## Facts

- The plaintiff sought to retake goods that had been wrongfully detained by the defendant.
- The defendant wrongfully held the plaintiff’s property, prompting the plaintiff to attempt recaption.
- The plaintiff acted promptly upon discovering the wrongful detention and did not employ force or violence when reclaiming the goods.
- The court considered the conduct of both the plaintiff and defendant, including any resistance or provocation, in evaluating the lawfulness of the recaption.

## Issues

1. Whether an owner can lawfully retake possession of property wrongfully detained by another.
2. What conditions must be satisfied for recaption to be lawful, particularly regarding the manner and timing of the retaking.
3. How the conduct of the parties (especially use of force or resistance) affects the legality of recaption.

## Decision

- The court held that an owner may lawfully retake their property from another’s wrongful detention if the retaking is done peaceably and without violence.
- It was determined that prompt action is required; undue delay may preclude a claim of lawful recaption.
- The plaintiff’s conduct was found to comply with the requirements for lawful recaption as the reclaiming was immediate and non-violent.
- The defendant’s resistance or provocation could potentially invalidate the recaption if it led to a breach of peace, though in this case, the plaintiff’s actions remained within lawful bounds.

## Legal Principles

- Lawful recaption allows an owner to reclaim their property without judicial process if the act is carried out peacefully and immediately.
- The right of recaption is contingent upon the absence of force or violence and clear entitlement to the property.
- Delay in reclaiming property may negate the claim to lawful recaption.
- Courts will scrutinize the conduct of both parties to ensure public order is not compromised in the exercise of self-help remedies.

## Conclusion

Patrick v Colerick (1838) 3 M & W 483 clarified that lawful recaption of property is permitted where the owner acts promptly, without the use of force or breach of the peace, and demonstrates clear entitlement, thereby balancing property rights with the maintenance of public order.
