Harris v Tippett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 1811 |
| Date | 11 March 1811 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1277
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
[637] oxford circuit l'^M; Ut.U Lent Assizes, 51 George III. [1811], Gloucester, coram Lawrence, J. Monday, March 11, 1811. harris v tippbtt (Any question may be put to a witness in cross-examination, the answer to *l Vide, Smith v MuUett, ante, 208. *2 So if the subscribing witness to a promissory note swears that he did not see it drawn, it may be proved by evidence of the hand-writing of the maker Lemon v. Dean, Lancaster Lent Assizes, 1810, cor Le Blanc, J AetioHr on a promissory note, which appeared to be witnessed by one Bentley. Bentley was called, and swore that he did not see the defendant subscribe the note ; but the defendant merely desired him to try to write his name upon the paper, and that he did not observe whether anything was at that time written on it. Plamtifrs counsel then proposed to call witnesses to prove the defendant's ha ad-writing Williams objected that there being a subscribing witness to the note, who was not incompetent, no other evidence of it could be given He cited Phtpps v Parker, 1 Campb. 412 Le Blanc, J.-I will make no observation upon that case It may be distinguishable, as there the instrument was a deed But I am quite clear that if the subscribing witness to a note, when called, cannot prove it by reason of his not having seen it drawn, the plaantiff may proceed to prove it by other means Vide Fussei v. Brown, Peak. Cas 23 ; Grellwr v. Neale, ib, 146. 1278 KING V. MEREDITH 2 CAMP. 888. which may have a tendency to discredit him ; but if such a question be collateral to the matter in issue, the answer which the witness gives must be taken as conclusive, and other witnesses cannot be called to contradict him.) This was an action for not accounting for a promissory note given to the defendant to be discounted on behalf of the plaintiff A witness for the defendant was asked in cross-examination, whether he had not attempted to dissuade a witness examined for the plaintiff, from attending the trial. He swore positively, that he had not. Dauncey then proposed to call back the other to contradict him Lawrence, J -That cannot be done You must take his answer [638] Dauncey contended that, for the purpose of discrediting the witness, it was competent to shew, that he had sworn falsely in this instance, and actually had attempted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Mendy
...his opponent's witnesses by calling witnesses to contradict him on collateral matters, and his answers thereon will be conclusive - see Harris v. Tippitt (1811) 2 Campbell's Reports p. 637, and Phipson on Evidence Eleventh Edition paragraph 1553. The rule is of great practical use. It serve......
-
O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police
...of the witness, as a rule the answers of the witness are final and evidence to contradict them will not be permitted: see Lawrence J in Harris v Tippett (1811) 2 Camp 637, 638. The rule is necessary to confine the ambit of a trial within proper limits and to prevent the true issue from beco......
-
Jordan’s Applications
...a rule the answers of the witness are final and evidence to contradict them will not be permitted: see Lawrence J in Harris v TippettENR(1811) 2 Camp 637, 638. The rule is necessary to confine the ambit of a trial within proper limits and to prevent the true issue from becoming submerged in......
-
Goldsmith v Sandilands
...533 at 560. 38 (1940) 63 CLR 533 at 567. 39 (1981) 75 Cr App R 79. 40 (1981) 75 Cr App R 79 at 82. 41 (1981) 75 Cr App R 79 at 82. 42 (1811) 2 Camp 637 [ 170 ER 43Marsh (1985) 83 Cr App R 165; R v Knightsbridge Crown Court; Ex parte Goonatilleke [1986] QB 1; Chandu Nagrecha [1997] 2 Cr App ......
-
HEARSAY REFORMS
...the two related concepts, see Kwang Boon Keong Peter v Public Prosecutor[1998] 2 SLR(R) 211 especially at [19]–[21]. 136Harris v Tippett(1811) 2 Camp 637; Attorney-General v Hitchcock(1847) 1 Exch 91. There are other exceptions to the rule: these are (a) bias; (b) previous convictions; (c) ......
-
The collateral evidence rule
...on matters on whichyou may contradict’8or ‘a matter is in issue if it is in issue’.9However, the test is now generally accepted1. (1811) 2 Camp 637.2. The Evidence Act, s. 106, for Australian jurisdictions where the Uniform Evidence Acts apply, was expressly amended to coverfailure to admit......
-
Cross-Examination
...a good indication of the creator’s state of mind at the time. Metadata is available to show when and by whom the document was made. 44 (1811) 2 Camp 637, 170 ER 1277. 45 Attorney-General v Hitchcock (1847) 1 Exch 91 and 99. 164 Advocacy: A Practical Guide In some countries, a document may b......