Gregory and Honour, his Wife against Hill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1799 |
| Date | 01 January 1799 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 1400
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
1400 GREGORY V. HILL it. R.289. [299] gregory and honour, his Wife against hill. Friday, June 7th, 1799. A plea of molliter manus imposuit, in order to turn the plaintiff out of the defendant's house, where she continued against his will, is no answer to a charge against the defendant, for striking the plaintiff repeated blows, and with great force and violence several times knocking her down. The declaration stated, that the defendant, on, &c. at, &c. with force and arms, made an assault on the plaintiff's wife; and then and there beat, bruised, and wounded and ill-treated her; and then and there gave and struck her divers and repeated blows and strokes on divers parts of her body; and then and there, with great force and violence, several and repeated times, knocked her down upon the ground, whereby, &c. To this the defendant pleaded, that before and at the time when, &c. he was possessed of a certain dwelling-house, situate, &c. which he then inhabited with his family; and that the said Honour, before the said time when, &c. entered into the said house, and continued therein, without the licence and against the will of him the defendant; and then and there made a great noise and disturbance therein, and disturbed the defendant and his family in the said house; whereupon the defendant requested she would cease her said disturbance, and quietly depart out of the said house, which she refused to do; whereupon the defendant gently laid his bands upon her, to turn her out of the said house, as it was lawful for him to do, which is the same assaulting, beating, bruising, wounding, ill-treating, and striking the said Honour divers and repeated blows and strokes, and knocking her down upon the ground, whereof the plaintiffs have above complained against him; without this, that the defendant is guilty of the premises aforesaid, at the place aforesaid, or elsewhere, out of the said house at, &c.; and this he is ready to verify; wherefore, &c. To this plea the defendant demurred; and assigned for causes, that it alleges no sufficient justification or excuse, nor any denial of the battery, bruising, wounding, and ill-treating of the said Honour, and striking the said blows and strokes, and knocking down the said Honour upon the ground, in the introductory part of the said plea mentioned. Marryat was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greene v Jones
...and cites Titley v. Foxhall, C. B. T. T. 31 Geo. 2. Bull. N. P. 19. See Willes' .Rep. 14, Kowe v. Tutt. 690, Titley v. F rxhaU.(a) (a) See 8 T. R. 299, Gfregory v. Hill, that a plea justifying beating and woimding, by way of molliter manus imposuit, to turn the plaintiff out of the defendan......
-
R. v. McKay (A.J.), 2006 MBCA 83
...[para. 11]. R. v. MacLeod (1987), 77 N.S.R.(2d) 87; 191 A.P.R. 87 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11]. Gregory v. Hill (1799), 8 Term. Rep. 299; 101 E.R. 1400 (K.B.D.), refd to. [para. R. v. Sullivan (1841), 1 Car. & M. 209 (N.P.), refd to. [para. 14]. Wild's Case (1837), 2 Lew. C.C. 214; 168 E......
-
Harvey v Mayne
...Pleas. Before KEOGH, MORRIS and LAWSON, JJ. HARVEY and MAYNE. Gregory v. HillENR 8 T. R. 299. Grant v. Moser 2 M. & Gr. 123. Hudson v. SladeENR 3 F. & F. 390. Green v. BartramENR 4 C. & P. 308. Chambers v. Miller and othersENR 3 F. & F. 202. Bird v. Jones 7 Q. B. 742. Patrick v. ColerickENR......
-
The King v Bray
...86, n. 2. 1 Ves. 49. t Ante, 298. (1) Further as to the plea of molliter manus imposuit, see Com. Dig. Pleader (3 M. 16, 17). But see also 8 T, R. 299, where this plea was held no answer to a charge against the defendant for striking the plaintiff repeated blows, and with great force and vi......