Duke of Dorset v Serjeant Girdler
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1720 |
| Date | 01 January 1720 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 238
Chancery Division
Case 328.-Duke of dorset versus Serjeant girdler. [1720.] 2 Eq. Abr. 181, 2, S. C. ; 1 Rolls Abr. 383 ; 1 Vern. 308 ; 1 Atk. 282, 283, 571 ; 2 Atk. 392. A man who is in possession of a fishery, may bring a bill to examine his witnesses in perpetuam rei memoriam. and establish his right, though he has not recovered in affirmance of it at law ; secus, if he is not in possession. This was a bill brought for a commission to examine his witnesses in perpetuam rei memoriam, to establish his sole right of fishery; and it was suggested in the bill, that the defendant pretended a sole right of fishery, and threatened to bring actions, and disturb the plaintiff when all his witnesses should be dead. To this bill the defendant demurred, for that the plaintiff had not verified his title at law, and therefore had no right to bring his bill in the first instance ; but the demurrer was over-ruled, and this difference was taken and agreed to by the court : That if one is out of possession, having only right to fishery common rent-charge, he who brings such bill ought never to be allowed to do so, but a demurrer to it will be good, because he may and ought first to enter his action, and establish his title at law, otherwise publication not being to pass till after the death of the witnesses (as in those cases it never does without special order of the court), they may be guilty of the grossest perjury, and yet go unpunished ; besides that, the party having a remedy at law, the other side ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of confronting the witnesses, and examining them publicly, which has [532] always been found the most effectual method for discovering of the truth. But if a man is in actual possession, and is only threatened with disturbances by another who pretends a right, he has no other way in the world to perpetuate the testimony of his witnesses but by such a bill as this is, for not being actually interrupted or disturbed, he can bring no action at law ; and in such case, if this demurrer should be allowed, there is an end of all bills to perpetuate the testimony of witnesses to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Al-Rawi & others v The Security Service & others
...the Court of the Star Chamber, had been effectively established during the 17 th century. He relied in particular on a civil case, Duke of Dorset v Girdler (1720) Prec Ch 531, 532. In the following paragraph, he identified a couple of common law exceptions to the right, namely “dying declar......
-
R v Davis (Iain); R v Ellis; R v Gregory; R v Simms; R v Martin
...the procedure of treason trials into line with that required at common law. Thus, in 1720, in a civil case, the court declared in Duke of Dorset v Girdler (1720) Prec. Ch. 531-532, 24 ER 238, that "the other side ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of confronting the witnesses, and......
-
Al-Rawi & others v The Security Service & others
...this proposition were in the field of both criminal and civil law. Thus, for example, in 1720 in a civil case the court declared in Duke of Dorset v Girdler (1720) Prec Ch 531, 532 that "the other side ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of confronting the witnesses, and examining t......
-
R. v. Davis (I.), [2008] N.R. Uned. 233
...that required at common law. Thus, in 1720, in a civil case, the court declared in Duke of Dorset v. Girdler (1720) Prec. Ch. 531-532, 24 E.R. 238, that "the other side ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of confronting the witnesses, and examining them publicly, which has alwa......