Talk:Entick v Carrington

Suggestions

The case is very important in both UK and US law, it is cited regularly in modern cases. I think that more should be said about it's effect. In particular, how it pre-empted the "right of privacy", and how it was one way the early courts enforced fundamental Human Rights before the ECHR or the HRA.

Should more be said about the Rule of Law in this article as well?? --RawEgg 01:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Facts of case are simply wrong

Sorry if I sound like someone with an attitude, but the source cited contradicts the summary of the case given in the article!

... the earl before the trespass on the 6th of November 1762, made his warrant under this hand and seal directed to the defendants, by which the earl did in the king’s name authorize and require the defendants, taking a constable to their assistance, to make strict and diligent search for the plaintiff, mentioned in the said warrant to be the author, or one concerned in the writing of several weekly very seditious papers intitled, "The Monitor or British Freeholder, No 357, 358, 360, 373, 376, 378, and 380, London, printed to J. Wilson and J. Fell in Paternoster Row,"...

The raid on Entick, the author of The Monitor, took place just a few months before the raid on The North Briton, but they really shouldn't be confused!

Anyhow, sorry to bitch instead of edit, but I'd want to research this one just a little bit more before writing, and I'm still busy with The North Briton. --WilkesAndLiberty!

P.S. Just hacked something together anyhow.

Comment under extract does not follow from the extract

Underneath the extract is written "So the individual may do anything but that which is forbidden by law, and the state may do nothing but that which is expressly authorised by law.". But there is nothing "so" about this; the extract does not set out the former proposition, only the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.111.79 (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Entick v Carrington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211012558/http://www.gpoaccess.gov:80/constitution/browse.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Reports

I thought it would be prudent to raise awareness of the fact that Entick v. Carrington is reported in two reports, Howell's State Trials and Mr. Serjeant Wilson's Reports (republished in the 95th volume of English Reports). The Editor of Howell's states that it is more accurate than Wilson's report, and that it is from the “authentic” copy of the judgment. It must, at least, have been published after Wilson's report. This should clarify the origins of the famous quote, which is taken from Howell's judgment, not Wilson's. Steepleman (t) 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

intitled -> entitled

The only definitions I can find for "intitle" online are:

In yourdictionary.com,

"(archaic or nonstandard) Alternative form of entitle", and

"... to give an honor, right or legal privilege to someone or something",

and, in merriam-webster.com,

"archaic variant of ENTITLE".

oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com, dictionary.cambridge.org and chambers.co.uk all have no entry for "intitle".

collinsdictionary.com merely makes the comment , "The word entitle, for instance, appeared as 'intitle'. Times, Sunday Times (2008)", but without providing any definition, as such.

As for "entitle" however, all these dictionaries are agreed that it has two possible meanings:

merriam-webster.com has:

"to give a title to : DESIGNATE", and

"to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something".

oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com has:

"to give a title to a book, play, etc.", and

"to give somebody the right to have or to do something".

dictionary.cambridge.org has:

"to give a title to a book, movie, etc.:", and

"to give someone the right to do or have something".

chambers.co.uk has:

"to give a title or name to (a book, etc)", and

"having a right to something".

collinsdictionary.com, in it's rather chatty or perhaps even condescending way, has:

"If the title of something such as a book, film, or painting is, for example, 'Sunrise', you can say that it is entitled 'Sunrise'.", and

"If you are entitled to something, you have the right to have it or do it."

yourdictionary.com says:

"To give a name or title to.", and

"To furnish with a right or claim to something.".

And adds a third:

"To honor or dignify by a title."

[Note. I have, in some cases above, rearranged the order of the definitions from the various dictionaries in order to present them in the same order on this page, so as to be able to refer to them consistently as the first and second meanings, below.]

It is clear that the meaning required for the word in the article is the first meaning of "entitle", "to give a title to a book, play, etc." And whereas yourdictionary.com does state that "intitle" is an "alternative form of entitle" and whereas I cannot find agreement/proof from other dictionary entries, as is my belief, that the archaic variant "intitle" has been used in published works on both sides of the Atlantic almost exclusively as alternative to the second of the meanings listed above for "entitle", namely "to give somebody the right to have or to do something": (1) there is no dictionary entry I have found that explicitly gives a definition for "intitle" as the second alternative meaning of "entitle" AND (2) it is certainly the case that there is general agreement from these dictionaries that the far more common "entitle" does carry the required meaning. Hedles (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)