Gibbons against Pepper
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 87 E.R. 469
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS, EXCHEQUER.
case 148. gibbons against peppek. In assault and battery, a plea that the defendant's horse took fright and run upon the plaintiff, is bad.-S. C. 2 Salk. 637. S. C. 1 Ld. Ray. 38. Assault and battery. The defendant pleaded, that he was riding on a horse in the highway, and that on a sudden fright the horse started and run upon the plaintiff, who continued in the way after he was called to go out, which was the same assault. [405] To this plea the plaintiff demurred. It was mored in behalf of the defendant, that what he had pleaded was a sufficient excuse ; for it waa no neglect in him, and the mischief done was inevitable. It is like the case of Weaver v. Ward (a), where in trespass, assault, and battery, the defendant pleaded, that he was a trained soldier, and that he and the plaintiff were under one captain, and in mustering he discharged his gun, which msualiter, et per infortunium, et contra voluntatem suam, did hurt the plaintiff; and it was there held, that if the defendant had pleaded that he could not have avoided it, or that the plaintiff had run across the gun when it was discharging, or had set forth the circumstances so that it might appear to the Court to be inevitable, that such a plea had been a sufficient justification. But it waa answered, that case was not parallel with this, because the fact was confessed there; but the battery is not answered here. He should have pleaded the commence a new action for his own expedition ; for that it had been objected that not returning the writ was a personal tort; but it does not appear that any judgment, or even opinion, was given in the case. (d) Hob. 206. 1 Ld. Ray. 40. (e) Noy, 87. Poph. 187. Latch, 167. Jones, 173. 1 Sid. 82. Wentworth's Off, of Ex. 94. (/) Wentworth's Off. of Ex. 98. Moor, 400. Cro. Eliz. 377. Latch, 168. 1 Lev. 193. (g) 1 Roll. Abr. 912. Cro. Car. 297. Latch, 168. Ld. Ray. 973. (/i) 1 Sid. 88, 407. 1 Vent. 30. 1 Salk. 314. 1 Com. Dig. 8vo, 344. (i) See Latch, 168. 1 And. 243. Jones, 174, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powles, one of the Public Officers of the Liverpool Banking Company, v Page
...and Knapp v. Salsbury, 2 Campb. 500, and Com. Dig. Pleader (3 M. 31), were cited. And see Gibbon v. Pepper, 2 Salk. 637, 1 Lord Eaym. 38, 4 Mod. 404; Smith v. Dobscm, 3 M. & G. 59, 62, n.; Webb v. Page, 6 M. & G. 196; Norton v. Schqfield, 9 M. & W. 665. 8 POWLES V. PAGE 3C. E.18. the bank. ......
-
Hammack, Administratrix, v White
...to shew that the horse was ridden negligently, or that the rider knew him to be vicious or restive. In Gibbons v. Pepper, 1 Lord Raym. 38, 4 Mod. 404, 2 Salk. 637, it seems to [590] have been held that a person who causes the accident by spurring the horse would be liable. [ Willes, J. Inca......
-
Gibbon v Pepper
...Ld. Raym. 38, S. C. 5. gibbon versus pepper. [Pasch. 7 Will. 3, B. R. 1 Ld. Raym. 38, S. C.] Justification must confess the trespass. S. C. 4 Mod. 404. 2 Lev. 179. 4 Mod. 404, S. C. Styl. 72. 1 Vent. 295. 2 Jo. 205. 3 Lev. 37. 1 Saund. 3. Hob. 134. Rol. Abr. 548. Style 72. In trespass and a......
-
Powell v Salisbury
...for the hand of a third person, it would not have put out the plaintiff's eye. So, in G-ibhmi v. Pepper (2 Salk. 637 ; i Lcl. Kaym. 38 ; 4 Mod. 404), it was said, if A. beat my horse, which runs against B., A. is a trespasser, but I am not. They argued also upon the effect of the evidence a......