Definition of Six Carpenters’ Case

((1610), 8 Coke, 146 a). Six carpenters entered a tavern and were served
with wine for which they paid. They were afterwards., at their request,
served with bread and more wine which they refused to pay for.
Trespass was brought against the six carpenters and the only point in
the case was whether the non-payment made the entry into the tavern
tortious. Held, that (1) if a man abuse an authority given by the law, he
becomes a trespasser ab initio ; but (2) where the authority is given by
the party and abused, there he is not a trespasser ab initio ; but he must
be punished for his abuse ; (3) that mere non-feasance (or not doing)
cannot make the party who has the licence by Jaw a trespasser ab initio.
Therefore the six carpenters were not trespassers ab initio

The Six Carpenters Case [1572] Eng R 452

Facts

Six carpenters (S) were served with wine and bread at a tavern which they paid for. S
requested more wine and bread afterwards, of which they were served, by this time they
refused to pay. John Vaux (J) brought an action of trespass against Thomas Newman
and the five other carpenters.

Issue

The issue in question in the present case was whether the non-payment by S made the
entry into the tavern tortious and therefore trespass.

Held

There was no trespass. When an entry, authority, or licence, is given to any one by the
law, and he abuses it, he shall be a trespasser ab initio, however it will not be trespass
where the entry or authority is given by the party and abused. Chic Fashions (West
Wales) v. Jones [1968] 2 QB 299 doubts the ratio in the instant case that if a man
abuses an authority given by law, he becomes a trespasser ab initio, due to the effect
this would have on the ability of constables to execute search warrants. Chic
Fashions claims that the law has been gradually altered since the instant case to give
greater protection to constables. In that case it was held that a constable who enters
private property by virtue of a search warrant is entitled to seize not only goods
reasonably believed to be covered by the warrant but also any other goods which he
honestly and reasonably believes to have been stolen.

,…………….
Six Carpenters Case (1610): Establishes that the doctrine applies only to positive wrongful acts,
not misfeasance. The court held that a failure to pay for wine following lawful entry was
insufficient to render a D liable for trespass ab initio-Some uncertainty for the modern
application of the doctrine, there was expressed doubt as the whether the doctrine remains
operative in Australia. Continuing trespass -Once a D, or an object placed upon the property by
the D, remains upon the property of the P after an unauthorised entry or a refusal to leave within
a reasonable time after a request from the P, a continuing trespass may occur. -Konskier v B
Goodman Ltd [1928]: English court of appeal held that a failure by a builder to remove building
debris from the roof of a terrace house adjoining the house where the building work had taken
place, constituted a continuing trespass for as long as the debris remained there. At the time the
debris was placed on the property, it was incidental to that work and therefore allowed under the
terms of the arrangement. There was no trespass at that time, but when the builders failed to
remove the debris within a reasonable time of completion of the work, they became trespassers
and the trespass continues. Trespass and privacy

` 10 -In the absence of a specific tort for the protection of privacy, Australian courts have
demonstrated an ability to use the tort of trespass to land to restrain the use of film and sound
recording gained from entry onto land through the course of a trespass. -Bathurst CC v Saban
(1985): The council was seeking an injunction against the D to remove junk from their back
yard an officer of the council had taken photographs and recorded a videotape of the D’s
property, which the D claimed has been done whilst committing a trespass. The court held that
the photographs were taken from a public street, thus no trespass was committed. -Currently in
Australia, there is no separate common law tort which protects privacy. -Australian Broadcasting
Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001): An interlocutory injunction was sought
against the ABC to restrain the broadcasting of a film of Lenah Game Meats operations at a
‘brush tail possum processing facility’, an abattoir. The film was passed to ABC by an unknown
person. As the person was unknown, the court held that no interlocutory injunction should be
granted: there could be no restraint on the use of the film as, in this case, there was no trespass by
the D, the ABC. Actions on the Case for Physical Injuries or Nervous Shock Introduction -
Action on the case was developed as a means of redress where trespass was not an appropriate
remedy. -Action on the case differs from trespass as: The act which causes the damage may be
indirect Actual damage (either psychological or physical) must be shown to have occurred as a
result of the act The plaintiff bears the onus of proof of all elements of the tort on the balance of
probabilities
The liability of a principal and a surety on a bond continues to depend upon the validity of the
underlying lien. . . . This is true whether the lien was dissolved in strict conformance with the
statutes or whether it was released by private agreement. The fact that the court was not
involved in the proceedings does not bar a review of the lien which the respondent continues to
assert as the underlying basis for the substituted bond. A contrary rule . . . would discourage the
substitution of bonds by agreement . . . . SixCarpenters, Inc., 172 Conn. at 7 (citation omitted.)
,
Subsection (a) "does not expressly call for a hearing on the application, but there is a strong
implication that a hearing must take place." 1 D. Caron & G. Milne, Connecticut Foreclosures
919 (8th ed. 2018). "The parties may also voluntarily agree to substitute a surety bond in
exchange for the release of the mechanic's lien. As a matter of law, bonds substituted
voluntarily are treated as statutory bonds subject to the provisions of C.G.S.A. § 49-
37. Six Carpenters, Inc. v. Beach Carpenters Corp., 172 Conn. 1, 6-7, 372 A.2d 123, 126-127
(1976)." David E. Rosengren, 13 Connecticut Practice Series: Construction Law § 6:10 n. 3 (2005
& Supp. 2015)(Westlaw). --------
,
The defendant asserts that strict compliance with § 49-37(a) is not "mandatory" and cites in
support SixCarpenters, Inc. v. Beach Carpenters Corp., 172 Conn. 1 (1976). (Doc. #87 at 4.) The
defendant argues that in Six Carpenters the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court's reduction of a bond pursuant to subsection (b) "despite that fact that no subsection (a)
application had been filed because the parties agreed to substitute a bond for release of the
lien." (Doc. #87 at 4.) The defendant posits that this "court may properly rule on [the
defendant's] application under subsection (b) because [the defendant] substantially complied
with the requirements of subsection (a)." (Doc. #87 at 3.) According to the defendant, "the most
important steps" of § 49-37(a) are "'reasonable notice to the lienor' and the good faith of the
applicant in providing a bond with sufficient surety." (Doc. #87 at 4.) The defendant argues that
it "substantially complied" with § 49-37(a) because it satisfied these two concerns.

Ratio: Resolved – 1. When an entry, authority, or licence, is given to any one by the law, and he
abuses it, he shall be a trespasser ab initio: but not where the entry, authority, or licence, is given by
the party. 2. An act of omission cannot make a party a trespasser ab initio.
Note. * Tender upon the land before the distress, makes the distress tortious ; tender after the
distress, and before the impounding, makes the detainer and not the taking wrongful ; tender after
the impounding, makes neither the one nor the other wrongful.*
* If the plaintiff makes a sufficient tender after the avowant has return irreplevisable, he may have an
action of detinue for the detainer after; or he may, upon satisfaction made in Court, have a writ for
the re-delivery of the goods.
This case is cited by:

 Cited – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v
Revenue and Customs SC ([2014] 4 All ER 1, [2014] WLR(D) 262, Bailii, [2014] UKSC
34, Bailii Summary, WLRD, [2015] 1 AC 1101, (2014) 178 JP 314, [2014] 2 Cr App R 26,
[2014] STC 1741, [2014] 2 WLR 1580, [2014] BVC 30, UKSC 2012/0163, SC, SC
Summary)
Alcoholic drinks had been seized by the respondents pending further enquiries with a view to
a possible forfeiture, then held and returned but only under court order. The company had
complained that the detention of the goods was unlawful. The . .