Charles Frederick, Baron de Rutzen, and Mary Dorothea, his Wife, against Farr
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1835 |
| Date | 01 January 1835 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 707
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. c. 5 N. & M. 617; 1 H. & W. 735; 5 L. J. K. B. 38.
[53] charles frederick, baron de rutzen, and mahy dorothea, his Wife, against fahr. 1835. Accounts of rent, signed by a person, styling himself clerk to a steward, but not shewn to have been employed by such steward, otherwise than by the accounts themselves, are not evidence, after the decease of both, to prove the receipt, either by the clerk or the steward, of sums of money therein mentioned (a)1. Where improper evidence is received, and a verdict given for the party adducing it, the Court will grant a new trial, although there be other evidence to the same point in favour of the same party; unless they see clearly that the improper evidence could not have weighed with the jury, or that the verdict, if given the other way, would have been set aside as against evidence. [S. C. 5 N. & M. 617; 1 H. & W. 735; 5 L. J. K. B. 38.] Debt. The first count was for tolls and duties, due and payable to the Baron and Baroness de Rutzen, in respect of divers cattle, goods, and merchandizes brought for sale into a fair or market, belonging to the plaintiffs in right of the Baroness de Rutzen, holden at Narberth in Pembrokeshire. There was a second count for tolls and duties (not mentioning on what articles,) due and payable to the plaintiffs as owners of the fair and market, in the same right. Plea, nil debet. On the trial before Gurney B. at the Haverfordwest Spring Assizes, 1834, the plaintiffs claimed the fair and market under a grant from James 2 (dated Nov. 17th, 4 Ja. 2), to Sir John Barlow, Knight and Baronet, from whom they claimed to deduce title to an eatate, called the Slebech estate, including the fair and market, by different assignments. Among other proofs, a lease of the tolls of the market by Ann Trevanion, through whom title was made, to John Bateman, for lives, at a specified rent, was produced ; and a rental of the Slebech eatate was also put in, in the handwriting of Gilbert James, a deceased steward of Ann Trevanion, in which he debited himself with the receipt of different payments of the rents reserved on this lease; and there was also [54] put in a rental, in the hand-writing of John Protheroe, a deceased clerk of Gilbert James, in which also Gilbert James was debited with the receipt of certain payments of these rents. It was proved...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weiss v R
...ER 1353 at 1359]. 14Wright v Doe dem Tatham (1837) 7 A & E 313 at 330 per Lord Denman CJ [ 112 ER 488 at 495]; cf de Rutzen v Farr (1835) 4 A & E 53 at 56–57 [ 111 ER 707 at 708]. 15 [1896] AC 44 at 52. 16 (1887) 18 QBD 537 at 540–541. 17 R v Grills (1910) 11 CLR 400 at 409 per Griffith ......
-
Doe on the Several Demises of Rowlandson, Assignee of Margaret Williams an Insolvent Debtor, of Margaret Williams, and of Jeremiah Williams, against Wainwright and Ledgerwood
...slight its effect may be, the rejection of any evidence bearing on the issue, entitles the defendant to a new trial; De Rutzen v. Farr (4 A. & E. 53), Crease v. Barrett (b). [Cresswell. As to Woolway v. Emae (1 A. & E. 114), the party making the declaration there was identified in interest ......
-
The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Exeter against Warren
...admissible as an account recognised by Burnett, by which recognition Burnett discharges Widger and charges himself. In De Eutzen v. Fair (4 A. & E. 53), the accounts of rent received were not (as tha Court understood the facts) in any way connected with the steward : they purported to state......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Lydeard St. Lawrence
...that."-S. See, on this last point, as to a trial at Nisi Prius, Crease v. Barrett, 1 C. M. & E. 919; S. C. 5 Tyrwh. 458; De Rutzen v. Fan, 4 A. & E. 53; Wright v. Doe dem. Tatham, 7 A. & E. 313. In Bex v. Luffe, 8 East, 193, in the case of an order of filiation, where it was objected that t......