Hurrell v Wink

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date28 May 1818
Date28 May 1818
CourtCourt of Common Pleas

English Reports Citation: 129 E.R. 425

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS

Hurrell
and
Wink

S. C. 2 Moore, 417. Referred to, Mansel v. Itchen Overseers, [1906] 1 K. B. 225.

[369] hukrell . wink. May 28, 1818. [S. C. 2 Moore, 417. Referred to, Mansel v. lichen Overseers, [1906] 1 K. B. 225.] Replevin. The Defendant avowed the taking, as overseer of the poor, under stat. 43 Eliz. by virtue of a distress warrant for an aggregate sum due on seven several rates, six of which were confirmed on appeal, on the ground of the appellant not being in sufficient time, the other being then quashed by consent. It did not appear that any precise demand had been made previously to the issuing of the warrant. The jury found a verdict for the Defendant for the aggregate sum of the six rates, deducting the amount of the other. The Court set aside this verdict, and directed a verdict for the Plaiutiff, holding that this case was to be distinguished from the case of a distress for rent, and that a precise demand was necessary previous to the issuing of the warrant of distress, contrary to the opinion of Wood B., beford whom the cause was tried.-Hurrell was rated to the poor of R. In the first rate, after the statement of the rental, the description was " late Hurrell's, now ;" and in the subsequent rates, "late Samuel Hurrell:" Held sufficient by Wood B. at Nisi Prius. Replevin. The Defendant avowed, as overseer of the parish of Rayleigh, that the goods were taken in distress, under stat. 43 Eliz. Plea, de injuria. At the trial, before Wood B. (Essex Lent assizes, 1818) the following facts were proved. On the 9th January, 1817, a distress-warrant was signed by the magistrates, directed to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Rayleigh, for distraining the goods of the Plaintiff for the sum of 1041. 17a., being the aggregate amount of seven several poor-rates. On the execution of this warrant the Plaintiff replevied; and at the Epiphany session, 1817, the Plaintiff entered and respited his appeal against the said rates, and gave notice for trial at the Easter session following, when he was obliged to abandon his appeal against the first six rates, on the ground of not being in time for appealing; and the respondents then consented that the last rates should be quashed, on the ground of non-occupancy by the Plaintiff at the time of the allowance of the rate. In the first rate, after the rental, the premises were rated as "late...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • The Governor, Deputy Governor, Assistants, and Guardians of the Poor of the City of Bristol against Wait, Gardner, and Barnett
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 9 May 1836
    ...several rates, one of which is illegal, is altogether bad : Milward v. Coffin (2 W. Bl. 1330). That case is supported by Hurrell v. Wink (8 Taunt. 369. S. C. 2 B. M. 417), in which last case Forty v. Imber (6 East, 434), and Patchett v. Bancroft (7 T. E. 367), were cited. Forty v. Imber (6 ......
  • Charlestown Town Board and Another v Vilakazi
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...by the D local authority; see Jacobsohn and Woolf v Municipal Council of Johannesburg, 1906 T.H. at pp. 100 - 1; Hurrell v Wink, 129 E.R. 425; Morton v Brammer, 141 E.R. 1377; Flanagan v Elliott, 1886 (12) S.C.R. 435 (Canada), cited in E. and E.D., vol. 18, p. 403, note 1437 (i). The inclus......
  • Charlestown Town Board and Another v Vilakazi
    • South Africa
    • Appellate Division
    • 7 June 1951
    ...by the D local authority; see Jacobsohn and Woolf v Municipal Council of Johannesburg, 1906 T.H. at pp. 100 - 1; Hurrell v Wink, 129 E.R. 425; Morton v Brammer, 141 E.R. 1377; Flanagan v Elliott, 1886 (12) S.C.R. 435 (Canada), cited in E. and E.D., vol. 18, p. 403, note 1437 (i). The inclus......
  • Halley v Gaser. in C. B
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1826
    ...285 b. note (8) by Serjeant Williams. Id. 286, note (10). Cobb v. Bryan, 3 Bos. & Pul. 348, Forty v. Imber, 6 East, 434. Hurrell v. Wink, 8 Taunton, 369. Tutthitt v. Roberts, post, p. 344. English Reports Citation: 89 E.R. 30 THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS Halley and Gaser. In......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT