Lawrence against Wilcock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 1840 |
| Date | 11 May 1840 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 672
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 3 P. & D. 536; 8 D. P. D. 681; 8 L. J. Q. B. 284.
672 LAWRENCE V. WILCOCK 11 AD. 4 E. 942. LAWRENCE against wilcock. Monday, May llth, 1840. Declaration in aasumpsit stated that, in consideration that defendant was tenant of a farm to plaintiff, he promised to spend on the farm all the hay which should arise during the tenancy: breach, that a certain quantity of hay arose, but defendant spent it elsewhere. Pleas, 1. Non assumpsit: 2, that the hay was not spent elsewhere. The writ of summons was indorsed for 81. 8s. 4d. debt. Held, not to be triable before the sheriff, under stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42, s. 17. And, a verdict having been recovered before the sheriff for 31. 14s. 2d., the Court set aside the writ of trial and subsequent proceedings ; though it was suggested that defendant had assented to the trial being had before the the sheriff, and the Court, for that reason, gave no costs. [S. C. 3 P. & D. 536 ; 8 D. P. C. 681; 8 L. J. Q. B. 284.] Aasumpsit. The first count stated that, whereas theretofore, to wit on 1st April 1831, defendant was tenant to plaintiff of a farm, lands, and premises, situate, &c., and, in consideration thereof, defendant then promised plaintiff to eat, spend, use, employ, aod consume upon the said farm, &c., all the hay which should grow and arise thereon during the said tenancy, and defendant continued tenant to plaintiff of the said farm, &c., for a long space of time, to wit from the time or making the said promise until 12th May 1837, yet defendant, disregarding, &c., after the making of the promise, and during the continuance of the tenancy, to wit on the day and year first aforesaid, and on divers other days arid times between that day and the said 12th May 1837, took and carried away, [942] off and from the said farm, &c., divers large quantities, to wit 1000 yards, of hay, of great value, to wit, &c., whioh had arisen and grown upon the said farm, &c., during the continuance of the said tenancy; and sold the same, and used, spent, and consumed the same elsewhere than on the said farm, &c., or any part thereof; contrary to the said promise, &c, The second count stated that, whereas defendant was tenant to plaintiff of a farm, &o., on the following (amongst other) conditions, that is to say, that defendant should eat, &c. (as before), in consideration thereof, and that plaintiff would dispense with that condition, and permit defendant to remove and sell the hay, and carry away, use, and consume the same elsewhere, defendant promised to pay plaintiff lOd. a yard for every yard of hay which defendant should so sell, &c.: averment, that plaintiff did dispense, &c., and gave permission, &c.: that defendant did sell, &c., a great part, to wit 500 yards, of the said hay, and dispose of, &c., elsewhere : breach, that defendant had not paid the lOd. a yard, &c., and there was due to plaintiff, on account of the hay so sold, a large, &c., to wit 181. 15s., which defendant had not paid. Damages 1001. Pleas: 1. Non...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Sevenoaks
...v. The Justices of Cheshire (8 A. & E. 398). Now, as jurisdiction does not originate in the consent of parties (Lawence v. Wilcock (11 A. & E. 941)), this shews that the notice was sufficient to give the sessions jurisdiction. It is said that no notice of appeal was proved at the [149] Epip......
-
Walther against Mess
...W. 4, 5 B. & Ad. xix. ($) See the amendment made in Easter term 1846, 6 Q. B. 452, note (b). (a)1 5 M. & W. 155. See Lawrence v. fPikock, 11 A. & E. 941. 7Q. B.193. THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF DERBYSHIRE 461 716), that the directions of 1834, on which that case turned, were "not, properly ......
-
The Queen against Clarke and Thomas, Justices of Somersetshire
...so, any acquiescence of Bellett, inferred from his subsequent conduct, could not make their further proceeding legal. Lawrence v. Wikock (11 A. & E. 941), and Lismore v. Beadle, (1 Dowl. N. S. 566), among other cases, shew that, if jurisdiction is wanting, consent cannot give authority to p......
-
Walker v Needham
...jurisdiction of the sheriff, by consenting to the order of the learned judge, which directed the writ to issue. In Lawrence v. Wikocle (11 A. & E. 941, 3 P. & D. 536), the court of Queen's Bench seem to have thought that the objection is one that cannot be waived; but this court will not be......