Brittain v Kinnaird and Longley, Esqrs
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 July 1819 |
| Date | 08 July 1819 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 874
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 1 Brod. & B. 432
[164] Adjourned Sittings at Westminster. Thursday, July 8th, 1819. brittain v. kinnaird and lonoley, esqrs. (A conviction by a magistrate, on a subject-matter over which he has jurisdiction, is, in an action against him, conclusive evidence of the facts contained in it.) [Subsequent proceedings with annotations, I Brod & B 432 ] Trespass for seizing and taking possession of a certain vessel called the " Phoenix," and detaining the same, together with certain casks of gunpowder Plea, not guilty It appeared in evidence that the vessel in question, which had been seized by the defendants in their character of magistrates, under the statute 2 Ueo III c 28, s 5 (a), was a decked sailing yacht [165] of the burthen of fifteen tons The plaintiff's counsel were about to shew, that this could not be denominated a boat within the meaning of the statute, when Copley, Serjt., for the defendants, objected to such evidence, as being inadmissible He contended, that as the conviction remained ummpeachecl, that alone was conclusive as to the fact. The question before the magistrates was, whether or not the * So where a declaration described a bill of exchange as having been drawn upon and accepted by three persons, and it was proved to have been directed to and accepted by a fourth party also, who was dead ; it was held that this was no variance. Mountstephen v Brooke, [ Baruew. arid Aid 224. And if one of two acceptors of a bill be an infant, [163] the holder may without a departure, and indeed it is proper for him to declare on the bill as having been accepted by the adult only, in the names of both ; and, in the event of the defendant pleading in abatement that the other acceptor ought also to have been sued, the plaintiff may reply his infancy. Butgess v. Merrill, 4 Taunt. 468. See the note to Cabell v. Vaughan, 1 Wins Saund. 291, b. where most of the law on this subject is collected by the learned editor of those reports. (a) 2 Geo. Ill c. 28, s. 5, " And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that it shall and may be lawful for the said master, wardens, and assistants, or such person or persons as they shall from time to time depute and appoint under the seal of their corporation, and for all owners or masters of ships or vessels either in whole or in part in the said river respectively...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brittain v Kinnaird and Another
...Citation: 129 E.R. 789 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS Brittain and Kinnaird and Another S. C. 4 Moore, 50; at Nisi Prius, Gow, N. P. 164. Referred to, Foster v. Dodd, 1867, L. R. 3 Q. B. 76. Adopted, Usill v. Hales, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 324. Referred to, Huxley v. West London Ex......