Hennell against Charles Lyon, Administrator, with the Will annexed, of Mary Lyon, deceased
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1817 |
| Date | 25 November 1817 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 67
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[182] hennell against charles lyon, Administrator, with the Will annexed, of Mary Lyon, deceased. Tuesday, Nov. 25th, 1817. Upon a plea of plene administravit, plaintiff, in order to shew assets, gave in evidence a copy of a bill, and answer, purporting to be an answer by a person of the same name, and sustaining the same character as the defendant: Held that the copy was admissible, and that on the face of it there was presumptive evidence of identity ; the defendant not having shewn any circumstances to. rebut the presumption. Assumpsit for goods sold by plaintiff to intestate. Plea, 1. Non assumpsit. 2. Plene .administravit. At the trial before Abbott J. at the London sittings, plaintiff having proved the goods sold, in order to shew assets in hand of the defendant as administrator, produced an examined copy of a bill, and an answer, purporting to be an answer by 'Charles Lyon to a bill filed in Chancery against him in his character of administrator of Mary Lyon. The bill was filed by Messrs. Maltby and Co. as well on their own behalf as on that of all other creditors, praying an account. The plaintiff in this -action was not a party to that suit. It was objected, that that was insufficient -evidence, for it was res inter alios aeta : that the plaintiff should have produced the -original answer, and verified the hand-writing, or he should have shewn that this 68 HENNELL V. LYON 1 B. & ALD. 183. defendant was the defendant in that suit: that in the absence of such evidence there was no proof of identity. The learned Judge, however, received the evidence, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. Walton having obtained a rule nisi for setting aside that verdict, and entering a nonsuit, Marryat and Platt shewed cause. To prove matter of record or documents of a public nature, it is not necessary to have the original record or document, or, where it is signed, to verify the hand-writing. In the [183] case of a parish register, as of a marriage, it is not necessary to produce the original, although the parties sign it; and the same rule holds as to the Journals of the House of Commons, and transfers of stock. If it were necessary to prove the hand-writing of the defendant in this case, it would be equally so in the case of a sheriff's return to a writ; yet that may be proved by a copy, and such copy is constantly received without verification of the hand-writing. In Salter v. Turner (a)1, Sir A. M'Donald C.B. admitted an office copy of an answer to an information filed in Chancery by the Attorney-General, without proof of the hand-writing of the defendant. So in Lady Dartmouth v. Roberts (b), examined copies of a bill in the Exchequer, and an answer put in, not by the defendant on the record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Garvin, in Replevin, v James Carroll
...replevin, and JAMES CARROLL. Bastard v. Smith 10 Ad. & Ell. 213. Pepper and Locke v. Newenham 4 Law Rec. N. S. 155. Hennell v. LyonENR 1 B. & Ald. 182. Highfield v. Peake Mood. & Malk. 109. Dartnall v. HowardENR Ry. & Mood. 169. Davies v. Davies 9 Car. & Pay. 252. Dartmouth v. RobertsENR 16......
-
Richard Tooth, Demandant; John Bagwell, Tenant
...of the party should be seen ; it may be material as t tie question of identity. Taobdy, Seijt., then cited the case of Hennell v. Lyon (1 B. & A. 182). Gaseiee, J., mentioned a case tried on the Western Circuit, m which a person from the Court of Chancery proved that that Court would not su......