BACKGROUND
Mr. Ashby was prohibited from voting in an election by the mistake of the constable, Mr. White, under the obvious pretext that he was not a settled inhabitant. At the time, the case attracted great public attention and discussion in Parliament. It was later known as the election case of Aylesbury. In the House of Lords, it attracted the attention of Peter King, 1st Baron King, who spoke and upheld the right of electors to have recourse to common law for the revocation of their votes, despite the insistence of the Conservative party on the rights of the House of Commons. Sir Thomas Powys defended William White at the House of Lords. The argument put forward was that the Commons alone had the power to decide election cases, not the courts.
FACTS
In this case, the plaintiff was wrongfully prevented from exercise his vote by the defendant White, returning officer in the parliamentary election. Plaintiff Ashby wanted to give vote had come out successful in the election. But defendant returning officer prevented doing this there is no actual loss or damage with Ashby but there is a legal loss. So, Ashby claiming damages against the defendant. And plaintiff Ashby allowed for damage by Lord Holt saying that “there is the infringement a legal right.”
ISSUE
This question presents among the first issues grounded in civil rights.
* The issue of this case is whether one party may recover damages when one of his civil rights is hindered by the action of another.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELANT SIDE
The plaintiff filed a petition with a plea that being a qualified voter his vote was not registered. Hence, he should get compensation from the defendant.
Mr Ashby was prevented from voting at an election by the misfeasance of a constable, Mr White, on the apparent pretext that he was not a settled inhabitant. A right that a man has to give his vote at the election of a person to represent him in Parliament, there to concur to the making of laws, which are to bind his liberty and property, is a most transcendent thing, and of a high nature, and the law takes notice of it as such in divers statutes: as in the statute of 34 & 35 H. 8, c. 13, entitled An Act for Making of Knights and Burgesses within the County and City of Chester; wherein the preamble it is said, that whereas the said County Palatine of Chester is and hath been always hitherto exempt, excluded, and separated out, and from the King’s Court, by reason whereof the said inhabitants have hitherto sustained manifold dispersions, losses, and damages, as well in their lands, goods, and bodies, as in the good, civil, and politic governance, and maintenance of the commonwealth of their said county, &c.
So that the opinion of the Parliament is, that the want of this privilege occasions great loss and damage. And the same farther appears from the 25 Car. 2, c. 9, An Act to enable the County Palatine of Durham to send knights and burgesses to serve in Parliament, which recites, whereas the inhabitants of the County Palatine of Durham have not hitherto had the liberty and privilege of electing and sending any knights and burgesses to the High Court of Parliament, &c. The right of voting at the election of burgesses is a thing of the highest importance, and so great a privilege, that it is a great injury to deprive the plaintiff of it.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT
The plea of the defendant was that the plaintiff’s non-registered vote was in the favour of the candidate who won the election and thus there is no damage (injury) to him.
The argument submitted was that the Commons alone had the power to determine election cases, not the courts. hat an action upon the case is not maintainable, because there is no hurt or damage to the plaintiff; but surely every injury imports a damage, though it does not cost the party one farthing, and it is impossible to prove the contrary; for damage is not merely pecuniary, but an injury imports a damage, when a man is thereby hindered of his right. As in an action for slanderous words, though a man does not lose a penny by reason of the speaking them, yet he shall have an action. So, if a man gives another a cuff on the ear, though it cost him nothing, no not so much as a little diachylon, yet he shall have his action, for it is a personal injury.
