Combert v KIlminster
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1865 |
| Date | 01 January 1865 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 176 E.R. 659
COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Combert
and
KIlminster
coram iLirtm, B COBBETT V KlLMI^STER (The question being whether a memorandum was in the handwutiug of the defendant, and he having, in the course of cioss-examination been got to \v nte something on a piece of paper, this was allowed to be shown to the juty, f n the pui-pose of comparison of handwriting, under the Common Law Procedure Act, 1864, sec 26 ) Action for money lent Plea-never indebted Henry James for the plaintiff Pearce for the defendant. The case for the plaintiff was that bhe had lent the defendant, at vuuous times, sums of money amounting to 60? , the money being advanced in notes, and the defendant endorsing the numbei of the note upon a papei containing a memorandum of the amounts And such a paper was produced by the plaintiff in support ot her evidence This was altogether denied...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
1 cases
-
Evans v The Queen
...Holt 194 [ 90 ER 1006]; Doe d Devine v Wilson (1855) 10 Moo PC 502 at 530 [ 14 ER 581 at 592]; Cobbett v Kilminster (1865) 4 F & F 490 [ 176 ER 659]; R v Whittaker [1924] 3 DLR 154R v Burles [1964] Tas SR 256 at 257. 155R v Fernandes (1996) 133 FLR 477 at 482–484. 156People v Hayes 818 NE 2......
2 books & journal articles
-
Cases referred to in 1963
...468 5 Carr 40 Cr.App. R 188 259 Carr-Briant (1943) 1 K.B. 607 48 Challender v. Royle (1887) 36 Ch. De 425, 436. 316 Cobbett v. Kilminster 4 F. & F. 490; 176 E.R. 659. 16 Cole v. Akinyele 5 F S C 84 145 Conway v. George Wimpey & Co. Ltd. (1951) 2 K.B. 266. 145 Conway v. George Wimpey & Co. L......
-
JOBI V. OSHILAJA
...TO IN JUDGMENT: 1. R. v. Wilcox (1961) All N.L.R. 631. 2. Cresswell v. Jackson 2 F. & F. 24; 175 E.R. 942. 3. Cobbett v. Klminster 4 F. & F. 490; 176 E.R. 659. 4. R. v. Tilley (1961) 1 W.L.R. 1309. 5. R. v. Appea 13 W.A.C.A. 143. D. 0. Coker for the Appellant. M. 0. Oseni for the Respondent......