Noell against Gray
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1794 |
| Year | 1794 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 87 E.R. 786
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS, EXCHEQUER.
case 22. anonymous. No new trial after second verdict on the same side. Per Holt, Chief Justice. After a second verdict on the same side, it is not fit to grant a new trial because the Judge did not like the verdict; but if there were any practice used in obtaining it, it is otherwise (a).
English Reports Citation: 87 E.R. 787
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS, EXCHEQUER.
[23] case 26. baker against pierce. To say, " You stole my box-wood, and I will prove it," is actionable.- S. C. 2 Salk. 695. S. C. Holt, 654. S. C. 2 Ld. Ray. 959. Action on the case for these words: " You stole my box-wood, and I will prove it." Darnell moved in arrest of judgment, that the words are not actionable ; for he urged, that the words " You stole my wood," and " You stole my timber," are the same (a): " You are a thief, and stole my timber (b):" " You are a thief, and stole my corn, hops, apples," not actionable (e). For where words charge one either with trespass or felony, if there be not other words that shew the charge to be felony, the best sense shall be taken. So if it be, " You stole my timber out of my yard (d), hops out of my bag, corn out of my yard, &c. (/)," it will not bear action (g). " I charge you with felony for taking money out of J. S.'s pocket," not actionable (a), because it might be without a felonious intent. (But Holt, Chief Justice, condemned that authority.) Besides, he quoted Hutton, 113, "Thou art a thief, and hast couzened my cousin of his land," not actionable, though it was said, the subsequent words were accumulative, and there all the aforesaid cases are agreed not to be actionable. Suppose the words were, "You have stolen my coppice-wood," will they say an action would lie 1 for it might be coppices cut and carried away with one entire act. So here; for it is not what the party meant here, but the necessary import of the words that are to be considered. Brotherick contra. " You have stolen my timber " is actionable (c), for it must be felled and severed from the stock before it is timber. And he remembered the old verse of arbor dwm crescit lignum dum crescere nescit(d). These words, "Thou hast stolen my wood, and I will charge you with felony (e)," and, " Thou art a thief, and thou hast stolen a, tree (/)," not actionable, for a diversity is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sir William Humphreys v his Son Orlando Humphreys
...at law, it being a rule, that after twenty years and no interest paid during that time, a bond shall be presumed to be satisfied (Anon. 6 Mod. 22. Winchelsea Causes, 4 Burr. 1963. Oswald v. Legh, 1 T. R. 270), unless something appears (1) to answer that length of [397] time i so that the pl......
-
Broadhead v Marshall and Wife, Executors of William Hagget
...trial on account of the absence of the attorney or counsel; Beaaky v. Shapley, 1 Price, 201; Anon. Salk. 645: or witnesses, Warren v. Fuzz, 6 Mod. 22; see also Norris v. Freeman, 3 Wile. 38: so where the counsel omitted to refer to a particular statute at the trial; Ritchie v. Bowsfield, 1 ......