Odger's English Common Law

484 TRESPASS TO THE PERSON.
similarly immune from liability, unless the plaintiff can show
that he acted beyond his jurisdiction, that is, that he had not
then before him any suit or matter in relation to which he
had authority to imprison or arrest. 1 Even so he is not liable,
unless it be proved by the plaintiff that he knew or had the
means of knowing facts which would have shown him that he
But he will be liable if he
was exceeding his jurisdiction. 2
so exceeds through a mistake, not of fact, but of law. 3
(f) A defence of a very different character arises in cases
where the action is not brought against the person who
actually arrested the plaintiff, but against his master or
employer. Here the question at once arises, is the master
or employer liable for the tortious act of his servant ?
He will not be liable, unless he had given his servant
authority, express or implied, so to act. And no such
authority will be implied, unless the arrest was reasonably
necessary for the protection of his master's property. 4
Further, a corporation cannot give its servants authority to
do an act which it cannot legally do itself. 6
28.
* Doswell v. Impey (1823), 1 B. & C. 169.
' Pike v. Carter (1825), 3 Bing. 78 ; Colder v. Halkett (1840), 3 Moo. P. C. C.
3 BouUen v. Smith (1850), 14 Q. B. 841.
* Abrahams v. Deakin, [1891] 1 Q. B. 516 ; Sanson v. Waller, |"19011
J
1 K. B.
390.
» Goff v. G. N. Ry. Co. (1861), 3 E. & E. 672 ; Allen v. L. * S. W. Ry. Co
870), L. K. 6 Q. B. 65 ; Ormiston v. G. W. My. Co., [1917] 1 K. B. 698.