. Harding 7 Q. B. 928.

Carratt v. Morley 1 Q. B. 18.

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

Miller v. SeareUNK 2 Wm. Bl. 1141.

Sedley v. SutherlandENR 3 Esp. 202.

The King v. DanserENR 6 T. R. 242.

Brown v. ChapmanENR 6 C. B. 365.

Barker v. St. QuintinENR 12 M. & W. 450.

Parsons v. Loyd 3 Wils. 344.

Braker v. Braham Ibid. 368.

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

Barret v. May 2 Q. B. 14.

Kinning v. BuchananENR 8 C. B. 271.

Cooper v. Harding 7 Q. B. 928.

Moore v. ChapmanENR 6 M., Gr. & Sc. 653.

Marshalsea caseUNK 10 Rep. 369.

Packen v. Proctor 2 Wils. 385.

642 COMMON LAW REPORTS. T. T. 1855. Queen's Bench Jan. 23, 29. T. T. 1855. June 5. THOMAS MURRAY V. JOHN ROSE BYRNE and JOHN TALBOT BYRNE. THE summons and plaint in this case was for false imprisonment of{ the plaintiff, and alleged that the defendants, on the 22nd day of July 1852, assaulted the plaintiff, and forced and compelled him to go along divers public streets to a certain public prison, to wit, the Richmond Bridewell, and there imprisoned the plaintiff, and kept and detained him in prison there for the space of 319 days; that is to say, from the 22nd day of July 1852 until the 6th day of June 1853, when the plaintiff was from such imprisonment, by her MaÂÂjesty's Court of Queen's Bench, under and by virtue of her Majesty's writ of habeas corpus, released and discharged ; whereby and by reason of such imprisonment and detention, the plaintiff was put to much expense by suing out such writ of habeas corpus, and was much injured in his health and circumstances.-Damages were laid at 3000. The first defence was a denial of having falsely imprisoned the plaintiff, and the second defence of John Rose Byrne averred that before the committing the alleged grievances in the summons and plaint mentioned, that is to say, on the 31st day of May 1852, the plaintiff was arrested and taken in execution at suit of the defendant John Talbot Byrne, for a certain debt of 21. 3s. 10d,, due by the plaintiff to John Talbot Byrne. That the plaintiff was on plaintiff diso beyed this order, and that subsequently another order was obtained by the second defendant as attorney of the first, that plaintiff should be committed for his contempt in disÂÂobeying the second order,' to Richmond Bridewell, until he complied with the second order; that this order was delivered to the marshal, who conveyed the plaintiff to Richmond Bridewell; that save as aforesaid, he did not imprison the plaintiff.' Held, on demurrer, that this defence was a confession by the defendants of having committed the trespasses, and as a justification was bad, as the insolvent Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in committing to Richmond Bridewell ; and that the order a committal being illegal, both defendants were liable for the trespass.- LLEFILOY, C. J dissentiente.] COMMON LAW REPORTS. 643 the same day, at suit of John Talbot Byrne, duly committed to the custody of the marshal of the marshalsea of sour Lady the Queen, in the prison of the Four Courts Marshalsea, in the city of Dublin, charged in execution for the said sum of 21. 3s. 10d., at the suit of John Talbot Byrne ; and that the plaintiff remained and continued in such custody, so committed to prison and charged as aforesaid, at suit of John Talbot Byrne, from thence until and after the making of the several orders and committing the supposed grievances hereinafter mentioned. It then averred that the plaintiff did not within twenty-one days after he was so committed and charged in execution as aforesaid, nor at any other time, make satisfaction to John Talbot Byrne for such debt for which he was so committed and charged in execution as aforesaid ; and thereupon the defendant John Talbot Byrne, after the expiration of more than twenty-one days next after the plaintiff had been so committed and charged in execution as aforesaid, and whilst the plaintiff continued in such custody, on the 22nd day of June 1852, applied by petition in a summary way to the Court for Relief of Insolvent Debtors in Ireland, according to the provisions of the statute in such case made and provided, for an order vesting the real and personal estate and effects of the plaintiff, being such prisoner as aforesaid, in the provisional assignee for the time being of said Court, pursuant to the statute ; and thereupon, by an order of said Court, made the 22nd of June 1852, it was ordered, pursuant to the said statute, that all the real and personal estate and effects of the prisoner, the now plaintiff; excepting the wearing apparel, bedding and other such necessaries of such prisoner and his family, and the working tools and imÂÂplements of such prisoner, not exceeding in the whole ,the value of 15, should be vested in Christopher Hume Lawder, of the city of Dublin, the provisional assignee for the time being of said Court ; as by the said order of the said Court, remaining of reÂÂcord, would appear. That afterwards, on said 22nd of June 1852, it was further ordered by said Court that the plaintiff; so being such prisoner as aforesaid, should within the space of fourteen days next after notice thereof should be received by him at the 644 COMMON LAW REPORTS. said prison, according to the rule of the Court in that behalf, deliver unto the Court a schedule of all his estate and effects, according to the statute in that behalf ; as by said last mentioned order, also of record in said Court, would appear. It further averred that afterwards, on the 23rd day of June 1852, notice of said last mentioned order was given to and received by the plaintiff at the said prison, according to the rule of said Court in that behalf, by then and there delivering unto the plaintiff a true and compared copy of said last mentioned order, duly signed and authenticated, pursuant to the statute. That the plaintiff disobeyed the said order, and did not, within fourteen days next after notice thereof received by him as aforesaid, deliver unto said Court such schedule as aforesaid, and did not deliver same or any schedule within the time aforesaid, or at any other time, and therein the plaintiff was guilty of a contempt of said Court. That after the expiration of said period of fourteen days, and after the plaintiff had been guilty of such contempt and offence as aforesaid, to wit, on the 22nd day of July 1852, the defendant, as the attorney of the defendant John Talbot Byrne, and by his directions, brought the said matter under the consideration of the said Court, and applied to said Court to make such order thereon as to said Court should seem fit and according to law ; whereupon and on such application of defendant, as attorney for defendant John Talbot Byrne, a certain further order was then and there duly made, and the said Court having competent authoÂÂrity to make same, it was ordered and adjudged by the said Court that the plaintiff, for such his contempt and offence, should be, and was thereby, committed to the gaol of the Richmond Bridewell, being the common gaol of the city of Dublin, there to remain withÂÂout bail or mainprize, until such time as he should have delivered unto said Court such schedule as aforesaid ; and it was further ordered by said Court that the marshal of the Four Courts Marshal-sea should, and he was thereby authorised and required on receipt thereof, to convey to the said gaol of the Richmond Bridewell the plaintiff, and him to deliver to the governor of said gaol, who was thereby authorised and required to receive plaintiff into his COMMON LAW REPORTS. 645 custody, and him safely keep as aforesaid ; as by said last men- T. T. 1855. Queen's Benc h tioned order, of record in said Court, will appear. That at the --,,- _, time of .making said last mentioned order, and of the committing MURRAY v. of the supposed grievances thereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff BYRNE. was a prisoner in the custody of the marshal of the Four Courts Marshalsea, Dublin, committed and charged in execution as aforeÂÂsaid ; and that the gaol called the Richmond Bridewell, in said order mentioned then was the common gaol of the city of Dublin, where the plaintiff then was, and where the plaintiff then usually resided. That the last mentioned order being so made and in full force, he the defendant John Rose Byrne, then being one of the attorneys of said Court, and acting as...