Dartnall v Howard and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 December 1824 |
| Date | 23 December 1824 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 982
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 4 B. & C. 345.
Westminster, Dec. 23, 1824 dartnall v. howard and another. (An examined copy of an answer in Chancery, may be identified by a witness who has seen the hand-writing of the defendant to the original, although the original document is not produced at the time that he speaks to his belief of the defendant's signature to it) [Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 4 B. & C. 345.] Assumpsit. Plea, general issue The defendants had been employed by the plaintiff to lay out the sum of 1400 on annuity, and this action was brought to recover a compensation in damages, for their having laid out such money upon insufficient security In order to shew the defendants' admission of the insolvency of a surety in the annuity deed, the plaintiff proposed to read an examined copy of an answer in Chancery by the defendant Howard, to a bill filed against him previous to the granting of the present annuity, by persons not parties to the present action [170] In order to identify the original answer of which this purported to be an examined copy as the answer of this defendant, a witness was called who said he had examined this original answer, and that it was signed by the defendant, with whose hand-writing he was acquainted Gurney for the defendants contended, 1st, that an examined copy of an answer was not evidence in this case, but that the original should have been produced. 2dly, that the opinion of a witness as to the hand-writing of a person to a document which was not produced, could not be received Scarlett Since the case of Lady Dartmouth v Roberts, 16 East, 334, it is clearly settled that an examined copy of an answer in Chancery is admissible in evidence, although offered in a cause between different parties. The only excepted cases are forgery and perjury. As to the second objection, he contended that Hettnell v. Lyon, 1 B. & A 182, was an implied authority for putting such a question to establish...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Garvin, in Replevin, v James Carroll
...Locke v. Newenham 4 Law Rec. N. S. 155. Hennell v. LyonENR 1 B. & Ald. 182. Highfield v. Peake Mood. & Malk. 109. Dartnall v. HowardENR Ry. & Mood. 169. Davies v. Davies 9 Car. & Pay. 252. Dartmouth v. RobertsENR 16 East, 334. Ewer v. Ambrose and Baker 4 B. & Cress. 25. Cossey v. DiggonsENR......