Sayer v Glossop
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 June 1848 |
| Date | 06 June 1848 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 154 E.R. 552
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 17 L. J. Ex. 300.
55R SAYEH V GLO8SOP 2 EX 410 sayer v glossop June 6, 1848 -In suppoit of ,i plea of coveiture, an examined copy of a registei of marnage between the defendant and one J G was given in evidence A^witness deposed, that he knew one J G and his handwriting, and that the handwriting of the J G in the register was that of the person whom he knew -Held, that the evidence was admissible without the ptoduction of the original register [S C 17 L J Ex 300] Assumpsit by the plaintiff, as mdotsee, against the defendant, the acceptor of a bill of exchange, elated the llth of July, 1847, payable thiee months aftei date Plea, that at the time of the acceptance the defendant was the wife of Joseph Glossop, who is still living Verification The lepbcatinn tiaversed the plea, and upon the icplication issue was taken At the tnal, befoie Parke, B, at the last Middlesex: Sittings, in support of the plea, an examined copy of the legistei of the maitiage of the defendant and one [410] Joseph Glossop was produced A witness who was called deposed that he knew one Joseph Glossop, and that he had seen him in the yeat 1838, when he went abioad, and had coi responded with him since, and knew his hand wilting, and that he had received a lettei fiom him on the 2," bh of Apiil, 1848 The witness than stated that he had seen the signature of Joseph Glossop in the original maitiage legister, at Maiylebone.Church, and that it was the handwriting of the Joseph Glossop fiom whom he had iecei\ed the lettei, and who was then alive It was then contended, on the part of the plaintiff, that the onginal tegibter ought to be produced The learned judge, however, thought the evidence was admissible, and the defendant had a verdict M'Mahon now moved for a new tnal, on the ground that the evidence was improperly admitted The oiigmal legister ought to have been produced The Jiuy should have had that document before them, that they might form a judgment as to the character of the handwriting It was upon the handwriting that the question rested, whether the defendant was mained to the Joseph Glossop who was alive, as stated in the plea The original, being the best evidence of the fact, ought, theiefoie, to have been pioduced [Pollock, C B The paity who has the custody of the document could not be compelled to produce it | In cases of bigamy it is usual to produce the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyle v Wiseman
...allowed the defendant to be sworn and examined. He cited Taylor on Evidence, s 323 ; Ahvon v. Fwmval (1 C. M. & R. 377), Sayer v. Glossop (2 Exch. 409), The Attoiney Geneml v. HcuUojf (10 Exch. 84), [Paike, B., referred to Hunter v. Leathley (10 B. & C. 858) Alderson, B , to Marston v. Down......
-
Table of Cases
...Sawebatu Danmole and Others v. Yisa Dawodu and Others, 3 F.S.C. 46………..................….172 Sayer v. Glossop (1848) 2 Ex 409; 154 E.R. 552…….....................................................……..150, 151 Schandorf and Anor. v. Holm Anor. 9 W.A.C.A. 173…………......................................