Holden against Newman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1810 |
| Date | 24 November 1810 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 330
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
START [161] holden against newman. Saturday, Nov. 24th, 1810. After action brought in B. R. for board and lodging of the defendant's wife in Middlesex, which was referred to an arbitrator,, who awarded less than 51., which was for the rent of the lodging: this was held at any rate to come within the 13th section of the stat. 39 & 40 G. 3, c. 104, excepting actions for rent from the compulsory jurisdiction of the London Court of Requests; although the defendant were otherwise within the Act; but without deciding whether the clerk" of a solicitor attending at his master's office within the city during the hours of business throughout the whole day, but lodging in Middlesex, shall be said to seek a livelihood in London within the meaning of the Act. This was an action of assumpsit for board and lodging and other necessaries provided by the plaintiff for the defendant's wife, who lived separately from him. The venue was laid in London; and at the sittings there before Lord Ellenborough, C.J., a verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff for 201. subject to the award of an arbitrator, to whom all matters in difference were referred by a rule of the Court at Nisi Prius; and who afterwards directed the'verdict to be entered for the plaintiff for 31. 14s. only. Whereupon in order to oust the plaintiff of his costs, on entering up judgment for that sum, it was moved on a former day to enter a suggestion upon the roll, under the stat. 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 104, that the original cause of action did not exceed 51. and that the same was recoverable in the London Court of Requests. The facts disclosed by the affidavits were that the cause of action arose in Middlesex; that the plaintiff lived there, and the defendant also lodged and dieted in the same county ; but that every day (excepting Sundays) from 9 in the morning till 9 at night, the defendant attended as a clerk in the office of Messrs. Kaye and Freshfield, solicitors, within the City of London. Gaselee, on shewing cause against recording the suggestion, objected, 1st, that this being a recovery by the award of a re-[162]-feree was not within the Act (a)1. 2dly, that this was not the case of a defendant " seeking a livelihood " within the meaning of the 5th clause; which must be confined by the context to one who seeks his livelihood by residing or inhabiting in or keeping any house, warehouse, shop, shed, stall, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilbert, Clerk, against Sir Mark Sykes
...of the case left no doubt as to the fact of the defendant's final acceptance of it; though there was material evidence, in (a) 13 East, 161. 1046 GILBERT V. SYKES 16 EAST, 151. the circumstances under which the wager was originally proposed and taken up, which1 was at the defendant's own ta......
-
Smith against Hurrell
...plying at two public houses in the City of London, at which the plaintiff himself had addressed letters to him. In Holden v. Newman (13 East, 161), the defendant was a clerk to Messrs. Kaye and Freshfield, attorneys, a situation, for this purpose, similar to that of the defendant. In Stephe......
-
Double v Gibbs
...in the City of London?] The defendant is only master of a vessel trading between this country and Holland ; he has no counting. (b) 13 East, 161. This case was decided on the present act, 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 104. laSM. 218. WILKS V. HEELEY 393 house here ; all he does is the loading and unlo......
-
The King against The Trustees for the Burgesses, Company, of Tewkesbury
...tenement, the occupation of which wa& held to confer a settlement in Sex v. Whixley, 1 Term Rep. 137. K. B. xxxm.-11* 330 HOLDEN V. NEWMAN 13 EAST, 161. Grose, J. agreed. Le Blanc, J. The persons whose cattle were taken in had no definite portion of the aftermath let to them. Bayley, J. In ......