Odger's English Common Law

418 PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION.
;
the act complained of, and that he has been thereby specially aggrieved,
and not merely as one of the public. 1
There is yet another class of cases, in which considerations
of general expediency or public policy forbid our Courts to
interfere or to allow any redress, although the act was tortious.
Thus an action will not lie against a commanding officer for
anything done by him in the course, of his naval or military
duty or incidental thereto
2
so, too, the ratification by the
Crown of a trespass committed by one of its officers in the
public service against an alien renders it no longer action-
able ;
3 again, a colonial Act of indemnity may neutralise the
tortious quality of an act. 4 The exemption from liability
of officers carrying out Government orders rests upon this
ground, that their conduct under such circumstances is an
act of state, for which public policy forbids that they should
be held responsible ; for if " the King can do no wrong," that
is, cannot be held responsible for his acts to a Court of law,
neither can they who properly execute his orders or those of
his Government, and their acts, if approved and ratified by
the Government, become " acts of state." 5 No action will
lie for any act done in the honest exercise of naval or mili-
tary authority. Naval and military matters are for naval and
military tribunals to determine, and not the ordinary civil
Courts. 6
Again, resting strictly on grounds of " public policy " is
the non-liability of judicial officers for damage resulting from
anything said or done, by them in that capacity. No action
will lie against a judge of a Superior Court for any acts done
or words spoken in his judicial capacity, whether in court or
at judge's chambers. 7
So any act done or words spoken by
1 Boyce v. Biggins (1853), 14 C. B. 1 ; Bradlaugh v. Clarlie (1883), 8 App. Cas. 354.
8 Johnstone v. Sutton (1786), 1 T. R. 493, 510, 784 ; Dawkins v. Lord Bokeby
(1875), L. K. 7 H. L. 744 ; Dawkins v. Lord, Paulet (1869), L. R. 5 Q. B. 94 ; Chatterton
v. Secretary of State for India, [1895] 2 Q. B. 189.
8 Buron v. Denman (1848), 2 Exch. 167 ; and see Marais v. General Officer Commanding,
[1902] A. C. 109 ; M'x parte Mgomini (1906), 94 L. T. 558. It is otherwise,
if the trespass was committed against a British subject : Walker v. Baird, [18921
A. C. 491.
4 Phillips v. Eyre (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 225
'; (1870), L. R. 6 Q. B. 1.
5 Rogers v. Butt, 13 Moo. P. C. C. 209, 236.
6 Hart v. Gumpaoh (1872), L. R. 4 P. O. 439 ; Grant v. Secretary of State for
India (1877), 2 C. P. D. 445 ; Meddon v. Means (1919), 35 Times L. R. 642.
» Fray v. Blackburn (1863), 3 B. & S. 676 ; Taa'ffe v. Bournes (1812), 3 Moo.
P. C. C. 36, n. ; Anderson v. Gorrie, [1895] 1 Q. B. 668.