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.
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 by the defendant, ^ho, being called as ^itnes^ denied that he had ever borrowed any such sums of the plaintiff, and of course denied the handwriting on the memorandum to be his. Henry James, in the course of his cross-examination of the defendant, got him to write on a piece of paper a certain date, containing several of the figures ot one of the memorandums the handwutmg of which he denied to be his, and boon afterwards he desired to hand this paper to the jury for the purpose ot comparison with the paper containing the memorandum, and with a view to show that the handwriting of the latter was that of the defendant Martin, B , said this was in his experience quite novel, and he doubted if it could he done H James reminded him of the provision in the Common Law Procedure Act 1854, sec 26, as to the admissibdity of any document proved to be genuine, toi the purpose of comparison of handwriting , and he contended that the paper now written on by the plaintiff was a document [491] proved to be genuine, and so admissible within the scope and meaning of that enactment (a) Martin, B , upon that said he could not exclude the document for that purpose [492] The paper was accordingly allowed to be sho\\n to the jury, and as the result they found a Verdict for the plaintiff. (a) Before the Act documents not in evidence and not admissible...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
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......
-
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......