Doe on the demise of Lawrence and Others against Shawcross
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1825 |
| Date | 01 January 1825 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 912
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 D.& R. 711. Adopted, Cotesworth v. Spokes, 1861, 10 C. B. N. S. 111.
[752] DOE ON THE DEMISE OF LAWRENCE AND OTHERS against SHAWCROSS. 1825. .By 4 G. 2, c. 28, s. 2, it is enacted that in all cases between landlord and tenant, as often as it shall happen that one half year's rent shall be in arrear, and the landlord or lessor to whom the same is due hath right by law to re-enter for the nonpayment thereof, such landlord or lessor shall and may, without any formal demand or re-entry, serve a declaration in ejectment for the recovery of the (a) In Bull. N. P. 297, the rule as to the right of a party to contradict his own witness is thus laid down. " A party never shall be permitted to produce general evidence to discredit his own witness;" and the reason of the rule follows, " for that would be to enable him to destroy the witness if he spoke against him, and to make him a good witness if he spoke for him, [752] with the means in his hands of destroying his credit if he spoke against him." The expression "general evidence" in the rule itself, seems to imply that a party may discredit his own witness by evidence of particular facts, ex. gr. as in the present case, by shewing that he has on a former occasion given on oath a different account of the transaction. But the reason of the rule extends to the exclusion of all evidence which is offered, merely for the purpose of discrediting the witness, and which would not have been otherwise admissible, because not tending to prove or disprove the issue joined. And this construction is fortified by the passage in Bull. N. P. which next follows, and explains the rule above cited. "But if a witness prove facts in a cause which make against the party who called him, yet the party may call other witnesses to prove that those facts were otherwise ; for such facts are evidence in the cause, and the other witnesses are not called directly to discredit the first witness, but the impeachment of his credit is incidental and consequential only." In the present case, the answer in Chancery of S. Baker was not evidence of any fact in the cause; it would seem therefore that it was not admissible for the purpose of contradicting him. SB. &C.753. DOE V. SHAWCROSS 913 demised premises, which service shall stand in the place and stead of a demand and re-entry: Held, that by this statute the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lessee Delap v Leonard
...3 Bing. 361. Rawlins'caseUNK 4 Rep. 52. Jackson V. Jackson 2 Law Rec. N. S. 36, and n. Eyston V. Studel Plowd. 465. Doe V. ShawcrossENR 3 B. & C. 752. Jack V. Home 1 Jebb. & S. 424. CASES AT LAW. 287 assignment in this case, the justification there covered only part of the cause of action-t......
-
Manser v Dix
...in ejectment under 4 Geo. II. c. 28, s. 2; 1 Wms. Saund. (page 287) ; Woodfall's Land, and Ten. (page 274 (7th ed.)) ; Doe v. Shawcross (3 B. & C. 752); Doe v. Knmoles (8 Jur. 19). Then as to the other point, it is no doubt more convenient for a trustee to be at liberty to sell property sub......
-
Le Clerc v Greene
...of error, the writ was held good and the fine reversed against the infant only : Pigot and Harrington's Case (9). The lessor's taking (1) 3 B. & C. 752. (2) 1 A. & E. 49. (3) Fl. & Kelly, 408. (4) 1 I. E. R. 21. (5) 2 B. & Beat. 164. (6) 2 H. & Br. 156. (7) Cro. El. 115. (8) 1 Str. 25, 33. ......
-
Cotesworth and Another v Spokes
...of the term, obtained a rule nisi. He referred to Brewer d. Lord Onxluw v. Eaton, 3 Dougl. 230, and Doe d. Luivrmce v. ^liuwc-ross, 3 B. & C. 752, 5D. &R. 711. The defendant shewed cause in person, contending that the distress was an acknowledgment by the lessors that the tenancy was still ......