Doe d. Marriott v Edwards and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 January 1834 |
| Date | 21 January 1834 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 174 E.R. 109
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, AND EXCHEQUER, AND ON THE NORTHERN AND WESTERN CIRCUITS.
S. C. 6 C. & P. 208. Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 5 B & Ad. 1065.
Westminster, Jan. 21, 1834. doe d. marriott v. edwards and others. (Allegation that premises were situate in the parish of A & B ; proof that pait of file premises was situate in the parish of A. and the residue m the parish of B. : Held, a fatal variance Amendments under the stat 3 & 4 Will. IV c. 42, a. 23, will not be refused on the ground of the harshness of the action ) [S. C. 6 C. & P. 208. Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 5 B & Ad. 1065.] Ejectment to recover possession of certain houses described to be in the parish of St. Margaret and St. John. [320] Barstow for the defendant objected that there was no parish of that name, but that there were two parishes, one St. Margaret and the other St John, which were only united for one special purpose, viz. the management of the poor , and that, consequently, this was a variance Goodtitle v Lammerman (2 Campb 274). Gale for the plaintiff contended that the description was divisible, and might be construed as importing that some of the houses were iti the parish of St Margaret and others in the parish of St John It was therefore enough if the lessor of the plaintiff could shew his right to recover premises in either parish Parke J. It appears to me there is a variance Had the allegation been that the houses were in the " parishes " of St Margaret and St John, I should have thought the argument good in favour of the divisibility of such allegation ; but here the plaintiff haa mentioned only one parish, and that by a name which does not belong to aqy parish. Gale then applied for leave to amend the description, under the recent stat. 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 42, a. 23. Barstow opposed the application It was discretionary with the Judge to grant or to refuse it ; and as it appeared in evidence that this was a harsh and oppressive (a)1 Rowland v Ashby, B. & M N P C 231 ; R v. Reid, M & M 403, li S Evidence, 572 ; R. v. Earns, Moody's C. C. R. 338. (a)3 Carpenter v. Jonet,, M. & M. N. P. C. 198, n. ; Wright v PauUtt,, R & M. N f U. 128. 110 SWINBTTRN V...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cambie v Barry
...Hemming v. ParryENR 6 Car. & P. 580. Gladwell v. Steggall 8 Scott, 61. Masterman v. JudsonENR 8 Bing. 224. Doe d. Marriot v. EdwardsENR 1 M. & Rob. 319. Jelf v. OrielENR 4 Car. & P. 22. Perry v. WattsUNK 4 Scott, N. R. 366. Parry v. Fairhaust 2 Cr. Mee. & Rosc. 195. John v. CurrieENR 6 Car.......