False Imprisonment - 1600s case regarding land trespass

[pepsimaxaddict]

I remember seeing a quote from a case somewhere on the internet about a case in the 1600s regarding a false imprisonment where the judge said that a person could commit a trespass to land in order to escape.

Unfortunatly, I have lost the case reference, and was hoping someone could help?

Google couldn't as land trespass is a tort in itself!

[CP09]

Google came up with a number of sites, second level links gave

"Wright v Wilson [1699] 1 Ld Raym 739"

That the one you mean?

Colin

[atticus]

From what I have been able to find online, that would appear to be the case.

I am sure the OP will wish to add his thanks to my own.

Does dls have a page on this case?

[dls]

Wright v Wilson; 1699
References: [1699] EngR 2895, (1699) 1 Ld Raym 739, (1699) 91 ER 1394 (D)
Links: Commonlii
Ratio: An action for false imprisonment will not lie against a man for fastening one of two
doors in a room in which A. is, though A. cannot go through the other without
trespassing.
A. has a chamber adjoining to the chamber of B. and has a door that opens into it,by which there is a pasage to go out; and A. has another door, which C. stops, so that A. cannot go out by that. This is no imprisonment of A. by C. because A. may go out by the door in the chamber of B. though he be a trespasser by doing it. But A. may have s special action upon his case against C. Ruled by Holt Chief Justice, in evidence at a trial at the Summer Assizes at Lincoln 1699, in an action of false imprisonment. And the plaintiff was nonsuit.

Last Update: 13-Sep-16
Ref: 361107
2016/09/13
Torts - Other

[dls]

See also:

Bird v Jones; QBD 11 Jan 1845
References: [1845] EWHC QB J64, (1845) 7 QB 742, (1845) 115 ER 668, (1845) LJ QB 82, (1845) 5 LT OS 46, (1845) 10 JP 4, (1845) 9 Jur 870
Links: Bailii
Ratio: A section of public road was closed off to provide a vantage point for a boat race. The plaintiff refused to be excluded, and complained that he had not been allowed to use the public highway, and had therefore been imprisoned.
Held: (majority) 'there was no imprisonment. To call it so appears to me to confound partial obstruction and disturbance with total obstruction and detention. A prison may have its boundary large or narrow, visible and tangible, or, though real, still in the conception only; it may itself be moveable or fixed: but a boundary it must have; and that boundary the party imprisoned must be prevented from passing; he must be prevented from leaving that place, within the ambit of which the party imprisoning would confine him, except by prison-breach.'

Torts - Other

[pepsimaxaddict]

That is the case I was looking for.

Many thanks!