1841. DOWELL V. BENINGFIELD. acted without jurisdiction, and that the conviction was illegal; and there is no authority to shew that in such case an action may not be maintained (a). The 38th section of the statute 2 & 3 Vict. c. 71, enacts, "That every person who shall occupy, or shall have occupied, any house or lodging within the metropolitan police district, as tenant thereof, and who shall wilfully or maliciously do any damage to the premises, or to any furniture thereof, not being the property of such tenant or occupier, shall, upon complaint made to one of the said magistrates within one calendar month next after the commission of the offence, or the end of the tenancy or occupation, forfeit and pay such sum of money as shall appear to the magistrate to be a reasonable compensation for the damage done, not more than the sum of fifteen pounds, to be paid to the landlord or party aggrieved." That section must be construed reddendo singula singulis; and where the tenant is in actual occupation of the premises, the charge must be made within one month from the commission of the offence: the other alternative only applies to cases where the tenancy is determined. In the present (a) In the case of Goslin v. Wilcock, 2 Wils. 302, it was held, that an action on the case would lie for maliciously suing the plaintiff in an inferior court, and maliciously arresting him in that suit when the Court had no jurisdiction of the cause. In that case it appeared that the plaintiff and defendant both lived at Taunton, and that the plaintiff owed the defendant about £5, and that the defendant caused the plaintiff to be arrested for this sum at Bridgewater, on process from the Bridgewater Court of Record. It was admitted that the defendant discontinued his suit in the Bridgewater Court as soon as he discovered that his action would not lie there, and that he had brought another action for his debt, in which he recovered at the assizes. Evidence of malice was given, and the plaintiff had a verdict, with which Mr. Justice Aston (who tried the cause), was satisfied; and the Court of Common Pleas would not grant a new trial; and Lord Camden said, "Malice, and that it was without any probable cause, must be alleged and proved. Upon more mature consideration we are all now of opinion, that if you hold a man to bail in an inferior court, when you know it hath not jurisdiction, and with malice, an action upon the case will lie." instance the tenancy still exists, and the charge was made three months after the alleged damage was done, so that the magistrate was wholly without jurisdiction. Thesiger, in reply, contended, that the landlord had until a month after the tenancy expired to prefer his charge. Lord DENMAN, C. J., (in summing up).—I am of opinion that the magistrate had no jurisdiction under the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 74, s. 38. Where there is an existing tenancy, and the landlord knows of the damage being done, he should prefer his charge within one month. It never could have been intended by the legislature, that a landlord, knowing of damage done to his premises, should be at liberty to make his charge at any time during the continuance of a long lease, and until one month afterwards. Here the tenancy still continues, and the defendant charges the plaintiff with having done the damage three months before. It seems to me, that this is not a case within the statute, and that the magistrate acted without jurisdiction. Verdict for plaintiff on first count, damages 40s.; Platt, Byles, and Hurlstone, for plaintiff. [Attornies-J. B. Wathen, and T. R. Thompson.] 1841. DOWELL v. BENINGFIELD. 1841. First Sitting at Westminster in Michaelmas Term, 1841. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PATTESON. Nov. 4. A paper was in the following form, "I, R. J. M., owe Mrs. E. the sum of £6., which is to be paid by instalments, for rent. (Signed) R. J. M.:"-Held, not to be a promissory note, as no time was stipulated for the payment of the instalments. MOFFAT v. EDWARDS and Another. CASE. The first count of the declaration stated that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant, Mrs. Edwards, in the sum of £4, for rent, and that the defendants distrained for more rent than was due. Second count for an excessive distress.-Plea, not guilty, "by statute." On the part of the defendant, a paper in the hand-writing of the plaintiff was offered in evidence. It was not stamped. It was as follows:: "I, R. J. Moffat, owe Mrs. Edwards the sum of £6, which is to be paid by instalments, for rent. R. J. MOFFAT." Platt, for the plaintiff, objected that this was a promissory note, and that it could not be given in evidence, as it did not bear a promissory note stamp. He cited the case of Ellis v. Mason (a). In the case of Brooks v. Elkins, 2 M. & W. 74, it was held by the Court of Exchequer, that no particular form of words is necessary to constitute a promissory note, and that a paper in the following form, "11th October, 1831. "I. O. U. £20, to be paid on the 22nd instant, "W. BROOKS," requires a stamp, either as a promissory note, or as an agreement for the payment of money above the value of £10. In the case of Wheatley v. Wil PATTESON, J.-It is not a promissory note, for although it states the money to be payable by instalments, it does not specify any particular time of payment. 1841. MOFFAT v. EDWARDS. HOME V. GRIMBLE and HUGGINS. FALSE to pay him an annuity, and 6d. a gallon on all spirits rectified by his method, and to keep an account. A. having a sum due to him, B. & Co. offered to pay it at their solicitor's office, and to produce the account there. A. sent B. & Co. a letter, stating that he should come to the distillery for a sight of the account, and for payment; to which G., one of the firm of B. & Co., replied by letter, stating, that if A. came to the distillery and either rang or knocked, he would be punished, &c. A. went to the distillery (which was within the Metropolitan Police district), and gently rang the gate bell, when H., who was the cashier of the firm, gave A. into the custody of a policeman on a charge of having rung the bell, contrary to the 54th section of the Police Act, 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47. Held, in an action for false imprisonment by A. against G. and H., that this was not a case within that act, and that G. and H. were not justified under that act, and that they were not entitled to notice of action. VOL. I. с N. P. 1841. HOME V. GRIMBLE. semblance of French or Cognac brandy, the plaintiff had communicated his process to Sir F. Booth & Co., who, by sealed articles of agreement, dated in the month of July, 1835, agreed to pay him an annuity of £150 a year, and 6d. a gallon on all spirits to which this method was applied; and it was agreed, that Sir F. Booth & Co. should keep an account of all spirits sent out by them, to which the plaintiff's process should be applied, and that the book containing this account should be open to the inspection of the plaintiff. By a subsequent agreement entered into in the month of August, 1836, the annuity was raised to £300 a-year, and down to the year 1838, the plaintiff was allowed to inspect the book at the distillery in Albany Street; but in consequence of some differences which had occurred, the firm of Sir F. Booth & Co. wished the plaintiff to see the book at the office of their solicitor. To this the plaintiff would not accede, and he wrote to inform Sir F. Booth & Co. that he should come to the distillery to see the book; however, before he did so, he received a letter signed by the firm, but in the handwriting of the defendant Mr. Grimble, who was one of the partners, that if he came, and either rang the bell or knocked at the door, he would be punished. It would be proved, that the plaintiff went to the distillery of Sir F. Booth & Co., and rang the gate bell, when he was given into the custody of a policeman by the defendant, Mr. Huggins, (who was the cashier of Sir F. Booth & Co.,) on a charge of having created a disturbance by ringing the bell, contrary to the 54th section of the Police Act, 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47 (a); and the plaintiff was taken by the policeman before (a) By which it is enacted, "That every person shall be liable to a penalty, not more than 40s., who, within the limits of the Metropolitan Police district, shall in any thoroughfare or public place commit any of the following offences:" one of which is, "16. Every per son who shall wilfully and wantonly disturb any inhabitant by pulling or ringing any door bell, or knocking at any door without lawful excuse, or who shall wilfully and unlawfully extinguish the light of any lamp." |