Morgan v Harris
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 196
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 2 Tyr. 385; 1 Dowl. P. C. 570; 1 L. J. Ex. 143.
1% MORGAN V. HARRIS 2 C. & J. 2. morgan v. harris. Exch. of Pleas. 1832.-Where the plaintiff' annexed to the record particulars varying from those delivered to the defendant, and, there being no evidence of the particulars delivered, got a, verdict upon an item not included in the particulars delivered, the Court granted a new trial without coats; but refused to nonsuit the plaintiff, because the defendant was not in a condition to raise the question at the trial, and the point was not reserved. [S. C. 2 Tyr. 385; 1 Dowl. P. C. 570; I L. J. Ex. 143.] Assumpsit for work, labour, and materials. Particulars had been delivered under a Baron's order, and had also been annexed to the record pursuant to the rule T. T. 1 W. 4. The particulars delivered stated the claim to be for work done and materials found during the months [462] of March, April, and June, 1826, and in the month of March, 1827; that annexed to the record contained these additional words: "Also for work done at different times, from about June, 1825, to August, 1827." At the trial, before Bolland, B., at the last Carmarthen Assizes, the plaintiif claimed for work done in August, 1826, a period not included in the particulars delivered, hut comprehended within that annexed to the record ; upon which it was objected, that the plaintiff was precluded, by the particulars delivered, from going into such evidence; but upon examining the particulars annexed to the record, the discrepancy was discovered, and the defendant, not being prepared to prove the delivery of the particulars to him, the plaintiff had a verdict for 201. John Evans having obtained a rule to shew cause why a nonsuit should not be entered, or a new trial had upon the discrepancy in the particulars, which was proved by affidavit; and also why a new trial should not be had, the verdict being against the evidence-the learned Baron, after reading his notes of the evidence, certified that he was not satisfied with the verdict. And E. V. Williams shewed cause. The variance between the dates in the particulars was not calculated to mislead the defendant, and in fact had not that effect; for he was prepared at the trial to meet the plaintiff upon the items claimed ; and upon the balance of the evidence the plaintiff's claim was sustained. The defendant therefore is not now in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deeble v Linehan
...of Scarisbrick 6 Ad. & Ell. 539, 514. Dawson v. The Duke of Norfolk 1 Pri. 246. Eldridge v. Knott Cowper, 215. Day v. WilliamsENR 2 Cr. & J. 461. The President and Scholars of Magdalen College, Oxford v. The Attorney-GeneralUNK 21 Jur. 674. Little v. WingfieldIR Now reported in 11 Ir. Com. ......