Coulson v Disborough
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1894 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Practice - Evidence - Witness called by Judge - Cross-examination.
At the trial of an action the judge has power to call and examine a witness who has not been called by either of the parties, and, when he does so, neither party has a right to cross-examine the witness without the leave of the judge. If the evidence of the witness given in answer to questions put to him by the judge is adverse to either of the parties, leave should be given to that party to cross-examine the witness, upon his answers, but a general cross-examination ought not to be permitted.
MOTION by the plaintiff for judgment or a new trial of the action. At the trial by Bruce, J., with a jury, a verdict was found for the defendant.
The action was for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The plaintiff was a domestic servant, and she was engaged to be married to the son of the defendant. The defendant kept a public-house. The plaintiff was spending some hours one evening at the defendant's house, and while she was there the defendant charged her with stealing 1l. 4s. 6d. belonging to him. He said that the money had been taken out of a bag which was hanging up in the bar parlour, and that the coins which had been taken were marked. A police constable was sent for, and the plaintiff was taken to the police station, and was there searched. The sum of 19s. 3d. was found in her possession, and it consisted in part of three florins, which were marked. The plaintiff said that these florins had been given to her the same evening by the defendant's son in payment of a debt which he owed her. The plaintiff was tried for the alleged theft and was acquitted. The then brought this action. The defence was that the defendant had reasonable and probable cause for what he had done, and that he did not act maliciously. At the trial, after the witnesses on both sides had been examined, and counsel on both sides had addressed the jury, the jury expressed a wish that the defendant's son, who was in Court, but who had not been called by either party as a witness, should be called. The learned judge called him and asked him whether he had taken the money out of the bag, and whether he had given any money to the plaintiff on the evening in question. The son answered both questions in the negative. The plaintiff's counsel asked the judge to allow him to cross-examine the son; but the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cases referred to in 1965
...Ramsden (1943) A.C. 320. .......................................................... 116 CASES REFERRED TO IN 1965 Coulson v. Disborough (1894) 2 Q.B. 316 C.A. ............................................... 83 Croxford v. Universal Co. (1936) 2 K.B. 253, 281 ......................................
-
Courts 2
...called by either party in a civil case, laid down the law as follows: “There are two English cases on the point - Coulson v. Disborough (1894) 2 Q.B., 316, C.A. and In re Enock and Zareizky, Bock & Co.’s Arbitration’ (1910) 1 K.B. 327, C.A. The second comments on the first and the net resul......
-
Table of Cases
...Cordelia Mozie v. Francis Mbebie and Anor (1966) N.M.L.R. 167……………......…………..1702 Coulson v. Disborough (1894) 2 Q.B. 316, C.A……………………………….........…………….1707 Cristopher Onubogu v. The State (1974) 9 S.C. 1………………………………………........……1778 Cross River State Newspaper Corporation v. Oni (1995) 1......
-
In the Irish Courts
...u.Cliborn(62J.P.232)-althoughcross-examina-tionoughtto be allowed toanypartyadversely affected by suchevidence: seeCoulsonu.Disborough(1894, 2 Q.B. 316, 318).TheSupremeCourtinO'Connor'scase(supra),however, emphasisedthat"thepower in question is quite exceptionalandto be exercised onlyinthe ......