Amphurst and Palmer

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1792
Year1792
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 80 E.R. 472

King's Bench Division

Clearke
and
Gilbert

410. clearke versus gilbert. Case. Goddard Cleark brought an action upon the case against Gilbert for speaking these words ; Thou art a thief, and hath stoln twenty loads of my furze : and upon not guilty, a verdict was found for the plaintiff. Now it was moved by Serjeant Hitchman, that these words bear no action, because the furze might be standing, and felled and carried away by the plaintiff, and so no felony. HOBART, 332. HANSON V. NORCLIPFE 473 And Athow, of counsel for the plaintiff, urged, that it shall be understood rather of furze felled than standing, and also the words are so coupled that the latter are not made a reason of the former, but either of them a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Attorney General v Bushopp and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1600
    ...1 Le. 21. 4 Le. 169. 172. Cro. Car. 426. 461. Co. Ent. 389 b. 422 b. Mo. 307. 311, 312. 320. 313. 327. 329. Godb. 301. 344. 305. 312. 315. Hob. 331. 335. 341. 344, 345. Co. Lit. 372 b. 392 b. 2 Ko. R. 318. 321. 324. 375. 503. 3 Inst. 19. ante 42 a. (K 4) By this statute it is enacted, that ......
  • Baker v Pierce
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1790
    ...sense, unless there be other words to determine them in the worst sense. As to say, he stole my timber out of my yard, or my hops in a bag. Hob. 331, Clerk vers. Gilbert. Hutton 113, Herbert v. Angett. So Hutton 38, Mason v. Thompson. I charge thee with felony for taking forth from J. D.'s ......
  • Whitacre v Hillidell
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1681
    ...And this difference hath been alwaies taken in this course. But Bacon denied the difference, and cited Clerk and Gilberte's case, Hob. 331. Thou art a thief, and hast stollen twenty load of my furzis, and adjudged not actionable, and no difference allowed between and and for, but Roll flatl......
  • Yearworth v Pierce
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1681
    ...art a thief, and hast stoln, &c. there the latter words are cumulative. But Bacon denied the difference, and cited Clerk and Gilbert's case, Hob. 331. where that difference is denied, and said, that 8 Car. in the òCommon Pleas, where the words were Thou art a thief, and hast robb'd thy kin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT