Bessi versus OLLIOT lambert error c b NORFF false imprisonment Jon skin before  the plaintiff declare of a trespass and false imprisonment and detain in  prison quousq fin they fecit ad damnum the defendant justify by virtue of a  writ of non to let go direct to the sheriff of Norfolk and a warrant to the  bailiff of the duke of Norfolk to who execution of the say warrant do  appertain who commit he to the defendant as keeper of the prison of the  liberty the plaintiff reply de in an unjust manner suapropria absq hoc that  the bailiff take he within the liberty the defendant demurrer because the  plaintiff traverse a thing not traversable and answer not the defendant bar  and judgement be give in c b for the plaintiff the question be this a gaoler  take from the bailiff a prisoner arrest by he out of the bailiff jurisdiction  whether the gaoler be liable to a action of false imprisonment and the judge  of the common plea do all hold that he be and of that opinion I be for these  reason in all civil act the law do not so much regard the intent of the actor  as the loss and damage of the party suffer and that refore mich e a pl  trespass quare way arms enclosed space to break in pieces herban svan foot  conculcand consumpsil in six acre the defendant plead that he have a acre lie  next the say six acre and upon it a hedge of thorn and he cut the thorn and  they Self invilo fall upon the plaintiff land and the defendant take they off  as soon as he can which be the same trespass and the plaintiff demurrer and  adjudge for the plaintiff for though a man do a lawful thing yet if any damage  do thereby befall another he shall answer for it if he can have avoid it as if  a man lop a tree and the bough fall upon another Self invilo yet a action lie  if a man shoot at butt and hurt another unaware a action lie I have land  through which a river run to your mill and I lop the f allow Raymond sir t  grow upon the river side which accidental stop the water so as your mill be  hinder a action lie if I be building my own house and a piece of timber fall  on my neighbour house and break part of it a action lie if a man assault I and  I lift up my staff to defend myself and in lift it up hit another a action lie  by that person and yet I do a lawful thing and the reason of all these case be  because he that be damage ought to be recompense but otherwise it be in  criminal case for there right of way for cattle non compose party in law suit  nisi man sit rea mich car b r style Guilbert versus stone trespass for enter  his close and take away his horse the defendant plead that he for fear of his  life by threat of twelve man go into the plaintiff house and take the horse  the plaintiff demurrer and adjudge for the plaintiff because threat can not  excuse the defendant and make satisfaction to the plaintiff hob weaver versus  ware trespass of assault and battery the defendant plead that he be a train  soldier in London and he and the plaintiff be skirmish with their company and  the defendant with his musket casitaliter per Raymond sir t er p infotunium  contra will svan in discharge of his gun hurt the plaintiff and resolve no  good plea so here though the defendant know not of the wrongful take of the  plaintiff yet that will not make any recompense for the wrong the plaintiff  have sustain the defendant here staffers no wrong but by his own act and will  for he be not compellable to be gaoler and when a mail take a office it be  presume be know of all the convenience and inconvenience which attend it and  in this as in all other contract be must take the bad with the good vide more  pl Coot versus Lightworth a strong case as the gaol of the county be incident  to the office of the sheriff   a so the gaol of liberty be incident to the  lord of the liberty and the gaoler be but servant to he as the gaoler of the  county gaol be to the sheriff and consequent they understand one another and  be privy to each other act relate to the prisoner in presumption of law object  by this way a subsequent sheriff may be answerable for the tort of his  predecessor resp so it have be resolve for the reason before allege Raymond  sir t cro Withers versus Henley trespass and false imprisonment and detain he  for a month the defendant justify by virtue of a process out of the exchequer  direct to the defendant predecessor who take he by it and also by virtue of a  latitat and so the plaintiffwas deliver over to the defendant the plaintiff  reply as to the exchequer process there be a supersedeas and that the  predecessor detain he after the supersedeas deliver and as to the latitat that  the plaintiff in that action order the defendant predecessor to discharge the  now plaintiff and upon this plea the defendant demurrer and adjudge for the  plaintiff because this detain by the now defendant be quasi a new take and the  subsequent sheriff be bind to take conusance of the act of his predecessor and  it be usual in other case for one man to answer for the act of another   b  Penruddocks case quod to let pass against a feoff for a nuisance erect by his  feoff cro Rippon versus bowl I roll Rep if I have a way over the land of I S  who stop it and then let it to I d for year I may have a action against the  lessee and notice be not material cro prince versus Allington the  inconvenience which will otherwise fall out for the defendant shall be thus  imprison and have no remedy for his wrong for the bailiff may be dead or the  arrest may be by a deputy or person insolvent and no inconvenience on the  other side for he may take security that he shall be charge with no prisoner  but what shall be legal commit or perhaps he may have a special action upon  the case for commit the prisoner to his custody not have be duly arrest but  the other three judge resolve that the defendant the gaoler can not be charge  because be can not have notice whether the prisoner be legal arrest or not and  yet he be not compellable to take the prisoner into his custody and if he let  he go he be liable to the plaintiff in the action suit for the escape  afterward Maynard sergeant move far that the defendant be charge by the  declaration for imprisonment quousq that which divides fecit pro deliberation  habend which be not answer for the imprisonment only be justify and not the  that which divides fecit and this exception be take mich h a pl roll Rep  Slowley versus eveley but we all Raymond sir t think the plea good  notwithstanding that exception because he plead not guilty to all prceter the  imprisonment