Dean v Taylor
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 April 1855 |
| Date | 18 April 1855 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 748
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
Disapproved, Rimmer v. Rimmer, 1867, 6 L. T. 238.
dean u. TAYLOR. April 18, 1855-In an action of assault and battery, to which the defendant pleads the plea given by the Common Law Procedure Act, 185'J (15 & 16 Victx c. 76, Sched. B.), that "the plaintiff first assaulted the defendant, who thereupon necessarily committed the alleged assault in his own defence," the plaintiff may, under the general form of replication joining issue on the plea, and without replying excess, shew that, although he struck the first blow, the defendant was guilty of excess. [Disapproved, Rimrn&r v. Rimmer, 1867, 16 L. T. 238.] The declaration stated that the defendant assaulted the plamtift', and with a thick stick struck the plaintiff on the head with great violence and felled the plaintiff to the ground, and then seized the plaintiff while he lay on the ground by the hair of the head, and with his fist struck the plaintiff on the head and face, and then beat, bruised^ dragged, and pulled about the plaintiff, whereby the right shoulder-bone of the plaintiff was broken, and the plaintiff became and was for a long time insensible, and waa after-[69Jwards for a long time sick, sore, and disordered, and was thereby prevented from attending to his ordinary business or calling , and was thereby obliged and did subject himself to liability for expenses in obtaining medical assistance to cure him of the said injuries. Pleas, first, not guilty, secondly, " that the plaintiff first assaulted him the defendant, who thereupon necessarily did what is complained of in his own defence." The plaintiff " joined issue " on each of these pleas At the trial, before Parke, B., at the last York Assizes, it appeared that the action was brought to recover compensation for a severe injury which the plaintiff had sustained from, an assault upon him by the defendant On the part of the defendant it was contended, that the plaintiff had, in the first instance, assaulted the defendant, and that if the plaintiff relied upon excess, he should have replied it. The learned Judge left it to the jury to say which of the parties had struck the first blow, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shepherd v Hills
...points. (a) See Gooily v Penny, 9 M & W. 6S7 , Anonymous, 6 Mod. 627 ; Mayor of Swansea \. Ho/Ltii^, 8 M & W. 901. 748 DEAN I'. TAYLOR 11 EX. 68. wittin the description of " fishermen " A fishing vessel is a vessel from which persons fish either with a hue or net, and not a vessel meiely us......
-
KEANEY v TOTTENHAM and Mƒ€™GOWAN
...11 East, 451. Freeman v. CraftsENR 4 M. & W.4. Hall v. Middleton 4 A. & E. 107. Cocker v. CromptonENR 1 B. & C. 489. Dean v. TaylorENR 11 Exch. 68. Cheasley v. BarnesENR 10 East, 80. Rogers v. Spence 12 Cl. & F. 719. Atkinson v. MattesonENR 2 T. R. 172. Oakley v. DavisENR 16 East, 82, 86. M......
-
Derrys and Wife v Byrne
...Bench DERRYS and Wife and BYRNE. Dean v. TaylorENR 11 Exch. 68. v. SanfordIR 4 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 426. Noden v. JohnsonUNK 16 Q. B. 218; S. C., 15 Jur. 424. v. Sanford Supra. Weatherill v. HowardENR 10 Moore, 502. Ruckley v. KiernanIR 7 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 75, 79. 302 COMMON LAW REPORTS. M. T.......