Amphurst and Palmer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1792 |
| Year | 1792 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 80 E.R. 472
King's Bench Division
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 distinct sentence standing of it self; and so the word thief is sufficient alone. And to that purpose cited (as he said) divers caaes, all in B. E. one between Minors and Lightford, 4 Jac. and another between Eire and Oimstram, 7 Jac. and another between Turner and Campion, 13 Jac. But he relied chiefly upon a record which was shewed, 2 Jac. in the King's Bench, between Kelham and Mansy, where the words were, Thou art a thief, for thou hast stoln my corn : and judgment was given for the plaintiff. All which notwithstanding, the Court here, after divers motions and debates, gave judgment against the plaintiff. For as to the first point, it had been often ruled, that it is all one in common sense and acceptance, whether it be (and) thou hast stoln, or (for) thou hast stoln. And in the case of Kelham, the Court denied the law to be so, except there were some further words of explanation, as corn in my barn, or the like. For otherwise, in words meerly indifferent, the more easie sense, and farthest from the more hainous charge shall be taken. And therefore we have given judgment before, supra, between Coote and Gilbert, against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General v Bushopp and Others
...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
...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 ......
-
Yearworth v Pierce
...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......
-
William House's Case
...to the said Marmaduke his son for life, remainder to the heirs of the body of the said Marmaduke, remainder to (a) Clark v. Gilbert, Hob. 331. CRO.JAC.41. MICHAELMAS TERM, 2 JAC. 1. IN C. W. 33 the right heirs of the said Marmaduke the son. Afterward Robert Southby the father died seised of......