McKone v Wood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 June 1831 |
| Date | 14 June 1831 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 850
COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, North v. Wood, [1914] 1 K. B. 629
REPORTS of CASES Argued and Ruled at NISI PRIUS, in the Courts of KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, and EXCHEQUER, together with Cases tried on the CIRCUITS and at the OLD BAILEY. From the Sittings after Trinity Term, 1831, to the Sittings after Hilary Term, 1833. By F. A. CARRINGTON and J. PAYNE, EaQRS., of Lincoln's Inn, Barristers-at-Law. Volume V. London, 1833. . 14 2, [1] promotions. 1831. In Trinity Vacation, Philip Williams, Henry William Tancred, Francis Ludlow Holt, and Charles Butler, Esqrs., were appointed his Majesty's Counsel learned in the law, court op king's bench. Sittings at Westminster, after Trinity Term, 1831, before Lord Tenterden, C. J. June 14th, 1831. M'KoNE v. wood (In an action against a party, for keeping a dog accustomed to bite mankind, it is not essential that the dog should be his ; if he harbours the dog, or allows it to be at, and resort to, his premises, that is sufficient.) [Referred to, Nortfi v. Wood, [1914] 1 K. B 629 | Case for keeping a dog accustomed to bite mankind. Plea-General issue. On the part of the plaintiff, it was proved, that the dog had bitten the plaintiff, and that it had bitten two other persons before ; but one of the witnesses, who proved that he had made a complaint to the defendant respecting the dog, stated, that the defendant had told him that the dog belonged to a person who had been his servant, bat who had left him. It was also proved, on the part of the plaintiff, that the dog was seen about the defendant's premises, both before and after the time when the plaintift was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Brackenborough v Spalding Urban District Council
-
Dillet v Deveaux et Al
...Council [1933] All ER 172 at p 175, per Lord Hewart, C.J. To adapt the words of Lord Tenterden in M'Kone v. Wood (1831) 5 ar. & P.1; 172 E.R. 850, the relevant question is: who was harbouring these cattle at the relevant time? Or, to apply the test of Lord Denman, C.J. in May v. Burdett [18......
-
Wilk v. Arbour, 2017 ONCA 21
...liability beyond the dog’s owner to one who harbours or possesses it: Purcell v. Taylor (1994), at para. 28, citing M'Kone v. Wood (1831), 172 E.R. 850, at p. 850, and Knott v. London County Council, [1934] 1 K.B. 126, at pp. 140-141. However, s. 2(3) of the Act does away with the common la......
-
Lee Fu Wah v Michael Lee Hoffman And Others
...Mr CP Erving, of Chong & Yen, for the 1st defendant Ms Athena KW Wang, instructed by Cheung & Liu, for the 2nd and 3rd defendants [1] 5 C & P 1, ...