Norton v Scholefield
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 April 1842 |
| Date | 19 April 1842 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 281
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
S. C. 11 L. J. Ex. 393; 6 Jur. 326.
[665] norton . scholefield. Exch. of Pleas. April 19, 1842.-In case for erecting a cesspool near a well, and thereby contaminating the water of the well, the plea of not guilty puts in issue both the fact of the erection of the cesspool, arid that the water was thereby contaminated. [S. C. LI L. J. Ex. 393; 6 Jur. 326.J Case for an injury to the plaintiff's reversionary interest. The declaration alleged, that before and at the time of committing the grievance, &c., the premises were in the possession of one A., as tenant thereof to the plaintiff, the reversion thereof expectant on the determination of the said tenancy belonging to the plaintiff'. It then stated the right of the plaintiff and his tenants to a certain well and pump : that the defendant was possessed of premises adjoining the premises of the plaintiff, and that he, intending to injure the plaintiff, &c., erected a cesspool so near the well and pump, that the water was contaminated and rendered useless by the oozing out of the soil and filth from the cesspool. The defendant had applied to Lord Denman, C. J., at chambers, for leave to plead the following pleas :-first, not guilty ; secondly, a traverse of the right of the plaintiff' and his tenants to the use of the well and pump; thirdly, a traverse of the plaintiff's reversionary interest in the premises ; and lastly, a special plea, denying that the water in the well had been contaminated by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powles, one of the Public Officers of the Liverpool Banking Company, v Page
...2 Salk. 637, 1 Lord Eaym. 38, 4 Mod. 404; Smith v. Dobscm, 3 M. & G. 59, 62, n.; Webb v. Page, 6 M. & G. 196; Norton v. Schqfield, 9 M. & W. 665. 8 POWLES V. PAGE 3C. E.18. the bank. When the account of Grantham, Page, & Co. was opened, it was understood that Grantham alone was to draw the ......
-
Dunford and Others v Trattles
...the cause of it), may be relied upon ; but that was only a ruling at Nisi Prius, and waa long before the case of Norton v. Scholefield (9 M. & W. 665), where it was held, that, in case for erecting a cesspool near a well, and thereby contaminating the water of the well, the plea of not guil......
-
Wilby, a Pauper, v Elston
...Norton v. Scholefield (a) See Archbold's Practice, 8th edit, vol. ii. p. 1323, and the cases there cited. 8C. B.149. WRIGHT V. COLLS 465 (9 M. & W. 665), in case for erecting a cess-pool near a well, and thereby contaminating the water of the well, it was held that the plea of not guilty pu......