Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District v Hill and Others (Appeal No. 1)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 May 1882 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1882] UKHL J0522-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 22 May 1882 |
[1882] UKHL J0522-1
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel, as well on Thursday the 2nd as Friday the 3rd, Monday the 6th, Tuesday the 7th, Thursday the 9th, Friday the 10th, Monday the 20th, Tuesday the 21st, Thursday the 23rd, and Friday the 24th days of March last, upon the Petition and Appeal of The Managers of The Metropolitan Asylum District, of 37, Norfolk Street, Strand, in the county of Middlesex, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 18th of December 1879, so far as regards the words "if within two months the Defendants elect to pay, and if within fourteen days after completion of taxation the Defendants pay the costs of the former trial, except in so far as such costs were increased by the Plaintiffs' contention that the Defendants had been guilty of negligence in the management of the Hospital, and that all other costs be costs in the Cause. And it is further ordered that if the Defendants do not so elect and pay such taxed costs within the times before mentioned, then that the Plaintiffs' Appeal herein be allowed with costs:" might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order so far as aforesaid might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Frederic Hill, Alfred Hill, and Edward Bernard Lewin Hill (Executors of the last Will and Testament of Sir Rowland Hill, Knight, deceased), William Lund, and Alfred Downing Fripp, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; (which Appeal was, on the 28th day of May 1880, heard on the question of competency, and sustained, the costs of the said hearing being reserved until the hearing of the Appeal;); and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 18th of December 1879, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby Reversed, and that the Order of the Queen's Bench...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Letourneau (P.N.), (2009) 471 A.R. 198 (PC)
...of precisely the same kind as that which the jury have to determine": per Lord Watson in Metro Asylum District Managers v. Hill (1882), 47 L.T. 29 (H.L.) At 35. In Phipson on Evidence (14th Ed. 1990), at para. 17-25, p. 374, the author states that: 'On principle the court should exercise th......
-
Jordan’s Applications
...to the issue to be decided. This is an argument which has long exercised the courts (see Metropolitan Asylum District Managers v Hill(1882) 47 LT 29, 31, per Lord O'Hagan) and it is often a potent argument, particularly where trial is by jury. Secondly, and again particularly when the trial......
-
O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police
...to the issue to be decided. This is an argument which has long exercised the courts (see Metropolitan Asylum District Managers v Hill (1882) 47 LT 29, 31 per Lord O'Hagan) and it is often a potent argument, particularly where trial is by jury. Secondly, and again particularly when the trial......
-
Goldsmith v Sandilands
...533 at 554. 99 (1940) 63 CLR 533 at 558. 100 (1940) 63 CLR 533 at 567. 101 (1940) 63 CLR 533 at 545. 102 (1940) 63 CLR 533 at 546. 103 (1882) 47 LT 29 at 104 (1940) 63 CLR 533 at 551. 105 (1986) 161 CLR 141 at 145–146. 106 Supreme Court Rules (SA), O 58, rr 6 and 14. 107 cf Piddington (1940......
-
The collateral evidence rule
...Hollingham vHead (1858) 27 LJCP 241 at 242: ‘litigants are mortal ...’98. Per Lord Watson in Metropolitan Asylum District Managers vHill (1882) 47 LT 29.99. Per Kelly CB in Agassiz vLondon Tramway Co (1872) 21 WR 199.100. See McPhilemy vTimes Newspapers Ltd [1993] 3 All ER 775.101. CPR r. 1......