Millen v Hawery
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1662 |
| Date | 01 January 1662 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 82 E.R. 250
King's Bench Division
[13] millbn versus hawery H. 22 jag. rot. 1079. Trespass fuit port pur cbasanb son barbits ove son chein en son terre mesme. Lo defendant justifie, que le terre del plaintiff est adjoynant en common ; & q^ les barbits del plaintiff fuer estray en le terre del defendant, et il ove un petit chein chaser les barbits hors del son terre demesne, et le chien en pursuit del barbits encounter volunt defendant followed les barbits en le terre del plaintiff. El sur c fuit demurr. Littleton argue, que c est un bone justificacon, quia un home nad tiel command de son chien a luy stayer de entront en le terre de son viciii. especialmeut quand il pleader, que c fuit encounter son volunt. Come 22 E. 4. 8. en trespass ploughing son terre, le defendant dit que le terre del plaintif est adjoynant al terre del defendant, & quand il fuit ploughing son terre demesne ses chivals fuer unruly, & violenter porterarit le plough en le terre del plaintiff contra voluntatem suam. Et c fuit terms un bone justification. Et issint icy. Et a c purpose est auxi 21 E. 4. 64. 43 E. 3. 8. Si home fait un loyal act, que apres devintilloyal, c est damnum sine injuria ; 21 H. 7. 28. Si mon barbits sont mingle ove auters; jeo poy chaser touts les barbits a sever mon barbits, et c sans trespass. Et issint auxi fuit adjudge en Jennings case, 18 Jac. Crewe; Le justification icy eat bon, entant, quand les barbits fuer sur son terre, il poit chaser hors; 4 Rep. Tyrringham's case. Et quand le chien pursue les barbits en le terre del owner contra voluntatem del auter, c nest trespass. 38 E. 3. 10. b. I. S. trove un pheasant en son terre mesme, & lesser un falcon a flyer a luy, & le hawke prist le pheasant en le terre de I. D. Et I. D. port trespass pur 1'entry...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deane v Clayton
...Ab. 566, Trespass, K. pi. 1. Co. Dig. Pleader, 3 M. 31. Mitten v. Faudrye, Poph. 161. S. C. W. Jo. 131, by name of Mitten v. Fawlrey; S. C. Latch, 13, by name of Millen v. Haioery, and 119, by name of Milieu v. Fawdry. Eeekmth v. Shordike and Another, 4 Burr. 2092. Dymock v. Allanby, Lincol......
-
Powles, one of the Public Officers of the Liverpool Banking Company, v Page
...John Grantham was the party who usually transacted business with evidence under the general issue. The cases of Mitten v. Hawery, Latch, 13, and Knapp v. Salsbury, 2 Campb. 500, and Com. Dig. Pleader (3 M. 31), were cited. And see Gibbon v. Pepper, 2 Salk. 637, 1 Lord Eaym. 38, 4 Mod. 404; ......
-
Barnard Gregory v C. F. A. W. Duke of Brunswick and H. W. Vallance
...or profit therein, and to oppress, vex, impoverish and ruin the plaintiff, before the plaintiff appeared and (a) Vide Mitten v. Hawery, Latch, 13 ; Knapp v. Salsbury, 2 Campb. 500; Norton v. Scholefield, 20 Law Journ. 393, Exch. T. 1842; Com. Dig. Pleader (3 M. 31), ante, vol. i. p. 571 (a)......
-
Burgess v Gray
...: Smith v. Dobson, 3 Mann. & Gr. 59; Aldridge v. Great Western Railway Company, ib. 515; Webb v. Page, 6 Mann. & Gr. 196; Mitten v. Hawery, Latch, 13, Com. Dig. tit. Pleader (3 M. 31). In Bwtterfield v. Forrester, the court of King's Bench held, that, one who is injured by an obstruction in......
-
Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Act 1932
...of Malay and Siam to the east coast of Cochin, China at lat. 10 N., thence along the parallel of lat. 10 N. to long. 145 E., thence north to lat. 13 N. and thence along the parallel of lat. 13 N. to the west coast of Central America, Saigon to be considered as being on the boundary line of ......
-
LOAD LINE RULES, 1941. Dated AUGUST 22, 1941.
...to 30th meridian of 120° W. and by a rhumb line 1st December November. from the point lat. 30° N., long. to 28/29th 120° W., to the point lat. 13° N., long. 105° W.; and on the south by the parallel of 13° N. 14 The area in the South Pacific Ocean 1st December 1st April to bounded on the no......