Action Against Conisborough Council – Alleged Wrongful Imprisonment

March 1936

Mexborough and Swinton Times March 20, 1936

Wath Woman’s Claim
Alleged Wrongful Imprisonment
Action Against Conisborough Council

Alleging that she was wonderfully imprisoned for non-payment of rates, Mrs Gertrude Anne Wright, wife of an income tax consultant of Barnsley Road, Wath on Dearne, claimed damages in the civil court at Leeds Assizes on Monday from Conisborough Urban Council. Mrs Wright was formerly of Lowfield House, Denaby Main.

The defence entered was that “the plaintiff was arrested and imprisoned persuant to a lawful order of a court of competent jurisdiction, and alternately the plaintiffs alleged cause of action is barred by the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893”

Mr G. S. Waller and Mr R. E. G. Mayhew (F. C. Crawley, Worksop) appeared for the plaintiff and Mr J. Willoughby Jardine. K. C. and Mr H. B. Hylton Foster (Spencer Baker, Doncaster) for the defendants.

Joint Demand.

Mr Waller said that in March, 1933, there was a demand for rates for Lowfield House, addressed jointly to Mr and Mrs Wright. Mr Wright protested, and the defendants agreed. It was verbally, agreed that all future demand should be made and him alone. In November distraintt was levied against Mrs Wright for non-payment of rates and a judgement summons was issued. Mr Wright told the magistrate’s clerk that he was awaiting a reduction in assessments, and though the fact of the demands being in his name alone would do away with any proceedings against his wife.

Notice of reduction have assessments was received on January 8, 1934, showing Mr Wright as occupier, but on the following morning Mrs Wright was arrested for non-payment of rates and was taken to Hull prison. On the same day Mr Wright procured an amended demand note, which was in his name only at the council offices and on the following morning Mrs Wright was released on payment of the amendment late.

Quoting from correspondence, counsel read a statement of Mr Wright’s alleging that Mrs Wright had suffered in health and was in a state of terror as a result of the imprisonment, and fear of its repetition. Mr Wright’s contention was that the joint rating was illegal and that the council had treated his wife with a hostage for his rates.

Mr Waller submitted that the prosecution of Mrs Wright was illegal, because she was not the rateable occupier, and had not received a demand, and because, owing to the reduction in assessment, there was no rate actually in force at the time. He further contended that from 3 p.m. on January 9 until Mrs Wright was released the following morning there was false imprisonment, because the defendants knew then that the warrant was void.

Something New for Judge.

Before calling for evidence, Mr Justice Hilbery said that he had never heard of the joint rating of husband-and-wife merely because they lived in the same house, except in special circumstances.

Mrs Wright, giving evidence, said that her health was not good before the arrest, and had been much worse since. Before the arrest she had never received a demand in her name.

In reply to Mr Jardine, she said that the furniture was left to her by her father’s will. She denied being jointly rated when she and her husband lived at Bentley. She admitted that both she and her husband had been to prison arising out of rates, but not both at the same time. They were bringing an action against the Bentley rating authority, her complaint being that she was imprisoned in respect of rates which he had paid.

Witnesses Collapse.

In reply to Mr C. Willoughby Jardine, Mr Wright denied that he had ever been organising secretary of the Rate and Tax Reduction Association. To question about certain distraints that had been levied, he said that they were on his wife furniture, for she was a ratepayer at the time. When other questions were put, suggesting that “the poor woman did not know what was going on at the time,” Mr Wright collapsed in the faint in the witness box, and, with the agreement of Council, the plaintiffs case was closed.

Mr Jardine’s submission was that there was no case to answer. The plaintiff’s action, he said, was based on a lack of probable cause for wrongful arrest, and a lack of evidence of malice. The Urban Council, he continued acted perfectly properly and had done nothing without cause. Even if they had done something wrong, which he denied, the plaintiffs course of action was barred under the public authorities protection act, 1893 because more than six months had elapsed from the alleged wrongful acts to the date of issue of the writ. There was no case of false imprisonment to answer because the seizure and detention of the plaintiff was by a police officer authorised by order of a court. There were instances where a police man who made an arrest might be shown to have been the agent of the defendant, but there was nothing of the sort in the case. All the defendants had done was to set the court in motion, and that court had made a lawful order.

Justice Hilbery ruled that the defence should call evidence.

Mr Ernest William Pettifer, Clerk to the West Riding magistrates at Doncaster, in reply to Mr Hylton Foster, said that no person except the justices had authority to alter the court’s order or to authorise the release of a person on payment of a sum less than that for which the order was made.

Thought It “Outrageous”.

Mr George Brocklesby. Chief financial officer to the Conisborough Council, said that on the evening of Mrs Wright’s arrest, Mr Wright told him that he had the money to pay the rate demand at the time of her arrest. Mr Brocklesby added “I particularly remember that, as I considered that it was outrageous that he had allowed her to go when he had the money to pay.”

Mr Ernest Wolfenden, the constable, now retired, who arrested Mrs Wright, said that on the occasion Mr Wright said to him “I have the money, but I am not going to pay,” witness told Mr Wright that his wife would have to go to Hull prison, and Mr Wright said he did not mind. He would get her back and he considered that he could get damages from the council for false imprisonment.

Closing the case for the defendants, Mr Jardine said that Mrs Wright was jointly rated with her husband. Whether she was properly jointly rated not did not matter. She was served with the summons and failed to appear. The council were pursuing a list of defaulters and she was on the list.

“This poor woman went to prison,” continued Mr Jardine. “I will not say of her home volition, but under the influence of her husband, so that he could pursue his war against the rating authority, I submit that that is the sort of action that should not meet with any favour.”

The episode in which Mrs Wright went to prison was not the first of a number of episodes in which rating authorities had had trouble with Mr Wright, who no doubt had advised his wife. She had plenty to do to look after the house and the two children, and knew nothing about these matters.

She was a pawn in her husband’s game and it really suited him, although he had the money in his pocket, to see her taken to prison, because he for he would have some minor triumph over the rating authorities whom he had decided to treat as his sworn enemies.

Mr Justice Hilbery said that he would give judgement before the end of the assizes, probably on the last day.