Bartlett v Smith

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date10 May 1843
Date10 May 1843
CourtExchequer

English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 895

EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.

Bartlett
and
Smith

S. C. 12 L. J. Ex. 287; 7 Jur. 448. Referred to, Harris v. Great Western Railway Company, 1876, 1 Q. B. D. 533.

BAR-fLETT v. smith. Exch. of Pleas. May 10, 1843.-Where the admissibility of a bill of exbhange, purporting to be a foreign bill, and stamped accordingly, waa objected to on the ground that, though it purported to be drawn abroad, it waa in fact an inland bill, drawn in London, and evidence was offerer! to prove that fact:-Held, that the Judge ought to have received the evidence in that stage of the cause, and decided upon the admissibility of the instrument, and not to have received the evidence afterwards, as part of the defendant's case, and submitted it to the jury. [S. C. 12 L. J. Ex. 287 ; 7 Jur. 448. Keferred to, Harris v. Great Western Railway Ctmpany, 1876, 1 Q. B. D. 533.] Assumpsit by the indorsee against the drawer of a bill of exchange. The declaration .stated, that the defendants, on &c., made their certain bill of exchange in writing, and directed the same to Mr. John E. Butcher, Dublin, and thereby required the said J. E_ Butcher to pay to the order of the defendants, in London, the sum of 17. It then alleged the indorsement of the hill to the plaintiffs. [484] The defendant, by his pleas, denied the drawing and indorsement. At the trial before the undersheriff of Middlesex, the bill, when produced, appeared to be drawn in Dublin, payable in London, and was stamped as a foreign bill. On 896 BARTLETT V. SMITH 11 M. & W. 485. the plaintiff's counsel proposing to read it in evidence, the defendant's counsel objected, on the ground that, although the hill purported to be drawn in Dublin, it was in fact drawn in London, and being therefore an inland bill, required a higher stamp ; and proposed to give evidence of that fact. The undersheriff however said, that as the bill was not objectionable on the face of it, he should allow the case to proceed; on which the defendant's counsel addressed the jury, and afterwards adduced evidence to shew that at the time the bill bore date, the drawer was in London : whereupon the undersheriff left it to the jury to say whether the bill was drawn in London or Dublin, but reserved leave to the defendants to move to enter a nonsuit, if this Court should think he ought to have received the evidence in the first instance, and to have decided upon it. The jury having found a verdict for the plaintiff, E. V. Richards, on a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • The State v Treanor and Others
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal (Irish Free State)
    • 2 September 1924
    ...note (1), on p. 195, ante. (1) [1914] A. C. 599. (2) 11 Exch. 360. (3) 2 Lew. C. C. 227. (4) 7 C. & P. 776. (5) [1918] 1 K. B. 531. (6) 11 M. & W. 483. (7) Moo. & M. 196. (8) Under sect. 28 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (cited in note (1), ante, p. 194), provision is made for only one ......
  • State v Gobin; State v Griffith
    • Guyana
    • Court of Appeal (Guyana)
    • 31 March 1976
  • DPP v Conroy
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 31 July 1986
    ...DPP V AINSCOUGH 1960 IR 136 CHAN WEI-KUNG V R 1967 2 AC 160, 1967 2 WLR 352, 1967 1 AER 948 DPP V MCGLYNN 1967 IR 232 BARTLETT V SMITH 11 M&W 483 JONES V FORT 1828 MOO&M 196 BOYLE V WISEMAN 11 EX 360 R V MURRAY 1951 KB 391 MINTER V PRIEST 1930 AC 588, 1929 1 KB 655, 1930 AER 431 SPARKS V ......
  • R v Mushtaq (Ashfaq Ahmed)
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 21 April 2005
    ...and not the jury, must determine disputed facts relating to the question whether a statement can be taken into account as evidence. In Bartlett v Smith (1843) 11 M&W 483, 486 Alderson B said: "Where a question arises as to the admissibility of evidence, the facts upon which its admissibilit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Preliminarily Guilty? Reflexive Confrontation Forfeiture
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 50, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...Carpenters v. Hayward (1780) 99 Eng. Rep. 241, 242; 1 Douglas 374, 375; see also Bartlett v. Smith, (1843) 152 Eng. Rep. 895, 896-97, 11 Meeson & Welsby 483, 485-86 (later summarizing the orthodox view adopted in 58. Samuel Phillipps, A Treatise of the Law of Evidence 13-14 (John Dunlap ed.......
  • Subject Index
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 12-4, November 2008
    • 1 November 2008
    ...Admission of ‘Variant A&B Document’,22 May2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 20Bartlett v Smith (1843) 11 M & W 483, 152 ER 895. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .280Bater vBater [1951] P35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342Bla......

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