308. ANNUAL REGISTER, 
found for the plaintiff, in the 
Common Pleas, and a bill of ex-. 
ceptions was tendered to the 
learned judge, Sir James Mans- 
field, by the Counsel for the de- 
fendants, in which three objec- 
tions were stated,—Ist, That the 
Judge at the trial had declared 
and delivered his opinion to the 
Jury that the several matters 
proved on the part of the de- 
fendant, were not sufficient to 
bar the plaintiff of bis action 
against the defendant. 2. That 
the verdict. ought not to have 
been for the plaintiff. 3. That 
it ought to have been in favour of 
defendant. The bill of exceptions 
also contained a detail of all the 
particulars of the facts above 
stated. The question afterwards 
came, before the Court of King’s 
Bench for argument, and stood 
over for decision. 
Lord Ellenborough this day de- 
livered the judgment of the Court, 
after reading the bill of excep- 
tions. The first question that 
naturally arose from the state- 
ment was, whether the original 
arrest of Warden by Baillie, the 
Adjutant, on the 2nd December, 
was or was not legal ; but as the 
act of parliament required that 
the action should be commenced 
within six months after the cause 
of action occurred, and as the 
action in this case was not 
brought until the 27th June, it 
became material to consider 
whether any part of the confine- 
ment fell within that period of 
six months; for though the limi- 
tation in the statute was not spe- 
cially pleaded, yet, under the 
general issue, the defendant 
might take advantage of it. The 
arrest under the authority of 
1815. 
Baillie took place on the 2nd of. 
December, but it ceased on the 
4th, or at furthest on the 24th 
of December ; and the action not. 
being commenced till the 27th of. 
June, that imprisonment was 
clearly not within the six months 
required by the statute, and Bail- 
lie would not be liable unless he 
were responsible for the subse- 
quent confinement when he acted 
under the orders of Lieutenant- 
colonel Whitbread. ‘The ques- 
tion was, therefore, reduced: to’ 
this point, whether Lieutenant-. 
colonel Whitbread was warrant- 
ed by law in ordering the impri- : 
sonment of Warden, firstinhis own 
house, and afterwards preparatory 
to the Court-martial? Certain ex-' 
pressions had been proved against. 
Warden, and it was important to 
see whether they came under 
the description given in the 24th’ 
section of the articles of war, as: 
“ disorderly conduct, to the pre- 
judice of good order and military 
discipline.” If they did (and no 
doubt could be entertained upon 
the subject), Warden might be 
brought before a general Court-. 
martial. This proceeding would 
not be less legal, even supposing 
that the original order of the 
Lieutenant-colonel for the at- 
tendance of the serjeants at the 
school was not valid; for an 
erroneous command would not 
justify disobedience or the em- 
ployment of inflammatory lan- 
guage, to the subversion of mi- 
litary discipline. The only re- 
maining question then . was, 
whether it was lawful for the 
Lieutenant-colonel to order the 
arrest of Warden, that. he might 
be forthcoming at the Court-mar- 
tial. This power was given by 
