AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 183 wordsWilson, J.—I had some doubts in admitting the plaint, but having regard to my recollection of the case of Booth v. Briscoe L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 496 I thought it safer to admit it.
Mr. Bonnerjee cited and distinguished Booth v. Briscoe.
Mr. Braunfeld for the Plaintiffs contended that the suit was rightly framed, the prisoners having been charged, tried, convicted and committed to jail together; that they had incurred expenses together in obtaining their release; that had the suits been brought separately there would have been a multiplicity of suits, which it was the policy of the law to avoid, and in all probability the defendant would have applied to consolidate them, and cited Coryton v. Lithebye 2 Saund. Pt. I p. 115; Barratt v. Collins 10 Moo. J.B. 446; Booth v. Briscoe L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 496.
Wilson, J.
Considered that there was nothing to justify the plaintiffs thus joining in one suit, seeing that their causes of action, though similar in nature, were in fact distinct and separate. He, therefore, directed the plaint to be taken off the file.