Gibson and Johnson against Hunter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 126 E.R. 499
IN THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 6 Bro. P. C. 235. See Sewell v. Burdick, 1884, 10 App. Cas. 99; Vagliano v. Bank of England, 1889-91, 23 Q. B. D. 258; [1891] A. C. 107. See other proceedings, 2 H. Bl. 289; 6 Bro. P. C. 225.
2h. bl.1s7. gibson v. hunter 499 [187] in the house of lords. [In Error.] GmsoN and johnson against hunter. 1793. [S. C. 6 Bro. P. C. 235. See Sewell v. Burdick, 1884, 10 App. Gas. 99; Fagliano v. Bank of England, 1889-91, 23 Q. B. D. 258; [1891] A. C. 107. See other proceedings, 2 H. Bl. 289; 6 Bro. P. C. 225.] On a demurrer to circumstantial evidence, the party offering the evidence is not obliged to join in demurrer, unless the party demurring will distinctly admit upon the record every fact and every conclusion, which the evidence offered conduces to prove (a). This was an action brought by Hunter, the Defendant iti error, as indorsee, against Gibson and Johnson, as acceptors of an instrument purporting to be a bill of exchange. The cause came on to be tried before Lord Kenyon, and a special jury, ;xt Guildhall, at the Sittings after Michaelmas Term 1791, when the Plaintiffs in error demurred to the evidence, and the record was as follows:- Thomas Gibson, late of London, merchant, and Joseph Johnson, lute of the same place, merchant, were attached to answer Eobert Hunter, in a plea of trespass on the case, and whereupon the said Robert Hunter, by Edwin Dawea, his attorney, complains, for that whereas one Nathaniel Kingston, on the llth day of March, in the year of our Lord 1788, to wit, at Falmouth, to wit, at London aforesaid, in the pariah of St. Mary-le-Bow, in the ward of Cheap, according to the usage and custom of merchants, made his certain bill of exchange in writing, with his own hand and name thereunto Subscribed, bearing date the same day and year aforesaid, and directed the said bill of exchange to the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson, by the names and description of Messrs. Gibson and Johnson, bankers, London, and tbereby required the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson, two months after date to pay to Mr. William Fletcher or order, 5211. 7s. value received, with or without advice, he the said Nathaniel Kingston then and there well knowing that no such person as William Fletcher, in the said bill of exchange mentioned, existed ; upon which said bill of exchange, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, at the parish and ward aforesaid, a certain indorsement or writing was made, purporting to be the indorsement of William Fletcher named in the said bill, and to be subscribed with his name, and which said indorsement purported to require the said sura of money in the said bill of exchange contained, to be paid to certain persons using trade and commerce as copartners in the copartnership name and firm of Livesey, Hargreave and Company, or their order, which said bill of ex-[188] change, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, was shewn and presented to the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnsoit for their acceptance thereof, and the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson then and there, according to the custom of merchants, accepted the same, they the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson then and there well knowing that no such person as William Fletcher, as in the said bill named, existed, and that the name of William Fletcher, so indorsed on the said bill of exchange, was not the hand-writing of any person of that name; and the said bill of exchange being so indorsed aa aforesaid, they the said persona using trade and commerce in the name and firm of Livesey, Hargreave and Company as aforesaid, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, at the parish and ward aforesaid, by a certain indorsement in writing made upon the said bill of exchange, and subscribed with the hand and name of one Absalom Goodrich, by procuration of the aaid Livesey, Hargreave and Company, according to the usage and custom of merchants, appointed the said sum of money in the said bill of exchange contained, to be paid to the said Robert Hunter, and then and there delivered the said bill of exchange so indorsed aa aforesaid, aa well with the name of the aaid William Fletcher as with the name of (a) [Se vol. i. p. 313, and the note there, and 6 Br. Pad, Ca. 235, 255, Tomlin'a ed. See also Bulkeley v. Butter, 2 B. & C. 446.] 500 GIB3ON V. HUNTER 2 H. BL. 189. the said Absalom Goodrich, to the said Robert Hunter, by reason whereof, and by force of the usage and custom of merchants, the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson became liable to pay to the said Robert Hunter the said sum of money in the said bill of exchange contained, according to the tenor and effect of the said bill of exchange, and of their acceptance thereof as aforesaid ; and being so liable, they the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson, in consideration thereof, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, at the parish and ward aforesaid, undertook, and to the said Robert Hunter then and there faithfully promised to pay him the said sum of money in the said bill of exchange contained, according to the tenor and effect of the said bill of exchange and their acceptance thereof as aforesaid. And whereas also, the said Nathaniel Kingston on the said llth day of March, in the yea? of our Lord 1788, at Falmouth, to wit, at London aforesaid, at the parish and ward aforesaid, according to the usage and custom of merchants, made his certain other bill of exchange in writing with his proper hand and name thereunto subscribed, bearing date tie same day and year aforesaid, [189] and then and there directed the said last mentioned bill of exchange to the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson, by the name and description of Messrs. Gibson and Johnson, bankers, London, and thereby requested them the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson two months after date to pay to Mr. William Fletcher or order, 5211. 7s. value received, with or without advice, and then and there delivered the said last mentioned bill of exchange to the said William Fletcher, which said bill of exchange afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, was presented and shewn to the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson for their acceptance thereof j and the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson then and there, according to the custom of merchants, accepted the same ; and the said William Fletcher afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, at the parish and ward aforesaid, according to the usage and custom of merchants, indorsed the said last mentioned bill of exchange, and by that indorsement appointed the said sum of money in the said last mentioned bill of exchange, contained, to be paid to the said persons using trade and commerce in the name and firm uf Liveaey, Hargreava and company as aforesaid, or their order, and then and there delivered the said last mentioned bill of exchange so indorsed as aforesaid, to the said Livesey, Hargreave and Company; and the said last mentioned bill of exchange being so indorsed as aforesaid, they the said persons using trade and commerce in the name and firm of Livesey, Hargreave and Company, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, at the parish and ward aforesaid, by a certain indorsement in writing made upon the said last mentioned bill of exchange, and subscribed with the hand and name of the said Absalom Goodrich, by procuration of the said Livesey, Hargreave and Company, according to the usage and custom of merchants, appointed the said sum of money in the said last mentioned bill of exchange contained, to be paid to the said Robert Hunter, and then and there delivered the same bill of exchange so indorsed as aforesaid to the said Robert Hunter, by reason whereof, and by force of the usage and custom of merchants, the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson became liable to pay to the said Robert Hunter the said sum of money in the said last mentioned bill of exchange contained, according to the tenor and effect of the said last mentioned bill and their acceptance thereof as aforesaid, and being so liable, they the [190] said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson, in consideration thereof, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, undertook, and to the said Robert Hunter then and there faithfully promised to pay to him the said sum of money in tha said last mentioned bill of exchange contained, according to the tenor and effect of the same bill and their acceptance thereof as aforesaid. And whereas also, the said Nathaniel Kingston on the said llth day of March, in the said year of our Lord, 1788, at Falmouth, to wit, at London aforesaid, in the pariah and W4rd aforesaid, according to the usage and custom of merchants, made bis certain other bill of exchange in writing, the hand and name of him the said Nathaniel Kingston being thereunto subscribed, bearing date the same day and year aforesaid, and then and there directed the said last mentioned bill of exchange to the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson, by the names and description of Messrs. Gibson and Johnson, bankers, London, and thereby required them the aaid Thomas Gibson 2H.BLi9t GIBSON V. HUNTER 501 and Joseph Johnson two months after date to pay to the hearer of the said last mentioned bill 5211. 7s. value received, with or without advice, which said last mentioned bill of exchange afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, was presented and shewn to the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson for their acceptance thereof, who thereupon then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v LK
...236. 63 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, (1768), bk 3, c 23 at 373. 64 As a result of the decision in Gibson v Hunter (1793) 2 H Bl 187 [ 126 ER 499]. 65Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 at 324; [1959] HCA 8. 66Jones (1959) 101 CLR 298 at 324 per Windeyer J. 67Jones (1959) 1......
-
S v Van As
...slegs op liggaamlike besering, hetsy ernstig al dan nie. Mezger, Strafrecht I, bl. 221 - 222; Jescheck, op. cit; Burgstaller, op. cit., B bl. 187. In hierdie verband word 'n onderskeid getrek tussen die aanspreeklikheid vir nalatigheid in die strafreg teenoor aanspreeklikheid in die privaat......
-
S v Wandrag
...kan slaag. Uit bogenoemde is 'n afleiding dat mens rea nie 'n element van die misdaad is nie. Attorney-General v Grieve, 1934 T.P.D. E te bl. 187; R v Rieback, 1944 T.P.D. 394. Sou die Hof bevind dat mens rea wel 'n element van die statutêre bepalings is, dan is bewyslas op appellant om aan......
-
Burdick v Sewell
...was a demurrer to evidence in Qibson v. Hunter (2 H. Bl. 205), which was brought before this House. The case in this House is reported in 2 H. Bl. 187. On the ?th Feb. 1798 this House gave judgment, awarding a ventre de novo. One week afterwards, on' the 14th Feb. 1793, tbis House delivered......