Doe, on the demise of Pitt, v Hogg

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date27 February 1824
Date27 February 1824
CourtHigh Court

English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 1144

IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS

Doe, on the demise of Pitt
and
Hogg

S. C., with annotations, Ry & M. 36, sub nomine Doe d. Pitt v. Laming

[160] Feb. 27th, 1824 DOE, ON THE DEMISE OF PlTT, V HOGG (The depositing a lease in the hands of brewers, for money lent, is not within the meaning of a proviso for re-entry, winch is to take effect if the lessee, his executors &c. should " grant any underlease, or assign, transfer, and set over, or otherwise part with the lease or premises, without licence.") [S. C., with annotations, Ry & M. 36, sub nomine Doe d. Pitt v. Laming ] Ejectment to recover possession of the Grigsby's Cofiee-House, in consequence of the forfeiture of the lease under a proviso for re-entry, which was to take effect if the lessee, his executors, &c. should grant any underlease of the premises, or "alien, sell, assign, transfer, and set over, or otherwise part with the lease or premises, without the licence of the lessor." It appeared that the lessee, having occasion to borrow some money of Messrs Combe & Co. the brewers, deposited the lease in their hands, and Messrs Combe & (a) The case of Wilson v. Rastal, 4 T. R. 753, decides that confidential communications to counsel, attormes, and solicitors, in those capacities, are privileged But in Cobden v. Kendrick, 4 T. R 431, the Court say, that the difference is, whether the communication were made by the client to his attorney in confidence, as instructions for conducting his cause, or gratis dictum. If it was not the former, the communication is admissible in evidence In Rex v. Withers, 2 Camp 578, it was ruled by Lord Eltenborough, that if a party who is assaulted go to an attorney to consult him on it, such attorney cannot be allowed to give evidence of that communication on an indictment for that assault, to shew that the prosecutor gave a different account of the transaction. In Fountain & Another v. Young, 6 Esp. 113, a party had sent for the witness, supposing him to be an attorney, and made a confidential communication to him as such. The witness was really clerk of the papers in Newgate , but had formerly been clerk to an attorney. Mansfield, C. J. held, that the privilege was only as to attormes, and that no such privilege extended to persons situated as the witness was. In De Barre v. Livette, Peake, N. P. C. 77, Lord Kenyon held...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Duppa, Executor of Baskervile, v Mayo
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1845
    ...the lease with a creditor, as a security for the payment of money advanced, was no forfeiture. 4 D. & R. 226, Doe v. Hogg. R. & Moo. 36. 1 C. & P. 160, S. C.} (d) [Sec also 1 Camp. 20, Doe v. Wwsl&y. 12 Ves. 395, G-reenaway v. Adamx. 15 Ves, 265, Church v. Brown.] So where the tenant holdin......
  • M'Kay v M'Nally
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 27 March 1879
    ...C. B., and DEASY, L. J. M'KAY and M'NALLY Blencowe v. Bugby 2 Sir Wm. Blackst. 766. Goodbehere v. BevanENR 3 M. & S. 353. Pitt v. HoggENR 1 C. & P. 160; S. C. 4 Dowl. & Ry. 226. Kennard v. FutvoyeENR 2 Giff. 81. Ex parte Domvile, in re Fowler 14 Ir. Ch. R. 21. Malone v. MinoughanUNK 14 Ir. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT