Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/454

in a reasonable and convenient time after the said arrest and suspension, from prizes and captures which were taken and made from the enemy by the said ship the Isis, and the other ships of the said squadron, under the command of the said George, in the course of the said service and expedition; and also suffered, sustained, and underwent great hardship, pain, grief, vexation, and anxiety of body and mind, and was thereby put to great and heavy charges, and expences of his money, and was greatly aggrieved, hurt, and damnified in his good name, fame, character, and reputation, (to wit,) at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, to the damage of the said Evelyn, of 30,000l. whereby the said Evelyn is the less able to satisfy his said Majesty the debts which he owes his said Majesty at his said Exchequer, and therefore he brings suit, &c.

To this declaration the defendant pleaded the general issue, Not Guilty; and thereupon issue was joined.

This cause was twice tried before the Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer, at the Guildhall of the city of London, by special juries; 1st, on the 19th of June 1784, and 2d, on the 11th of December following. On the former of which, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with 5000l. damages; and on the latter, they gave 6000l. The defendant submitted to the last verdict, and made no application for a third trial; but, in Hilary Term 1785, he made a motion, and obtained a rule, in the Court of Exchequer, for arresting the judgment; which, after solemn argument, was discharged, and the verdict confirmed by the judgment of that court.

The defendant then, in Trinity Term 1785, brought a writ of error in the Exchequer Chamber; and, after assigning general errors, assigned specially the four following errors upon the record, viz. 1st, That, in giving the judgment aforesaid, damages have been assessed against the said George, generally, for all and each of the said supposed offences in the said declaration mentioned; whereas it manifestly appears, in and by the said declaration and record, that the said George had reasonable and probable cause to arrest, suspend, and bring the said Evelyn to a trial by a court-martial. 2d, That, in giving the judgment aforesaid, the said Barons of the Exchequer have decided upon a question not cognizable in a court of law; insomuch, as it appears, in and by the said record, that the said supposed offences, in the said declaration mentioned, were committed by the said George as Commander in Chief of a squadron of his Majesty's ships of war, in the due course of discipline, under the powers legally incident to his station as such Commander in Chief, and whilst the said Evelyn was serving as an officer in the said squadron, under the command of the said George. 3d. That it appears, in and by the said record, that damages [93] have been assessed against the said George for the said supposed loss of prize-money by the said Evelyn; whereas the said Evelyn hath not, by reason of the said premises in the said declaration mentioned, lost or been deprived of any of the said prize-money, but is still entitled thereto. 4th, That damages have been assessed against the said George for a delay in bringing the said Evelyn to trial by a court-martial; whereas by the law of the land an action will not lie for any such delay as is charged in the said declaration.

The errors assigned, by a reference from the Lord Chancellor, came on to be argued on the 2d day of February 1786, before the Right Honourable the Earl of Mansfield, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, and the Right Honourable Lord Loughborough, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, when the counsel for the defendant assigned the several errors specially stated upon the record; and also a 5th error. That it is not shown upon the record, that the plaintiff in error had authority to assemble a court-martial, which renders the charge of delaying it defective.

After counsel on both sides had been heard, a further argument was appointed; which coming to a hearing on the 4th of November 1786, their Lordships were pleased to declare, That the judgment given in the Court of Exchequer ought to be reversed; and, having reported their reasons to the Lord High Chancellor, the judgment was accordingly reversed in the Exchequer Chamber.

The plaintiff in error, who was also the plaintiff in the original action, thereupon brought a writ of error upon the said judgment of reversal, returnable in