Berridge and Another Ward
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1860 |
| Date | 01 January 1860 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 1026
QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
[208] Maidstone Summer Assizes, 1860, coram Cockburn, C. J. berridge and another v ward (In an action for laying obstructions on an alleged roadway in front of the plaintiff's land, so as to prevent his access to it, except from an old gateway :-Held, that (a) There was therefore, strictly speaking, no evidence that the boy had been guilty of any obstinacy at all, save the prisoner's own letter ; which would not have been evidence in his own favour However, the prosecutor having only made a charge of manslaughter, of course it did not become material to dispute that there was lawful cause for punishment; and therefore the prisoner's letter, so representing, was put in, and it was taken that his statements therein made were true. It is necessary to notice this, lest it should be supposed that excessive beating, resulting in death, without evidence of lawful cause or excuse, had been held merely manslaughter It was taken as if there had been lawful cause. (6) That is (as the context implies), at least manslaughter. Vide supra, et vide post. (c) That is, at least guilty of manslaughter. The language of the C J. implied that, on another charge, the question, whether the prisoner went on beating until the boy died, might be material (d) The instrument, being in its own nature not unfit, the mere size or weight might be for the jury. But if it had been in its own kind and nature utterly unfit- as, if it had been the poker-it would have been for the Court as a matter of law. 2 P. &F. 209. BERRIDGE V. WARD 1027 the question was whether the way was a public highway or merely a private way , for, in the former case, the plaintiff would be entitled to free access to it from any part of his land, and there being strong evidence of ancient user by the public : Held, that mere temporary acts of obstruction by the owner of the adjoining land would not be material, as they would have been if the right were vested merely on modern dedication ) [Referred to : Crossley v. Lightowler, L R 3 Eq 279 ; Mtcklethwatt v. Newlay Bridge Co., 33 Ch. D 133 ; Pryor v Petre (1894), 2 Ch 11 ] Trespass for entering the plaintiff's land and digging Second, third and fourth counts : for digging on a piece of land over which the plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to a right of way, either public or private, on foot or with horses, &c., so as to obstruct such way. Pleas...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berridge and Another v Ward
...OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER Berridge and Another and Ward S. C. 30 L. J. C. P. 218; 7 Jur. N. S. 876: at Nisi Prius, 2 F. & F. 208. See Crossley v. Lightowler, 1866-67, L. R. 3 Eq. 295; L. R. 2 Ch. 478. Distinguished, Landrock v. Metropolitan District Railway Company, 1886,......