Milward, Assignee of Gates, v Forbes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1801 |
| Date | 01 January 1801 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 680
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
milward, assignee otf gates, v. forbes. (Where a person is examined at a private examination before commissioners of bankrupts, and that examination is taken down, it is sufficient if so much only is taken down as is conceived to be necessary to be used in evidence, provided such part has been read over to him, and he has signed it. The whole of his examination need not be taken down, to make that evidence which applies to the matter in dispute.) This was an action of trover by the assignees of Gates, a bankrupt to recover from the defendant the value of fifteen sacks of flour. The case stated to charge the defendant wab. That after an act of bankruptcy committed, the defendant had taken away from the bankrupt's house the fifteen sacks of flour, and converted them to his own use. The defendant had been examined before the commissioners of bankruptcy at a private examination . his examination was taken in writing ; it was [172] produced by the solicitor, under the commission signed by the defendant, and offered in evidence. Garrow, in examining the solicitor who produced the proceedings, interrogated him very particularly, Whether what was then put down, and there produced, was all that had been said by the bankrupt on his examination 2 or, Whether only so much was taken down as was sufficient to be made use of on the trial ? contending, that all that had passed at the examination should have been taken down and produced as his deposition ; aa the part omitted might give a diftexent colour to the transaction. The witness said, That the defendant had said more at the examination than what was so taken down , that .he had taken down only what he considered as relevant ; *EW. I7i. HISCOX V. GREENWOOD 681 but that nothing which was relevant was omitted, whether it made for or against the party Lord Eflenborough asked, If the examination had been read to him before he aigned it ? Being answered in the affirmative, he said, That, as after the party's iearing it so stated from his own words, and the examination was read over to him before he signed it, it must be taken to be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loughnan v Barry and Byrne
...& Ad. 114. Milne v. MarwoodENR 15 C. B. 778. Dixon v. YatesENR 5 B. & Ad. 313. Tooke v. HollingworthENR 5 T. R. 231. Milwwod v. ForbesENR 4 Esp. 171, 173. Earl of Bristol v. WilsomoreENR 1 B. & C. 514. Stephenson v. HartENR 4 Bing. 476, 483. Regina v. Walne 1 Cox, C. C. 647. R. v. JacksonEN......
-
Load and Another v Green and Others, Assignees of Bannister, a Bankrupt
...There it is distinctly laid clown, that a sale of goods obtained by fraud cannot change the property. The case of Milwanl v. I'orlies (4 Esp. 171), which may be cited on the other side, proceeded on the ground that the property in the goods was changed. The same observation applies to Harwe......
-
R v John Wilson
...and they are aiterwards read over in the presence of the prisoner, and by him admitted to be true, that admission will make them evidence. 4 Esp. 171. It has been determined by all the Judges that, although confessions, improperly obtained, are not admissible, yet that any facts which had b......
-
The Transfer of Moveables in Scotland and England
...is not reported in its own right, but part of it can be found in Tooke v Hollingworth (1793) 5 TR 215 at 231. Milward v Forbes4141(1802) 4 Esp 171. and Sinclair v Stevenson4242(1825) 2 Bing 514. – one of the parties to a transfer claimed that the contract was fraudulent and that he should b......