Beaumont and Wife against Field

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date23 January 1818
Date23 January 1818
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 91

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

Beaumont and Wife against Field. 1

beaumont and wife against field (a). Friday, Jan. 23d, 1818. Where a deed purported to grant all the coal-mines in the lands in the occupation of Widow K. and son, and the grantor had not at that time any lands in the occupation of Widow K. and son ; and the deed was founded upon a contract of sale executed some months before, to which the grantqr's land steward was the subscribing witness: Held that, for the purpose of explaining the latent ambiguity in the deed, letters written by the latter to the grantees, respecting the sale to them by the grantor of the coal mines in the deed, and purporting to be written by his directions, were admissible evidence, without shewing an express authority from the grantor to write them. Trespass for breaking and entering coal-mines. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before the Lord Chief Baron at the last assizes for the county of York, it appeared that the mine where the trespass was alleged to have been committed before July, 1790, was the property of Sir Thomas Blaekett, and formed part of what was called his Wibsey estate. The plaintiffs, as his devisees, now claimed the same : the defen- made falsely and without reasonable or probable cause? In other cases of injuries arising out of the improper use of criminal or civil proceedings, the party complaining is bound to allege and prove that the prosecution or action was instituted against him maliciously, and without reasonable or probable cause; and in Johnstone v. Sutton, 1 T. R. 544, 545, it is laid down that that is the essential ground of any action for a false, malicious, and defamatory charge, made in a legal prosecution. The burden of proving the want of reasonable or probable cause is thus thrown upon the party complaining, the law considering the circumstance of the Act having been done under the sanction of legal proceedings, as primfi, facie evidence that it was done for sufficient cause, and upon proper motives. In the case of an action for a malicious arrest, the issuing of the writ is the only circumstance from which such a presumption arises; with how much greater force does the principle apply to a case where the party, having proceeded through the intermediate steps of the cause, has arrived at his trial, and is in the act of addressing the jury, in the presence of the Judge, by whom he may be restrained in the use of any irrelevant matter; and in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Kennedy v Hilliard (1859)
    • Ireland
    • Unspecified Court
    • 11 June 1859
    ...Jac. 90. Hodgson v. ScarlettENR 1 B. & Ald. 232. Anonymous caseUNK 4 Mad. 252. Williams v. DouglasENR 5 beav. 82. Hodgson v. ScarlettENR 1 B. & Ald. 247. Flint v. PikeENR 1 B. & C. 473. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 195 evidence, tending, however (differing in that respect from the inforÂmation befor......
  • Re Carter's Trusts
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 31 May 1869
    ...152. Bath and Montague's Case 3 Cases in Ch. 55. Bailey v. LloydENR 5 Russ. 344. Barratt v. WyattENR 30 Beav. 442. Beaumont v. FieldENR 1 B. & Ald. 247. Walsh v. Trevanion 15 Q. B. 733. Brooke v. HaymesELR L. R. 6 Eq. 25. Breadalbane v. Chandos 2 Myl. & Cr. 711. Kennedy v. BrounENR 33 Beav.......

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