Russell v Scarlett

JurisdictionJamaica
JudgeCools-Lartigue, Ag.C.J.
Judgment Date27 June 1960
Neutral CitationJM 1960 CA 7
CourtCourt of Appeal (Jamaica)
Date27 June 1960

Court of Appeal

Cools-Lartigue, Ag.C.J.; Duffus, J.A.; Waddington, J.A.

Russell
and
Scarlett
Appearances:

David Coore for the appellant.

K.G.Smith for the respondent.

Tort - False imprisonment — Jury trial — Questions for jury — Jury to ascertain facts from which the judge to draw his conclusions whether reasonable and probable cause.

Cools-Lartigue, Ag.C.J.
1

In this case the plaintiff-appellant, a revenue runner living at Four Paths, Chapelton, claimed damages against the defendant-respondent, a detective acting corporal of police stationed at Chapelton, for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

2

The case was tried by the learned resident magistrate for St. Ann exercising jurisdiction in Clarendon with a jury. At the close of the trial after certain questions had been answered by the jury, the learned resident magistrate gave judgment for the respondent with costs on both issues.

3

The facts may be summarised as follows: On Friday, June 5th, 1959, Mr.Shelley, resident magistrate for the parish of Clarendon, left his battery at Chin's Garage, Four Paths, Chapelton, to be charged. Next morning the battery was missing. The loss was reported to Mr. Shelley and by him to the respondent who forthwith commenced investigations. That same Saturday the respondent traced the possession of the battery to the appellant. Thereupon the defendant arrested and charged the appellant for larceny of the battery.

4

The appellant stated that about 8 p.m.on Friday, June 5th, 1959, he took his car to Chin's garage to have the muffler and a tyre repaired. After this had been done the car would not start, despite the assistance of one Burrell and one Richards, employees at the garage. The appellant then sent Burrell to one Picard, the mechanic in charge of the garage, to borrow a battery. Burrell returned with a battery and put it in the car which then started. At about 10:30 a.m. on the Saturday, the appellant heard the police making inquiries about the number of his car. He went to May Pen and there he saw the respondent and told him that the car had been sent to Chin's garage for repairs where a battery had been put into the car which was then in Manchester. The respondent took the appellant to the police station in Chapelton and according to the appellant detained him from 11:30 a.m. on Saturday to 1:30 a.m.on Sunday, when the respondent arrested and charged him with larceny of the battery. He was tried in the resident magistrate's Court at Chapelton on June 17th, 1959, for larceny and receiving and acquitted.

5

At the outset of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant intimated to this Court that he did not propose to pursue the appeal regarding the claim for malicious prosecution as the jury had specifically found that the respondent had not instituted the prosecution maliciously. It will be convenient here to set out the questions to and answers by the jury at the conclusion of the trial:

  • (1).Q - Did the defendant detain the plaintiff in the police station at Chapelton from 11:30 a.m. on Saturday to 1:30 a.m.on Sunday? A - No.

  • (2).Q - Did the defendant arrest and prosecute the plaintiff maliciously? A - No.

  • (3).Q - Did the defendant institute the criminal prosecution against the plaintiff? A - No.

  • (4).Q - Did the defendant honestly believe that the plaintiff was guilty of larceny? A - Yes.

  • (5).Q...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT