Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Police - From: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Price v Messenger (1800) 2 Bos & P 158
1800


Police
Excessive unauthorised or unreasonable behaviour by a police constable loses him the protection of section 6 of the Act of 1750.
Constable's Protection Act 1750 6
1 Citers


 
Wathen v Sandys (1811) 2 Camp 640
1811


Police
The sheriff was not entitled to charge candidates at an election for the provision of constables at the polling booth because he was under a duty to procure the peace of the county.
1 Citers


 
Hobbs v Branscomb [1813] 3 Camp 420; [1813] EngR 498; (1813) 170 ER 1431 (B)
1813

Lord Ellenborough
Police

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Merrick v The Hundred of Ossulston [1815] EngR 247; (1815) Cas T H 409; (1815) 95 ER 263
1815


Police

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Ford (1817) R & R 329
1817


Police, Torts - Other
It is not necessary for a person making an arrest to state the charge to the person detained in technical or precise language.
1 Citers


 
Theobald v Crichmore (1818) 1 B & Ald 227 [106 E R 83],
1818

Lord Ellenborough C.J
Police
The object (sc. of the protective statute) ‘was clearly to protect persons acting illegally, but in supposed pursuance, and with a bona fide intention of discharging their duty under the Act of Parliament’
1 Citers


 
Crozier v Cundey (1827) 9 Dow and Ry KB 224
1827


Police


 
Beckwith v Philby [1827] 6 B & C 635
1827
KBD
Lord Tenterden CJ
Police
Lord Tenterden CJ contrasted the powers of an ordinary citizen and of a police constable to make an arrest. Unlike a private citizen: "a constable, having reasonable ground to suspect that a felony has been committed, is authorised to detain the party suspected until inquiry can be made by the proper authorities."
1 Citers


 
Cowles v Dunbar [1827] 2 Car & P 565
1827

Abbott CJ
Police
Abbott CJ said: "if a reasonable charge of felony is given, a constable is bound to take the offender into custody".
1 Citers


 
Rex v Howarth [1828] 1 Moody 207
1828


Crime, Police
There is no need for a police officer to tell a man why he is being arrested when he must, in the circumstances of the arrest, know the reason already.
1 Citers


 
The King v Charles Pinney, Esquire [1832] EngR 777; (1832) 3 B & Ad 947; (1832) 110 ER 349
1 Nov 1832

Littledale J
Police
The case of the Bristol Riots. Littledale J said that, although the posse comitatus might be called out by a justice of the peace, it was generally done by the sheriff.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Bessell v Wilson (1835) 20 LTOS 233
1835

Lord Campbell
Police
Police arresting a man have power to take also anything in his custody.

 
Timothy v Simpson (1835) 1 CM & R 757
1835

Parke B
Torts - Other, Police
It was argued that a fight between two persons could not support the arrest of both for breach of the peace. Holding that the arrestor did not have to decide on the merits of the dispute. Held: “If no one could be restrained of his liberty, in cases of mutual conflict, except the party who did the first wrong, and the bystanders acted at their peril in this respect, there would be very little chance of the public peace being preserved by the interference of private individuals, nor indeed of police officers, whose power of interposition on their own view appears not to differ [at common law] from that of any of the King’s other subjects.”

 
Rawlings v Till (1837) 3 M & W 28
1837


Police

1 Citers


 
Regina v Brown (1841) C & Mar 314; [1841] EngR 932; (1841) Car & M 314; (1841) 174 ER 522
15 Jul 1841

Alderson Baron
Police, Crime
(Bedford Assizes -(Crown Side)) Constable Herbert complained that the defendant had not assisted him when called on to do so when he tried to halt a riot. Held: Baron Alderson said: "The offence imputed to the defendant consists in this - that Herbert being a constable, and there being a breach of the peace actually committing under his own view, he called upon the defendant to assist him in puttmg an end to it, and that he without lawful excuse refused so to do. It is no ummportant matter that the Queen’s subjects should assist the officers of the law, when duly required to do so, in preserving the public peace and it is right that the state of the law should be known, and that all parties violating the duty which the law casts upon them should be fully aware of the very serious risk they ran in case of refusal. It is necessary you should be satisfied of three particulars -first, that the constable actually saw a breach of the peace committed by two or more persons. It is clear that ail prize-fights are illegal, and that all persons engaging in them are punishable by law. The constable, therefore, saw parties breaking the law ; and if a breach of the peace is in the act of being committed in the presence of a constable, that constable is not only justified but bound to prevent it, or put a stop to it if it has begun, and he is bound to do so without a warrant. Secondly, you must be satisfied that there was a reasonable necessity for the constable Herbert calling upon other persons for their assistance and support; and in this case there is no doubt that the constable could not by his own unaided exertions have put an end to the combat. Lastly, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant was duly called upon to render his assistance, and that, without any physical impossibility or lawful excuse, he refused to give it. Whether the aid of the defendant, if given, would have proved sufficient or useful is not the question or the criterion. Every man might make that excuse, and say that his individual aid would have done no good; but the defendant’s refusal may have been and perhaps was the cause of that of many others. Every man is bound to set a good example to others by doing his duty in preserving the public peace.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Smith v Moore And Another [1845] EngR 639 (B); (1845) 1 CB 438
16 Apr 1845


Police, Contract
The defendants, by public advertisement, offered a reward of 20l. to any person who would give such information as should lead to the apprehension and conviction of the party or parties who had broken into, robbed, and set fire to their premises. One B, whom the plaintiff had taken into custody on suspicion of being concerned in the offence, offered to make certain disclosures if furnished with something to eat and drink. The plaintiff communicated this offer to a sub-inspector of police, who took B to a public-house, and gave him refreshment, whereupon B made a voluntary confession, which resulted in his conviction and transportation for the crime in question :-Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to the reward.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Hooper v Lane [1847] 6 HLC 443; [1847] 10 QB 546
1847

Lord Cranworth
Police, Torts - Other
A man taken prisoner is entitled to know why. Lord Cranworth said: "The sheriff is bound, when he executes the writ, to make known the ground of the arrest, in order, among other reasons, that the person arrested may know whether he is or is not bound to submit to the arrest."
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.