Action.
26 Sect.
4.
Notice of Action. Actions to which Act applies.
Form
of notice.
Secondly, as to the class of actions to which it applies. It applies only to actions in respect of a tort or wrong {u), whether actions for damages only, or actions for injunctions (a) or declarations (h) but it does not apply to actions for breaches of contract (c), or for the price of goods or of work and labour, although bargained for in order to carry out a statutory duty, nor to actions in rem (d). The notice, w^hen required, should give the name and address of the plaintiff or his solicitor (e), and should state the cause of complaint, with full particulars, and the intention to sue (/) but an error or omission, which cannot mislead the defendants, is immaterial (g). A defendant who intends to rely on the absence of notice must raise the point in his defence (h).
Pleading the Act.
Demand
35. Closely akin
for
oTconstabie's warrant.
to
provisions
requiring
notice
action
of
is.
enactment (i) which provides that no action shall be brought against any constable (k), head borough, or other officer, or against any person or persons acting by his order and in his aid, for anything done in obedience to a justice's warrant until demand has been made in the prescribed mode for inspection of the warrant, and until six days have elapsed without inspection being given. The object of the provision is, of course, to enable the plaintiff to see whether the constable has merely executed a warrant which was a valid authority to him, or whether he has exceeded his authority (l). (1864), 9 L. T. 653; Burling v. Harlei/ (1858), 3 H. & N. 271, 274; Booth y. Clive (1851), 20 L. J. fc. P.) 151 Spooner v. Juddoiu (1850), 6 Moo. P. C. 257, 283 Smith v. Hopper {184:1), 9 Q,. B. 1005, 1014. (u) Milford Docks Co. v. Milford Haven Urhan District Council (1901), 65 J. P. but see Cree v. ;S^. Pancras Vestry, [1899] 1 Q. B. 693 ; 483, per Eomer, L.J. Midland Rail. Co. v. Withington Local Board (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 788. (a) Fielding v. Morley Corporation, [1899] 1 Ch. 1. [h] Grand Junction Waterioorks Co. v. Hampton Urban District Council (1899), 63 J. P. 503 Offin v. Rochford Bural District Council, [1906] 1 Oh. 342, 357. (c) Clarke v. Leiuisham. Borough Council (1903), 67 J. P. 195. (d) Milford Docks Co. v. Milford Haven Urhan District Council, supra ; The
Burns, [1907] P. 137. (e) Morgan v. Leach (1842), 10 M. & W. 558; Roberts v. Williams (1835), 5 Tyr. 583; James v. Siuift (1825), 4 B. & 0. 681 Mayheio v. Locke (1816), 7 Taunt. 63 Oshorn v. Cough (1803), 3 Bos. & P. 550. (/) Tatjlor V. Newfield (1854), 2 W. E. 474 Prickett v. Gratrex (1846), 8 Q. B. 1020; Gimhert v. Co2j7iey (1825), McL. & Y. 469 Green v. Hutt (1882), 51 L. J. (q. b.) 640; Forbes v. Lloyd (1876), 10 Ir. E. C. L. 552; Leary v. Patrick (1850), 15 Q. B. 266; Jacklin v. Fytche (1845), 14 M. & W. 381*; Jones v. NichoUs Martins v. Bo^eese v. Jerdein (1843), 4 Q. B. 585 (1844), 13 M. & W. 361 Upcher (1842), 3 Q. B. 662 Norris v. Smith (1839), 10 A. & E. 188; Mason v. Birkenhead Improvement Commissioners (1860), 6 H. & N. 72. Madden v. Kensington [g) Green v. Broad and Hutt (1882), 46 L. T. 888 Vestry, [1892] 1 Q. B. 614 Hollingsiuorth v. Palmer (1849), 18 L. J. (ex.) 409; Jones V. Bird (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 837 Smith v. West Derby Local Board (1878), 3 C. P. D. 423; Jones v. Nicholls, supra; Hoivard v. Remer (1853), 2 E. & B. 915. (A) Arnold v. Hamel (1854), 23 L. J. (ex.) 137. {i) Constables Protection Act, 1751 (24 Geo. 2, c. 44), s. 6. (k) The section applies to metropolitan police (10 Geo. 4, c. 44, s. 4; 2 & 3 Yict. c. 47, s. 5), county police (2 & 3 Vict. c. 93, s. 8), borough police (45 & 46 Yict. c. 50, s. 191), parish constables (5 & 6 Yict. c. 109, s. 15 35 & 36 Yict.
special constables (1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 41, s. 5). Cotton v. Kadiuell (1833), (/) See Barton v. Williams (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 330 2 Nev. & M. (k.b.) 399; Hoije v. Bush (1840), 1 M. & G. 775; Peppercorn y. Hoffman (1842), 9 M. & W. 618; Kay v. Grover (1831), 7 Bing. 312. c.
92,
s. 7),
and
