1787-11-13 (static/transcriptions/1787/11/317.jpg)

Lord Hale say, that it was resolv’d in the Case of Mr. Ricard Buckley, that an action doth not lie against the Plaintiff for putting matters in a a Bill, of which the Court hath no [ILL], altho’ in that Case in 4 Co. it is otherwise reported.
If the Declaration be, that the suit commenced there was an Intention to hold him to Bail in an Action wherein no Bail was by Law required, or that the Action was laid to great damages, so that he could not find Bail, or such like thing, an action probably will lie. As to the Cases of Higginson versus Martin and Hadley, and the Case of Boys and Gurney, cited at the Bar, those are Modern Precedents, and I know not on what reasons or authorities the judges founded their Judgments, because I have not seen any Reports of those Cases, nor whether they were on Debate or not; but I was present when the Case of Hudson and Cook was adjudjed in Mich. 35 Car. Q. B. R. It was an action on the case brought against the Defendant for commencing an action in an inferior Court, whereas the cause of action arose out of the Jurisdiction of that Court. Non culp’ was pleaded, and a Verdict for the Plaintiff. And an Exception was taken in an
arrest