Ablett v Basham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1856 |
| Date | 31 January 1856 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 760
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 25 L. J. Q. B. 239; 2 Jur. N. S. 285.
[1019] ablett against basham. Thursday, January 31st, 1856. Under The Common Law Procedure Act, 1852 (15 & 1C Viet. c. 56), sect. 6 and Schedule (A.) No. 1, an attorney suing in person may indorse the writ of summons thus: "This writ was issued in person by the within named I. A., who resides at" &c., naming his place of business, though it is not the place where he sleeps. [S. C. 25 L. J. Q. B. 239 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 285.] From the affidavits on which the rule after mentioned was obtained, it appeared that the plaintiff and defendant were both attorneys of this Court. That the defendant was served with a writ of summons requiring him to cause an appearance to be entered &c. That the writ was endorsed thus : "This writ was issued in person by the within named Isaac Ablett, who resides at number 6, Newcastle Street, Strand, in the parish of St. Clement Danes, in the county of Middlesex. The plaintiff claims" &c. That the defendant has a good defence on the merits. That he is advised that it is material for him to serve the plaintiff with a subposna to attend at the trial, for the purpose of his producing certain documents. That defendant knows the house, No. 6, Newcastle Street, Strand, described on the indorsement as the residence of plaintiff; and that the shop and house are occupied by a person of the name of Siggers, who carries on the business of a breeches-maker there. That on the door of the said house is a brass plate, upon which the name of plaintiff is engraved ; but that plaintiff does not reside at the said house, or does he occupy any part thereof either as a residence or an office. For that the said Siggers informed defendant that he (Siggers) allowed plaintiff to have his letters directed to the said house, but that plaintiff did not occupy any part of the said premises. The above statements were deposed to by defendant. And his attorney deposed that he [1020] knocked at the door of the said house, which was opened by a female, whom the deponent believed to be the servant of Siggers, the occupier of the premises. That deponent then inquired of the servant whether Mr. Ablett lived there; to which she replied that he did not; which deponent believed to be true. That deponent then inquired of her which was plaintiff's office; when she told deponent that plaintiff was not there, nor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laubscher v Native Commissioner, Piet Retief
...v. 1958 (1) SA p549 Lydenburg Rural Licensing Board, 1933 T.P.D. op bl. 485; Brits Town Council v Pienaar, N.O. and Another, 1949 (1) SA op bl. 1019. Alternatiewelik, die uiteensetting van eis hou geen verband met die bewering dat respondent nie sy diskressie uitgeoefen het en is dus irrele......
-
Mason v Bibby
...suing in person may indorse the writ of summons with a statement [886] that he lesides at his place of business: Ablett v. Baaham (5 E. & B 1019). [Pollock, C. B The 59th section says that before a certain thing is done notice must be given , then, in order to prevent trouble, the 150th sec......
-
Ann Blackwell v Philip Newberry England
...his family or his servants eat, drink, and sleep;" Rex v. North, Curry (4 B. & C. 953, 959). [Wightrnan J. referred to Ablett v. Sasham (5 E. & B. 1019).J Lord Campbell C.J. In general, on a point on which a Court of coordinate jurisdiction had taken time to consider, we should not refuse a......
-
Gardiner v Harris
...GARDINER and HARRIS. Willans v. Patterson 8 Ir. C. L. R. App. and HARRISON, J. Joynes v. CollinsonENR 13 M. & W. 558. Ablett v. BashamENR 5 E. & B. 1019. Practice — Security for costs — Plaintiff resident out of jurisdiction — Affidavit. 352 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. C. P. Div GARDIN......