HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0553 and id is 1 raw text is: 4 ESP. 81.
WRIGHT V. LAWES
649
to take his number, which he had taken hold of for that purpose. The defendant
Simcoe, observing his purpose, violently drove away, leaving the number in the
plaintiff's hand.
The plaintiff having gone to the watch-house to prefer his complaint, the coach-
man was sent for, when he charged the plaintiff with having stolen his number.
Taylor presided in the watch-house as the constable, and on this complaint being
made, committed the plaintiff to the Counter.
The counsel for Taylor relied on the case of Samuel v. Payne, Dougl. and con-
tended, that the charge having been regularly made before him, he was justified in
committing the plaintiff.
Erskine, for the plaintiff, admitted, That if a constable bonafide receives a charge,
and commits the party charged, however unfounded the charge might be, no action
was maintainable against him: but he contended, that where he acted without a
[81] charge, without taking proper care, or using a proper degree of discretion ; and
where it appeared that the charge was totally unfounded, that it was a matter to
be left to the jury; whether the committal was bona fide, or an improper exercise of
the authority with which he was invested ; and which he contended had been the
case here.
Le Blanc, Justice.-I think it is a matter of law, and not to be left to the jury.
If no charge was given, or a collusive one, whereby the constable has made himself a
party in oppressing and committing the plaintiff to prison, ie will be liable to an
action ; but that is matter of evidence. He may, if he pleases, use his own discretion,
and exercise his own judgment, on a charge made before him ; but if the plaintiff
cannot make out such a case as amounts to collusion, or that makes the constable
a party to the wrong ; if a regular charge is made before him, he is warranted by
law in committing the party charged : that was the case here, and in my opinion
entitles the constable to a verdict. As to the hackney-coachman, he having made
the charge knowingly and without foundation, in consequence of which '.he plaintiff
has been imprisoned, is guilty of a trespass ; and the plaintiff is entitled to a
verdict against him.
Verdict for the plaintiff against Simcoe, and for the defendant Taylor.
Erskine and - for the plaintiff.
Gibbs, Park, and Gurney for the defendant.
[82] October 17th.
WRIGHT V. LAWES.
(To deprive the vender of goods of the right to stop in transitu, it is not necessary
that they should be delivered at the consignee's place of abode; it is sufficient
if they have come into his possession, and that he has exercised some act of
ownership in them.)
[Followed, Stevenson v. Newnham, 1853, 13 C. B. 285. Referred to, James v.
Griffin, 1837, 2 M. & W. 623.]
This was a special action on the case.
The plaintiff, by his declaration, complained, That four pipes of Port-wine had
been sent to him from London to Yarmouth, where they had been received by his
agent, and delivered to the defendant, to be kept and warehoused for him for a certain
reward to be paid by him to the defendant, and to be afterwards delivered to him;
and then assigned a breach in the non-delivery.
There was a count in trover, and a general plea of Not Guilty to the whole
declaration.
The case was, That the plaintiff, who was a manufacturer at Norwich, had, in
the June preceding, entered into an agreement with one Shevill, for the purchase of
four pipes of port-wine ; one of which was to be paid for in money, to the amount
of £75 ; and for the remainder, Shevill was to take goods.in which the plaintiff
dealt.
Shevill wrote up to his correspondent in London, a person of the name of
Farquharson, to send the wine. He purchased it from Bamford, Bruin, and Co. ;
and had the four pipes shipped; and, by the bill of lading, consigned them to the
plaintiff by a vessel employed in the course of trade between Yarmouth and
London.
When the wines arrived at Yarmouth, one Boardman, as the [83] agent for the
N. P. 1.--21 *](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0553&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)