George Hamilton Whateley against Henry Crowter Charles Hallowell Hallowell Carew against Daniel Davies, Henry Daniel Davies, John Thomas Campbell and Thomas Hard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 1855 |
| Date | 26 November 1855 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 645
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 25 L. J. Q. B. 163; 2 Jur. N. S. 207. Referred to, Hill v. Campbell, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 234; Saunders v. Jones, 1877, 7 Ch. D. 445.
george hamilton whateley against henry crowter. charles hallowell hallo.well cakew against daniel davies, henry daniel davies, john thomas campbell and thomas hard. Thursday, November 26th, 1855, Under The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Viet. c. 125), sect. 51, interrogatories, the answers to which may be reasonably expected to procure a discovery of what will advance the interrogating party's case, are legitimate; and it is not an objection that the answers may be expected at the same time to disclose the interrogated party's case. Aliter if the answers may reasonably be expected to relate exclusively to the case of the interrogated party. [S. C. 25 L. J. Q. B. 163; 2 Jur. N. S. 207. .Referred to, Hill v. Campbell, 1875, L. it. 10 C. P. 234 -^Saunders v. Jones, 1877, 7 Ch. D. 445.] In each of the above cases the respective plaintiffs had, on summons before Erie J. at Chambers, applied for leave to deliver interrogatories to the respective defendants; and iu each case Erie J., entertaining doubts whether the proposed interrogatories were such as to be proper under The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Viet. c. 125), s. 51, referred the parties to the Court. Whateley v. Croneter was an action for negligence against a land surveyor, employed to estimate the value of an estate on mortgage of which the plaintiff was about to advance money. The proposed interrogatories were nineteen in number. One was 646 WHATELEY V. CROWTER 5 BL * BL. 710. in the following terms: "Did you take any, and what, steps to ascertain the amount of the different rents payable by the respective tenants of the said estates for the premises in their respective occupations?" Carets v. Davies was an action against attorneys for negligence in the conduct of the defence in an action at law on two bonds, and of a suit in equity for relief against [710] the same bonds. The interrogatories proposed were fifty-six in number. One was in the following terms: " Did you ever and when make any and what inquiry, and of whom, concerning the circumstances under which the bonds were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v Lane
...698), that the same rules are applicable to interrogatories as to the examination of a witness at Nisi Prius But in Whateley v. Crawler (5 E. & B. 709), Lord Campbell expressly disapproves that dictum. At Nisi Prius it is undoubtedly true that a witness cannot refuse to be sworn on the grou......
-
Lensing v Kimberley Munisipaliteit
...op bl. 150; R. v. Lusu, 1953 (2) S.A. 484 (A.A.) op bl. 489; McCallum & Stevens (Pty.) Ltd. v. Parow Municipality, 1972 (3) S.A. 706 (K) op bl. 709. Daar kan ook verwys word na S. v. O'Malley and H Another, 1976 (1) S.A. 469 (N) op bl. 475A-F. Na my mening hang dit van die omstandighede van......
-
S v Nxane
...bl. 667; S. v Zungo, 1966 (1) SA 268 (N) op bl. 270; S. v Foley, 1968 (1) SA 694 (T) op bl. 659 - 697; G S. v Mchunu, 1974 (1) SA 708 (N) op bl. 709. Die bevoegdheid deur art. 108 (1) aan landdroshowe verleen om opsetlik minagtende gedrag summier te straf is slegs 'n wetteregtelike oordrag ......
-
S v Nxane
...bl. 667; S. v Zungo, 1966 (1) SA 268 (N) op bl. 270; S. v Foley, 1968 (1) SA 694 (T) op bl. 659 - 697; G S. v Mchunu, 1974 (1) SA 708 (N) op bl. 709. Die bevoegdheid deur art. 108 (1) aan landdroshowe verleen om opsetlik minagtende gedrag summier te straf is slegs 'n wetteregtelike oordrag ......