Plaintiff gave defendants a warrant of attorney to enter up judgment if certain costs should be unpaid within four days after the Master should have taxed the same. Defendants procured a taxation ex parte ; and, by an incorrect representation to the Master, obtained from him an allocatur for more costs than they were entitled to. By order of a Judge, on summons, a new taxation was directed, pending which the defendants arrested the plaintiff. Afterwards the new taxation was had, and the costs were reduced. Plaintiff declared in case for a wrongful arrest, and defendants pleaded that the costs had been taxed and a sum found due, for which they arrested. Held, 1. That plaintiff might properly sue in case for a malicious arrest, and was not bound to declare for a deceitful representation to the Master. 2. That the plea was not supported, there having been, in effect, no taxation when the defendants arrested : and that the plaintiff was not bound to reply the facts which rendered the first taxation invalid. But 3. That judgment must be arrested, because the declaration (which set out the facts of the case} alleged only that the defendants had ‘ wrongfully and injuriously’ delivered the writ to the sheriff, not adding maliciously.’
Citations:
[1837] EngR 682, (1837) 6 Ad and E 652, (1837) 112 ER 251
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Torts – Other
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.313799