Powell and Others v Sonnett and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 1826 |
| Date | 28 January 1826 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 559
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 11 Moore, 330. Affirmed in House of Lords, 1 Bligh (N. S.) 545; 4 E. R. 976 (with note); 1 Dow & Cl. 56; 6 E. R. 446 (with note).
[381] (IN the exchequer chamber.) powell and others v. sonnett and others. Jan. 28, 1826. [S. C. 11 Moore, 330. Affirmed in House of Lords, 1 Bligh (N. S.) 545; 4 E. E. 976 (with note); 1 Dow & Cl. 56; 6 E. E. 446 (with note).] The record stated a verdict for Plaintiffs on twelve counts, and that the jury were (c) See 2 Br. C. C. 377, note Eden's edition. 560 DOUOAL V. KEMBLB 3 BINQ. 382. discharged on eight others,-The issues on these latter counts being immaterial, the Court refused to reverse, on error, the judgment for Plaintiff, on the ground that the discharge! of the jury was not stated on the record to be with the consent of the parties. Assumpsit. The declaration contained twenty counts, twelve of which were special. The Defendant below pleaded the general issue to all the twenty counts, and the statute of limitations, and a set off to the last eight counts. The Plaintiffs below replied to the plea of the statute, that they were beyond seas ; and to the plea of set off, nil debent. The Defendants below rejoined that the Plaintiffs below were not beyond seas, and issue was joined on that and the rest of the pleadings. The jury found for the Plaintiffs below, damages 24,0001. on the twelve special counts, for the Defendants below upon the remaining eight, for the Plaintiffs below on the issue ultra mare, and on the issue on the set off, the jury were discharged. The Defendants below brought error into this Court, assigning as a ground, that it was not stated on the record that the jury had been discharged on the issue arising out of the plea of set off to the last eight counts, with the consent of the parties. Patteson, for the Plaintiffs in error, argned that the jury could not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v Bennett
...Fitzpatrick v. Pickering 2 Wils. 68. Forbes v. SymmondsUNK 2 Sc. N. R. 178. Andrews v. LintonENR 2 Ld. Raym. 884. Powell v. SonnettENR 3 Bing. 381. Powell v. SonnerrENR 3 Bing. 382. King v. Birch 3 Q. B. 425. Phillips v. Birch 4 M. & Gr. 405. Lord Bagot v. WilliamsENR 6 T. R. 607. Ravee v. ......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Stainforth
...361), MitteUiolser v. Fullarlon (6 Q. B. 989), Tinkler v. Rowland (4 A. & E. 868, 869, dictum of Patteson J. as to Powell v. Sonnett, 3 Bing. 381); and the penal clause, sect. 6, of stat. 56 G. 3, c. 139. The Court said they must understand the question submitted by the ease to be whether o......
-
Empson against Fairfax and Weaver
...was not a libel. (a)a 4 A. & E. 413. And see Bird v. Higgiwson, 5 A. & E. 83. (d) 10 Bing. 568. See Norris v. Daniel, 1-0 Bing. 507. () 3 Bing. 381. S. C. in IX P. 1 Bligh, N. S. 545. 8AB.*B.m WHITWILL V. SCHEBE 851 succeeding on the first issue. [Patteson J. Then the issues would have to b......
-
The King, Plaintiff in Error. - Erle-Hurlstone; Thomas Johnson, Defendant in Error. - Attorney General (Sir John Campbell)-Recorder of London (Law)-Bullock
...ward-mote. [Lord Brougham.-If the issue be clearly immaterial the case of Powell v. Sonnett and others (1 Bligh's Rep. N. S. p. 552, and 3 Bing. 381) settled the point, that a judge is perfectly right in discharging the jury from finding a verdict upon such immaterial issue.] The counsel fo......