Folkes v Chadd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 November 1782 |
| Date | 21 November 1782 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 589
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
folkes, bart., v. chadd and others (a)2. Thursday, 21st Nov. 1782. In an action of trespass for cutting a bank, where the question is, whether the bank, which had been erected for the purpose of preventing the overflowing of the sea, had caused the choking up of a harbour, the opinions of scientific men, as to the effect of such an embankment upon the harbour, are admissible evidence; and evidence may also be given, that other harbours, similarly situated, where there are no embankments, have begun to be choked and filled up. The trustees for the preservation of Wells Harbour being of opinion, that a bank which had been erected above twenty years, for the purpose of preventing the sea overflowing some meadows which had descended to the plaintiff, contributed to the choking and filling up of that harbour, by stopping the back-water, threatened to cut it down, on which the plaintiff applied to the Court of Chancery for an injunction. That Court thereupon directed an action of trespass to be brought against the defendants for cutting the bank, directing the trespass to be admitted at the trial; and that the only point in dispute should be, whether the mischief which the bank did to the harbour was a justification for the cutting, that thus the merits of the question might be decided by a jury. The action was first tried at the last Lent Assizes for the county of Norfolk, when the evidence of a Mr. Milne, an engineer, was received, as to what, in his opinion, was the cause of the decay of the harbour, and to show that, in his judgment, the bank was not the occasion of it. The plaintiff, on that trial, obtained a verdict, and in Easter term last a new trial was granted, on the ground that the defendants were surprised by the doctrine and reasoning of Mr. Milne, and the parties were directed to print and deliver over to the opposite side the opinions and reasonings of the engineers whom they meant to produce on the next trial, so that both sides might be prepared to answer them. Accordingly they went to trial at the last [158] Summer Assizes, when the defendants offered evidence to show, that other harbours on the same coast, similarly situated, where there were no embankments, had begun to fill up and to be choked about the same time as Walla Harbour. They also called Mr. Smeaton, an eminent engineer, to show that, in his opinion, the bank was not the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat
-
Scott Hoyle v Julia Mary Rogers and Another Secretary of State for Transport (1st Intervener) International Air Transport Association (2nd Intervener)
...the use of a particular category of expert evidence. As the authors of Phipson observe, citing Lord Mansfield in Folkes v Chad (1782) 3 Doug 157: " even at common law the opinions of skilled witnesses were admissible wherever the subject is one upon which competency to form an opinion can o......
-
Kevin Brecani v R
...LJ put it in R v Turner [1975] QB 834 at 841 D to E: “The foundation for these rules was laid by Lord Mansfield in Folkes v Chard (1782) 3 Douglas KB 157 and was well laid. ‘The opinion of scientific men upon proven facts’ he said ‘may be given by men of science within their own science.’ ......
-
R v Turner (Terence)
...because of the rules relating to opinion evidence? 11 The foundation of these rules was laid by Lord Mansfield in Folkes v. Chadd (1782) 3 Douglas K.B. 157 and was well laid. "The opinion of scientific men upon proven facts", he said, "may be given by men of science within their own science......
-
Subject Index
...(Fam). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263Fitzgerald vDPP [2003] 3IR 247 . . . . . . . . . . . . 210Folkes v Chadd (1782) 3 Doug 157, 99 ER 589. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144Gall v Chief Constable of the West Midlands[2006]EWH......
-
Subject Index
...19525/92, 1995. .. 64Fitt v United Kingdom (2000) 30 EHRR480, [2000] Crim LR 586....... 109, 110, 117, 118, 122, 125, 126Folkes v Chadd (1782) 3 Doug 157 . 266Funke v France (1993) 16 EHRR 297.............................................. 37, 39, 42Gill and Goodwin v Chief Constable ofLanca......
-
A Historical Overview of the Mental Health Expert in England Until the Nineteenth Century
...to be noteworthy due to the expert witness giving a causation opinion, which required the expert to 69 Idem at 152.70 Folkes v Chadd (1782) 3 Doug KB 157, 99 ER 589. 71 The court in that case had to determine whether the position of an articial embankment had caused the silting up of the h......
-
A Historical Overview of the Mental Health Expert in England Until the Nineteenth Century
...to be noteworthy due to the expert witness giving a causation opinion, which required the expert to 69 Idem at 152.70 Folkes v Chadd (1782) 3 Doug KB 157, 99 ER 589. 71 The court in that case had to determine whether the position of an articial embankment had caused the silting up of the h......