Hodsoll against Stallebrass and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 January 1840 |
| Date | 11 January 1840 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 429
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 3 P. & D. 200; 9 L. J. Q. B. 132; 8 D. P. C. 482. Referred to, Osborn v. Gillett, 1873, L. R 8 Ex. 94. Commented on, Brunsden v. Humphrey, 1884, 14 Q. B. D. 151. Approved, Darley Main Colliery v. Mitchell, 1886, 11 App. Cas. 142.
[301] hodsoll against stallebrass and another. Saturday, January llth, 1840. In an action of tort for wounding plaintiff's servant, whereby he was disabled from serving, the jury may give damages for the loss of service, not only before action brought but afterwards, down to the time when, as it appears in evidence, the disability may be expected to cease. A declaration for such injury, stating the servant to have been permanently crippled, is supported by evidence that the injured part is still disabled and likely to remain so, but, with care, will be restored in time. [S. C. 3 P. & D. 200; 9 L. J. Q. B. 132 ; 8 D. P. C. 482. Referred to, Osborn v. Gillett, 1873, L. R 8 Ex. 94. Commented on, Brunsden v. Humphrey, 1884, 14 QjB. D. 151. Approved, Darky Main Colliery v. Mitchell, 1886, 11 App. Gas. 142.] Declaration in case, alleging that defendants, viz. on llth March 1839, &o., kept (a)1 This was more than twenty-four hours before the motion was made. (a)2 The matter referred, though not in direct terms, to the book first mentioned. (a)3 This fact did not expressly appear. (b) The rule was as follows, " Upon reading the affidavit of Frederick Hattoti, and the certificate of the Right Honourable Charles Shaw Lefevre, Speaker of the House of Commons, thereto annexed, another affidavit of the said Frederick Hatton, and the paper writing thereto annexed; and upon hearing Mr. Platt of counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wightman of counsel for the defendants : it is ordered that proceedings in this cause be stayed." The abore action was brought in Hertfordshire. A similar order was made this day in an action between the same parties, brought a few days earlier in Middlesex ; the only difference between the two cases being that, in the action last mentioned, notice of a writ of inquiry of damages had been given. 430 HOD8OLL v. STALLEBBASS 11AD.&E.302 a dog, well knowing him to be accustomed to bite mankind, which dog afterwards, and while so kept by defendants, viz. on, &c., by reason of the premises, bit James Young, then and still being plaintiff's apprentice and servant, and lacerated two of his finger! and his right hand and arm, insomuch that, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Hambrook
...on which I do not pause. There are few other cases. In l840, a watch maker recovered damages for loss of services of his apprentice ( Hodsoll v. Stallabrass, 11 Adolphus and. Ellis, page 301). The apprentice lived in as one of the family, as many did in those days, perhaps he slept under th......
- Attorney-General (Nsw) v Perpetual Trustee Company (Ltd)
- Commissioner for Railways (Nsw) v Scott
-
Backhouse v Bonomi
...The Metropolitan Association v. Fetch (5 Com. B. N. S. 504, 511); and the jury may estimate prospective damages; Hodsoll v. Stallebrass (11 A. & E. 301), Violett v. Sympson (8 E. & B. 344), Lord Oakley v. The Kensington Canal Company (5 B. & Ad. 138), Glegg \. Dearden (12 Q. B. 576), Wordsw......