NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY

AND RESEARCH IN LAW, RANCHI

TAKE HOME ASSINGMENT, LOGIC

ASHBY v. WHITE

SUBMITTED TO: ARBINDO SAHU SUBMITTED BY: GAURAV MISHRA

FACULTY, PHILOSOPHY SEMESTER- 1ST SEC- A

ROLL NO. – 621

FACTS OF THE CASE
In 1701, on 6th of December, to summon the parliament a writ was issued, as a result writ was
given to the police of county of bucks to be issued by them. Defendant, William White, a
constable, was at time acting as returning officer for election on coming 6th January. In the
county all those who contributed to maintain the security of the state and for this plaintiff,
Matthew Ashby, was warned too.

On the day of election plaintiff went to polling booth to cast vote as duly tendered voter but he
was rejected by the defendant since he thought that he was not citizen because he had not paid
for the welfare of the state.

ARGUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF
Arguments put forth by plaintiff’s side was that he has come up to live in the state for past few
months and as regard to the payment for the maintenance of the church, he was never asked to
pay. Thus, plaintiff was the inhabitant of the state. And refusal of his duly tendered vote by the
plaintiff didn’t allow him to use his legal right.

ARGUMENTS OF DEFENDANT
1. From defendant’s side the contended arguments were that there was not any scope of
damage to be suffered to plaintiff on refusal of vote by the defendant because injury is
only when damage are suffered by plaintiff.
2. Another argument put forth by defendant’s side was through precedent from reign of king
Charles two. Council gave precedent as per which defendant won due to persisting law
and it was further argued that if the action didn’t lie for elected, how it could lie for
elector.

JUDGEMENT

In this case the Lords Rochester, Northampton, Scarsdale, Weymouth, Granville, Gower,
Abingdon, Guernsey and Guildford held that action on this case is proper. It was further said that
the voting right of the citizen is of great importance as a right and as a denial of plaintiff’s
tendered vote is a damage suffered by him. And Matthew Ashby having, in contempt
of the jurisdiction of this House, commenced and prosecuted an action at common law against
William White, and others, the constables of Aylesbury, for not receiving his vote at an election
of burgesses, to serve in parliament for the said borough of Aylesbury, is guilty of a breach of the
privilege of this House.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS
This being the foundation case of the principle Injuria Sine Damnum, lords at the kings court
reserved the judgment using their critical skills. The judgment held in the case is the results of
the arguments put forward by both defendant’s as well as plaintiff’s counsel. Both the counsel
tried to convince the Lord through their premises in support of their conclusions. In this case
plaintiff didn’t suffer any actual damage but he was compensated for the legal injury caused to
him by the defendant. According to me development of this principle was necessarily required,
so one can’t infringe the legal right of individual.