Jones v Axen

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1792
Date01 January 1792
CourtHigh Court

English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 976


ers. Axen

jones vers. axen. Acts of Parliament prirna facie relate to the first day of the session. D. ace. Cowp. 475, vide post, 371. The same name repeated upon pleadings, tho' without reference, shall prima facie be intended to mean the same person. Quidam has the same import with aliua. D. ace. Dyer 70 b. Where an exception is incorporated with a clause, he who pleads the clause, must take notice of, and answer the exception. Debt upon bond. The defendant pleads the Statutes for Discharge of Poor Prisoners, and so demanded judgment if the plaintiff should have execution against his body, household goods, wearing apparel, or tools of his trade. The plaintiff demurs. The first exception to the plea was, that the statute is misrecited, because it is pleaded to be made the 22 Car. 2, but the printed book is 22 & 23 Car. But to this Serjeant Levins answered, and it was agreed by the Court, that the session extends into both years, but it commenced the 24 October 22 Car. 2, and all Acts made refer to the first day of the session, unless it be otherwise provided by the Act. So that this is an Act of 22 Car. 2, and the printed book is false. 2. Exc. It is not said, that notice was given to the plaintiff, to appear at the sessions : but it is said, that notice was given to Thomas Jones, but not to Thomas Jones the plaintiff, or praedict. So that the Court will intend, that it was not to the plaintiff, but to another person. But to this it was not answered, and agreed by the Court, that if it had been said cuidam Thomae Jones, there the Court would have intended another person, because quidam is the same with alius; but since it is Thomae Jones generally, the Court will intend, that it is the same Thomas [120] Jones, of whom mention was made before. 3. Exc. was, that it is said, that the defendant was not imprisoned for 1001. but it is not said, that he was not imprisoned for a fine, therefore he might be imprisoned for a fine and then he is not dischargeable by the Act. Sed non...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • R v Edwards
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 21 May 1974
    ...a proviso in a statute and an exception; see Hale's Pleas of the Crown (which was written about 1650) 1800 Ed. Vol. 2 Pages 170-1 and Jones v. Axen (1696) 1 Ld. Hay 119. Exceptions had to be pleaded and disproved whereas there was no need either to plead or disprove provisoes. In R. v. Jarv......
  • Public Prosecutor v Phua Thian Kang
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1971
  • The Governor and Company of The Apothecaries Hall, v Calvert
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 11 November 1843
    ...9 Rep. 9, b. Rex v. MasonENR 2 T. R. 581. Bartholomew v. Dighton Cro. Eliz. 424. Wilson v. Brerton 5 Ir. Law Rep. 466. Johns v. ActonENR 1 Ld. Raym. 119. Steell v. SmithENR 1 B. & Al. 95. Gill v. ScrivensENR 7 T. R. 27. Spieres v. ParkerENR 1 T. R. 141, 145. 186 CASES AT LAW. M. T. 1843. Qu......

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