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/ssactsengr1024 and id is 1 raw text is: LE CAUXV'. EDEN
LE CAUx against EDEN. Wednesday, 7th Feb. 1781. An action will not lie at
common law for false imprisonment, where the imprisonment was merely in con-
sequence of taking a ship as prize, although the ship has been acquitted.
[Referred to, Mayor of London v. Cox, 1867, L. R. 2 H. L. 262. Commented on,
The Sylph, 1867, L. R. 2 A. & E. 28. Referred to, Sullivan v. Spencer, 1872,
Ir. R. 6 C. L. 177.]
The defendant was captain of a letter of marque called the Enterprize, and,
being on a cruize, fell in with, and took as a prize, a trader called the Bee, belong-
ing to Jersey, of which one Fainton was captain, Robine, supercargo, and Le Caux,
(the present plaintiff), second mate. They, with others belonging to the Bee, were
removed into the Enterprize, and brought to England; and the Court of Admiralty
restored the ship and cargo, and condemned the captor, in costs and damages. After
this, Fainton, Robine, and Le Caux, brought separate actions of trespass and false
imprisonment, against Eden; to which he (pleaded the general issue; and they all
stood in the paper of causes to be tried before Lord Mansfield, at the sittings after
Michaelmas term, 20 Geo. 3, Fainton v. Eden, and Robine v. Eden, by special juries,
and Le Caux v. Eden, by a common jury. Fainton v. Eden came on first, on Friday,
the 17th of December, 1779. The counsel for the plaintiff pressed, that the jury
might be directed to assess damages upon a case to be made, subject to the opinion of
the Court. Lord Mansfield said, he thought the action a new attempt, which, if it
succeeded, would destroy the British Navy. If an action at law should lie, by the
owners, and every man on board a ship [595] taken as prize, against the captor, and
every man on board his ship, no man would dare to take a ship. He thought a doubt
made, and the pendency of such a question, especially if large damages were given,
would have very bad effects, and obstruct the necessary operations of the sea service;
and, being clearly of opinion, that no such action had ever been sustained; that he
himself had frequently ruled that such an action would not lie; and that, upon prin-
ciples of law, convenience, and sound policy, and also upon the authority of precedents,
such an action could not be maintained, he refused to direct the jury to make a case,
on that occasion, stated the principle to be what I have just mentioned, and said there
had been many nonsuits for want of producing the original journals of the House of
Commons. But the Court denied the rule to be as he stated it, and mentioned
several instances where copies of matters, not of record, are admissible; as copies of
court-rolls, of parish-registers, &c. and Lord [594] Mansfield expressly said, that
copies of the journals are evidence [t 122], and that he particularly remembered their
being admitted on a trial at Bar, in a cause in which he was leading counsel for The
late Sir Watkin Williams Wynne, against Middleton, the Sheriff of Denbighshire, on an
action for a false return. That Mr. Onslow, then Speaker of the House of Commons,
made a point with his Lordship, that the copies should be offered in evidence, though
nothing would have been so easy in that case as to produce the original journals.
The Court added, that the reason ab inconvenienti, for holding it not necessary to
produce records, applied, with still greater force, to such public books as the transfer
books of the East India Company: for the utmost confusion would arise, if they could
be transported to any the most distant part of the kingdom, whenever their contents
should be thought material on the trial of a cause. The rule granted was, to shew
cause why copies of those entries in the transfer books, which the party meant to
make use of, as relative to the matter in dispute, should not be taken, and read in
evidence at the trial; the rule to be served both on the solicitor for the Company,
and the opposite party [F 2].
The correct principle, therefore, seems to be as laid down by Lord Holt, in a case
of Lynche v. Clerke, viz. That, wherever an original is of a public nature, and would
be evidence if produced, an immediate sworn copy thereof will be evidence.
3 Salk. 154.
t 1221 Vide Jones v. Randall, B. R. H. 14 Geo. 3, Cowp. 17.
F 2] So, examined copies of the bank books are evidence of possession, transfer,
&c. of stock. Marsk v. Colnet, 2 Esp. 665. Bretton v. Cope, Peake, N. P. Rep. 30.
2 DOUGL 595.
375](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr1024&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)