Powell v Bradbury and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1849 |
| Date | 22 January 1849 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 137 E.R. 81
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 18 L. J. C. P. 116; 13 Jur. 349. Overruled, Lush v. Russell, 1850, 7 D. & L. 228; Horton v. M'Murtry, 1860, 5 H. & K 673.
powell v. beadbury and another. Jan. 22, 1849. [S. C. 18 L. J. C. P. 116; 13 Jur. 349. Overruled, Lush v. Russell, 1850, 7 D. & L. 228; Hortan v. M'Murtry, 1860, 5 H. & K 673.] In an action for the breach of a contract to employ the plaintiff for a given time, charging the defendants with having wrongfully and without reasonable or probable cause dismissed the plaintiff, the defendants pleaded, that they did not, wrongfully, without reasonable or probable cause, dismiss the plaintiff, modo et forma:-Held that this merely put in issue the fact of the dismissal, the rest being immaterial. Assumpsit upon a contract by the defendants to employ the plaintiff for two years as joint-editor of a newspaper called the Daily News: Breach, that, during the two years, the defendants, wrongfully, and without reasonable cause, dismissed and discharged the plaintiff from their employ. The defendants, amongst other pleas, pleaded that [202] they did not wrongfully, and without reasonable or probable cause, dismiss or discharge the plaintiff from their employ, in manner and form as alleged in the declaration. The cause was tried before Wilde, C. J., at the sittings in London after Hilary term, 1847, when the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages, 5001. The Attorney-General, in the following Easter term, obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground that evidence tendered on the part of the defendants, to shew that the plaintiff had been guilty of misconduct that justified them in discharging him, (a)1 The circumstance of the learned judge having adjourned the summons a second time, to enable the attorney to amend his statement of the claim, shews that this was so. (a)2 See Beiiazech^v. Bessett, ante, vol. i. p. 313. 82 POWELL V. BRADBTJBY 7C.B.203. had been improperly rejected; and also, on the ground that the verdict was against evidence, and that the damages were excessive. Wilkins, Serjt., Huddlestone, and Hugh Hill, shewed cause. Affirmative evidence was not by law admissible upon a plea of justification like this. In Frankum v. The Earl of Falmouth (2 Ad. & E. 452), the plaintiff declared that he was possessed of a mill, and by reason thereof was entitled to the use of a certain stream for the mill, and that the water...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The General Steam-Navigation Company v Rolt
...made more burthen-some f\ The plaintiffs had simply to prove the defendant's contract, and the breach. (a) And see Powell v. Bradbury, 7 C. B. 201. 8C.B.(S.8.)579. THE GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION CO. V. BOLT 583 Then cornea the defence. If the position of the surety has by the act of the credi......
-
Horton v McMurtry
...jury in support of the second plea, and that the Lord Chief Baron was wrong m not so directing the jury. The case of Poioell v fiiadbury (7 C. B. 201) was cited, in which it was held that a traverse, that the defendant wrongfully dismissed the plaintiff, did not involve the question of wron......
-
Callow v Charles Jenkinson
...issue the fact of the plaintiff having been employed by the defendant, not whethet the lattei acted as agent 01 principal Powell v Btadbury(7C B 201), Haliifax v Chamber (4 M &W 662) Moreover, the replication shews an estoppel Wherevei there has been res judicata upon the subject-matter in ......
-
Lush v Russell
...in last Hilary Vacation (Feb 13), Butt shewed cause The direction of the learned Judge was correct The case of Pmidl v Bradbury (7 C B 201), to which leference was made at the trial, is strictly in point That was an action for the wiongful dismissal of the plaintiff, who waa the defendants'......