Edward Walworth Bell & Claude Emile Wright [1921] SLCA 2 (23 January 1921)

l3 EDWARD "\YAL\YOR'fll BELL ~lppellaut. 'V. CI11\UD EMIJ,E WRIGHT Respondent. d ssault an<l false i 111 prisoJ!III enl-Picquet o j soldiers tempomril y occupying Law Courts in aid of the civil zJower-Civilian forcing his tray in against Jl ilitary Officer's o1·ders, and jorcibl y ejected by hi 111. On the night of the day of the ~\rmistice at the clo~e of the Great Wur, the brother of the H~:".} l <mtlent. enteretl the Law Courts to make a complaint to the Commis.~iouer of Police. The Respondent, hearing of thi~, endeavoured to force his way into the building, which was in th~ occupation of the ~l ilitary, who Wl'l'e assisting the Police in keeping order . The Appellant, a l.\lilitary Officer on duty, ordered the Resp011deut lo le:l\'e the building, and on his refusal, forcibly ejected him. lfe ld that the judgment of lhc Supreme Court should be val'ied by redu!'iug the damages from twenty pounds to fh·e pounds, and by setting aside the order gh·ing the Respondent (Plaintiff) costs, and ordering that earl. party should pay their own costs, both in the Supreme Court and in the Court of .Appeal. .\ ppeal from a judgment of Parodi, Acting C.J ., m the Supreme Court of the Colony of Sierra Leone. McDonnell, Acting A.G., for Appellant. Graham with him cites :- Price v . Seely, 10 Ch., anu F., p. 28. Noden v . . Johnson, 1801, L.J .K.S ., Q.B ., Yol. 20, p. 95. Manual of Military J,aw, Chap. XII., pp. 11!3-225. d. J. Shorunkeh-Sa.wycrr for the Respondent cites:­ Powell on EYidence, 6th Ed., p. 1 63. Taylor on EYidence, 8th Ed., p. 1593. Rex v . Graham and Burnes, 16 Cox., C.C., p. 420. Heddon v. EYans, 35 T.IJ.R., p. 642. Colonial Securities 'l'ru~'t Co. v . :Massey (1896), 1 Q .B., p. 38. Edmundson v . Machell, 2 Term Rep ., p . 4. Graham in reply . P'GlWELL, C.J. This is an appeal from ihe judgment o£ 1!r . . Justice Parodi (when acting as Chief Justice), dated April the 5th, 1919, award­ ing the Plaintiff £20 damages, with costs, for assault, and false imprisonment . 2 23rf/ J-:muart;. 19:?0. BELL v. WRIGHT. PURCEI,L, C.J. 14 The facts, although the record is of unusual length, in reality lie within a very narrow compass, and may be eon­ veniently stated as follows :- During the early days of November, 1918, there was, in the opin ion of the Executive, such a state of unrest as to neces­ sitate troops being sent do"·n to Freetown to assist the Police in keeping order. On the evening of :Kovember 11th, 1918, the Defendant, in command of half a company of these soldiers \Yas in Freeto,rn, and the soldiers under hi.m were based on the Police Station at the Law Courts, and subsequently a picquet under Defendant's command proceeued to the neighbourhood of the Grand Hotel, and it was whilst there that Dr. Wright drove pa:>t in his motor car which led, he C\Vright) asserts, to the Defendant's making certain remarks to him at which he (\Ytight) took umbrage. He also state,[ that his motor car and his boy were struck by one of the soldiers, and, in consequence of this, he proceeded to the Police Station at the Law Courts where he made a complaint to the Acting Commissioner of Police. 'l'he Plaintiff hearing of this, left )Ir . Dawson's house, where he was, and came to the Law Courts, accompanied by Messrs. Dawson, :Mudge and :M'Carthy, and attempted to enter the buildings, but was peremptorily told by the Defendant, \vho by this time had returned to his base, to go back down the steps and, when he refused to do so, caught him by the throat, and l=>lainti:ff, closing with him they rolled down the steps locked together; the l)laintiff was afterwards seized by the native soldiers, and, as he asserts, somewhat roughly handled, although no medical evidence has been called before the Court on that particular point . It is, in consequence of this fracas, that these proceedings were instituted. Now with regard to these facts, which I have endea>otue d to set out as briefly as possible, I desire to make the following observations :- I altogether fail to 1mcl.erstand why it was at all necessa ry for Dr. Wright to rush off to the Police Station to report the incident just adverted to, since, as there is no evidence that there was any danger to his person or his property, it could very easily have been officially reported to the Commissioner of P olice through the usual channel next morn ing. A similar crit icism must be made with regard to the Plain­ tiff's hurried departure from Mr. Da,vson's l10use to the Law Courts, making due allowance for fraternal solicitude, where, on 15 arrival, he appears to ha,-e insisted at all hazards in attempti11g to force his way into the building when peremptorily ordered by a Military Otiif'er not to do so. 'fhere seems to be nn idea prevalent that, because a place is a public plnce, the public have always an absolute right of entry there. 1'Lis is not so; cir­ cumotances may arise which may make sucl1 c'ntry inadmissible, ancl lhc fact that. the piequet was bnsed on this parl of the huild ­ ing seems to me a g-ood reason for refusing the public a right of entry on this oceasion . Both Dr. \Yright and his brother, the l>laintiff, are, by their position in this c·omnnmit~' , persons who are expected ai any rate to exercise self-control, but J feel bound to say that, in acting as they did on this occasion they, in my opinion, became indirt>dl~· partly responsible for the unfortunate incidents which immediately followed . A formal protest would have adequately met the case. J c·annot but think, coming to the cont'lusion from 1\Ir. :llcCart hy 's remarks about the K igerian offic·ers, and from the fads and circum:;tnnces surrounding this entire transaction as we now know them, that the P laintiff and his associates, far from having their feelings under control, were in a stnte o£ exci tcmcnt; indeed, I shouhl be sony to think they were othetwise consicl<'ring what artunlly occurred . And it seems to me that the Plaiufift, from the vety fad that he belongs to the same profession as myself, ought to ha\<' appreciated the fact that it is not advisable to use forc·e against authority, eYen i£ you are strictly wHhin your rights, except i11 case of urgency, and in ihis case there was no such urgency. So far as the Defendant is concerned, he is a soldier, and he was, as I belie,e, placed through no fault of his own, in a difti­ cull. und equivocal position, and it seems to me a matter for great regret that his instructions and orders were not far more explicit and definite, and there seems to have been a lack of that mutual understanding between the two forces which is so neces­ sary in such circumstances, and "·hich, in this case, resulted in the Defendant being so placed that, i£ he wished to exercise his right of preventing the publie intruding upon the place in which his picquet was stationed, he also pre,ented the public access to the charge room where the police were stationed at night . The Defendant was in command of Roldier,; temporarily occupying part of the Law Courts, and when the Plaintiff attempted to enter this building and insisted on his right to do so, the Defendant, on his own admission, assaulted him, instead 2.\ B ELL tl. Wmom'. PCRCilLL, (' • .T. BELL t•. \\'RIGHT. .l'~nCJU.L, c.:r. • Hi of merely arresting him, or ordering him to be arrested. Although without doubt he received, in my opinion, consider­ able iHOYocation, and was apparently highly exasperated at the condt1ct and demeanour of l'laintiff and his associates, yet for what he did on that. occasion he is in law answerable to lhc Plaintiff in damages. Whilst fully rE>alising the difficult position in which lhe Defendant found himself it i-; quit e clear that he also appears to h:we lost control of himself, and acted in a way that can only be a matter for regret which has resulted in his being embroiled in a leng·thy and anxious ancl an expe11sivc litigation . I ha-ve most carefully and anxiously regarded this mailer from e-very standpoint, and, taking nll the circumstances sur­ rounding this entire matter into t·onsideration, and wii h all respect to the learned .hJdge who tried this case, I think that the judgment appealed from should be varied to this extent, that the damages should be reduced from twenty pounds to five pounds, and that each party in the Court below should pay their O\>n costs, and, so far as this Appeal Court is con­ cerned, each party should pay their own costs. PENNIKGTON, J. I concur. PARODI, J. I agree to tl1e conclusion arrived at by the learned !>re­ sident, but I fail to find any Teason whate-ver for altering my views as regards the £acts I found on the evidence in the Court below, or any authority for altering my view of the law which governs this case. II