Hayling v Okey and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 February 1853 |
| Date | 02 February 1853 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 1461
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER (IN ERROR FROM THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER)
S C 22 L J Ex 139, 17 Jur 325, 1 W R 182
[531] in the exchequer chamber (In Erroi from the Couit of Exchequei ) hayling v okey and othkus Feb. 2, 1853 -Trespass foi assault Plea, that the defendants, as the servants of W and by his command, committed the trespass in defence of the possession and quiet enjoyment of his dwelling-house New assignment, that the trespasses were committed out of and in a different place from the dwelling-house, to wit, in and upon a certain budge in a ceitain faim, and in divers, to wit, two yards, two fields, ,ind two folds, of and in the same farm, and for another and different purpose Flea to new assignment, that W was possessed of the dwelling-house, and also of the bridge, yaids, helds, and folds which belonged and were adjacent to the dwelling-house , and that the defendants committed the tiespasses newly assigned in defence of the possession of the dwelling-house, bridge, yards, helds, and folds, and that they removed the plamtiB from them, and took hrm by the nearest and most direct way to a certain public highway neat to the dwelling-house, bridge, yaids, fields, and folds, and because they could not conveniently remove the plaintift to such highway without passing over and across the said bridge, yaids, helds, and folds, they, at the time in the new assignment mentioned, necessarily and unavoidably led him over them Replication, that W was seised of the farm, and demised it to J as tenant from year to year , that J entered, and, being indebted to B , assigned to him, amongst othei things, all the giowing and other ciops which then were 01 might thereafter be found in and about the farm, as a secunty for the debt, with a power for B , in default of payment, to take possession , that B made default, that the bridge, yards, helds, and folds, in the new assignment mentioned, and also a ceitain garden, were parcel of the faira demised to -J , that, at the time in the new assignment mentioned, W was possessed of the garden and helds rn which there were growing and othei crops belonging to J , that while J was in possession, the plaintiff, as the servant of B, entered and took possession, and continued in possession, of the growing ciops, until W became possessed of the bridge, yaids, fields, and folds, and of the garden , and that the plaintiff was removed by the defendant^ from and off the bridge, &c , before a reasonable time 1462 HAYLING V. OKEY 8 EX 5SZ had elapsed, and while the debt lemamerl unpaid , ,md the defendants diagged the plaintiff from the dwelling-house along the bridge, and across the yards, fields, and folds, to the highway On deraurrei to the lephcation -Held, in the Exchequer Chamber, hist, that the plea to the new assignment was good, since it confessed and justified the tiespasses theiein alleged, namely, those committed on the bridge, yards, fields, and folds, and that the stating in the plea that the defendants removed the plaintiff to the highway, did not lender that a part of the cause of action which it was necessary to justify, but was meie suiplusage - Secondly, that the replication was bad in substance, since it did not shew any right in B to retain possession of the piennses after J 's tenancy had ended [S C 22 L J Ex 139, 17 Jur 325, 1 W It 182] Error on a judgment (a) of the Court of Exchequer fot the defendants The action was trespass, for assaulting the plaintiff and damaging hia clothes Plea,- That one Walter de Wmtoii was possessed of a dwelling-house, situate in the parish of Sandhurst, in the county of Gloucester, and the plaintiff was unlawfully in the dwelling-house, [532] making a noise and disturbance, without the leave arid against the will of the said Waltei de Win ton , and thereupon the defendants, as the servants of the said Walter de Wmton and by his command, requested the plaintiff to cease making hrs said noise, &c , and to go from and out of the said dwelling-house, which the plaintifl refused to do, whereupon the defendants, as the servants of the said Walter de Wmton and by his command, and in defence of his possession of the said dwelling-house, gently laid hands upon the plaintiff, for the purpose of removing, and did then remove, the plamtift from and out of the said dwelling-house, &c , qiue sunt eadepi Verification New assignment That the defendant committed the trespasses out of and in a different place from the said dwelling-house, to wit, in and upon a cettain budge, 111 a, certain farm, called Bengtove Faun, in the parish of Sandhurst, in the county of Gloucester, and in divers, to wit, two yards, two fields, and two folds of and in the said farm, and foi another arid different purpose than the purpose in the said plea mentioned, and after the defendants had removed the plamtitt from the said dwelling-house as in that plea mentioned Verification Plea to new assignment That befote and at the time of the committing of the trespasses above newly assigned, the said Walter de Wmton was lawfully possessed of the said dwelling-house, and also of the said bridge, yaids, fields, and folds, in the new assignment mentioned, which said bridge, yards, fields, and folds, belonged and appertained to the sard dwelling-house, and weie adjacent theieto and the said Walter de Winton being so possessed thereof, the plaintiff, just before the said time when. &c , 111 the new assignment mentioned, to wit, on &c , was unlawfully in the said dwelling-house, and with force and arms making a great noise, and disturbing the said Walter de Winton in his possession of the said dwelling house, and of his said budge, yarda, fields, arid folds, without the leave [533] 01 license and against the will of the sard Waltei de Wintou , and thereupon the defendants, as the servants of the said Walter de Winton, and by his command, then requested the plaintiff to cease making such noise and disturbance, and to go and depart out of the said dwelling-house, and from and out of the said budge, yards, fields, and folds, which the plaintiff then wholly refused to do, whereupon the defendants, as the servants of the sard Walter de Wmton, and by his command, and in defence of his possession of the said dwelling-house, and of the said bridge, yards, fields, and folds, then removed the plaintiff to the outside of the said dwelling-house, as in the said plea above mentioned, and also then gently lard therr hands upon the plaintiff for the purpose of removrng, and did then...
To continue reading
Request your trial