Good against Watkins
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 1803 |
| Date | 06 May 1803 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 686
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
good against watkins. Friday, May 6th, 1803. Under the stat. 8 & 9 W. 3, c. 11, s. 4, it is discretionary in the Judge before whom the trial is had to certify or not, according as it appears to him under the circumstances proved, that the trespass was wilful and malicious. And the Judge having declined to certify in a case where notice was given by the wife of the plaintiff to the defendant not to enter the locus in quo in his cart, there being no road there; notwithstanding which the defendant persisted in going On for the purpose of viewing more conveniently the turning in of some cattle in assertion of a disputed right of common in an adjoining inclosure of the plaintiff's, which right was found for the defendant on a justification pleaded; the Court refused to interfere. To trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff's close called Headacre, and two other closes by name, and for treading down the grass with carts and cattle, &e., the defendant as to all the closes but Headacre pleaded several rights of common on which issues were taken, and also-on trespasses newly assigned: and as to the trespass in Headaere he went to trial on the general issue. At the trial before Le Blanc J. at the last Summer Assizes at Oxford, all the issues except that on the trespass in Headacre were found for the defendant; and as to that [496] the evidence was, that on the 22d of December 1800 the defendant, who was a 3 EAST, 497. GOODi V. WATKINS 687 cripple, came. in a cart attended by several other persons to the spot where these closes were .situated, and after turning in some sheep which he had with him into the two other closes in which he claimed the rights of common, which -were found for him, he entered Headacre in his cart, when he was told by the plaintiff's "Wife, who happened to be present, (the plaintiff himself being absent,) that there was no road there; upon which the defendant said he would make one; and after staying there some little time looking at his sheep in the other closes, went out at another gate than that through which he entered. Upon proof of this trespass, to which there was no answer, the plaintiff obtained a verdict with Is. damages; and application was thereupon made at the trial to the learned Judge to certify under the stat. 8 & 9 W. 3, c. 11, s. 4, that the trespass was wilful and malicious, being after notice; which he declined to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v Bennett
...545. England v. Davison 9 Dowl Pr. C. 1052. Kilburn v. KilburnENR 13 M. & W. 671. Grindley v. HallowayENR 1 Dougl. 307. Good v. WatkinsENR 3 East, 495. Mellish v. RichardsonENR 9 Bingh. 125; S. C. on Appeal, 1 Cl. & fin. 224. Newton v. BoodleENR 6 C. B. 529. Butler v. CorneyENR 2 Exch. 474.......
-
Woolley v Whitby
...might be granted at any time after the trial. In Gundry v. Sturt (1 T. E. 636), it certainly was so considered, and in Good v. Wafkins (3 East, 495), where a very extraordinary motion was made to compel the learned Judge (Le Blanc) who tried the cause to grant a certificate, it was never ma......
-
Chapman v Speer
...v. Ibbotson 1 Y. & Jer. 354. Bachelor v. Biggs 3 Wils. 319; S. C. 2 W. Black. 854. Hughes v. Hughes 1 Tyr. & Gr. 4. Good v. WatkinsENR 3 East, 495. Reynolds v. EdwardsUNK 6 Term Rep. 11. Sherwin v. SwindallENR 12 M. & W. 783. Crocket v. Montgomery Ver. & Scr. 473. Batchelor v. Biggs 3 Wils.......