[Court of Requests, action against Commissioner – imprisonment for debt – false imprisonment]

McKay v. Moore

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Pedder C.J., 19 September 1839

Source: Hobart Town Courier, 4 October 1839[1]

Trials by Common Juries of twelve

            The plaintiff was an insolvent, and had been committed to gaol by the defendant, (who was then acting as Commissioner under the Insolvent Act.) on the 12th June last, on the postponement of the discharge.  The order of the gaoler did not state any cause of commitment, in consequence of which the plaintiff obtained discharge by writ of Habeas Corpus, on 22d June last, and now brought his action against the Commission for false imprisonment, and for the costs incurred by him in obtaining his discharge.

            Mr. Macdowell contended for the defendant, that the plaintiff, if entitled to a verdict, was only entitled to the smallest coin a jury could give.  There was no doubt of the power of the Commissioner to commit for twelve months, and the result of the exercise of that power by an informal warrant, (which, however, had been drawn by a professional gentleman,) was, that the defendant, instead of remaining in gaol for twelvemonths[sic], suffered only an imprisonment of ten days.

            His Honor directed the jury, that the plaintiff was entitled to his costs, and to such further sum as they might think reasonable.

            The jury, after remaining in deliberation some time, gave  £10 damages.