 | Samuel Robinson Clarke - 1872 - 762 페이지
...Badleg v. Ferks, LR 1 QB 456, per Elackburn, J. W 7*• /f) Afim v. Lf * *>'. W. RH Co. L. li. C QB 65. were to find that a person was attempting to rob...take such steps as may be necessary for the purpose of punishing the offender. The principle governing the subject is : there is an implied authority to... | |
 | William Evans - 1879 - 802 페이지
...these cases, as they were not raised in the present case, which he distinguished, on the ground that there is a marked distinction between an act done...property by preventing a felony, or of recovering the property back, and an act done for the purpose of punishing the offender for what has already been... | |
 | Samuel Robinson Clarke, Henry Pigott Sheppard - 1882 - 642 페이지
...for the protection of the company's property, (t) It would seem that, if a man in charge of a till were to find that a person was attempting to rob it,...take such steps as may be necessary for the purpose of punishing the offender. The principle governing the subject is: there is an implied authority to... | |
 | Samuel Robinson Clarke, Henry Pigott Sheppard - 1882 - 638 페이지
...for the protection of the company's property, (z) It would see m that, if a man in charge of a till were to find that a person was attempting to rob it,...the purpose of punishing the offender for that which lias already been done. The person having charge, etc., has no implied authority to take such steps... | |
 | Sir John Macdonell - 1883 - 792 페이지
...authority to take steps to punish an offender. " There is a marked distinction," said Blackburn, J., " between an act done for the purpose of protecting...the offender for that which has already been done. There is no implied authority in a person having the custody of property to take such steps as he thinks... | |
 | Edmund B. Ivatts - 1883 - 1168 페이지
...prepared to pronounce a decided opinion on these supposed cases. The present case is altogether different. There is a marked distinction between an act done...of protecting the property by preventing a felony, <* of recovering it back, and an act done for the purpose «f punishing the offender for that which... | |
 | 1904 - 1164 페이지
...Mr. Justice Blackburn stated the principle and the distinction upon which the case was decided thus: "There is a marked distinction between an act done...the offender for that which has already been done. There is no implied authority in a person having the custody of property to take such steps as he thinks... | |
 | 1893 - 1164 페이지
...prepared to pronounce a decided opinion on these supposed cases. The present CUSP is altogether different. There Is a marked distinction between an act done...property by preventing a felony, or of recovering it batk, and an act done for the purpose of punishing the offender for that which has already been done."... | |
 | 1917 - 1312 페이지
...company for false arrest. It was held that the company was not liable, the court saying: "There is n marked distinction between an act done for the purpose...preventing a felony or of recovering it back and an net done for the purpose of punishing the offender for that which has already been done. There is no... | |
 | South Australia. Supreme Court - 1888
...distinction was made between an act done for the purpose of protecting the property of the employer by preventing a felony or of recovering it back, and...for the purpose of punishing the offender for that FULL COURT ljere p Because Wylie suspected that the Goodwins had stolen his— masters' cow, he seized... | |
| |
There Is a marked distinction between an act done for the purpose of protecting the property by preventing a felony or of recovering It back and an act done for the purpose of punishing the offender for that which has already been done. 
