Sears v Lyons
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 1818 |
| Date | 19 February 1818 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 658
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Thursday, Feb 19, 1818. sears v lyons. (In an action for throwing poisoned barley upon the plaintiff's premihes, in order to poison his poultry, the jury are not confined in their verdict to the actual damages sustained, but may consider the malicious intention of the defendant ) This was an action of trespass for breaking the plaintiff's close and laying poison upon it, with intent to destroy the plaintiff's poultry. Evidence was given of the defendant's having strewed poisoned barley, both on the plaintiff's premises and his own, into which it appeared that the [318] fowls sometimes escaped ; it also appeared that some of the fowls bad died in consequence. Gurney for the defendant, contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover greater damages than the value of the fowls, and that the jury could not take into theif consideration the malicious intention conceived by the defendant, and expressions which he had made use of with respect to the plaintiff. Abbott, J., in summing up to the jury, cautioned them to guard againat the hostile feelings which the evidence they had heard was likely to excite in their minds againat the defendant. The action was brought for throwing poisoned barley upon the plaintiff's premises, and destroying his poultry , and it had been proved in evidence, that he had actually committed that injury , and that some of the fowls had died, although, whether from poison thrown on the plaintiff's premises or the defendant's did not appear. It had always been held, that for trespass...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Broome v Cassell & Company Ltd
...and compensation to him and a requital to the wrongdoer" ( 47 C.L.R. 279, 300). An earlier example is the direction of Abbott J. in Sears v. Lyons (1818) 2 Stark. 317: as evidence that modern practice corresponds I could not desire more than the passage, based on considerable experience, in......
-
Rookes v Barnard
...ruling. They are Tullidge v. Wade (1769) 3 Wils. K.B. 18, Leith v. Pope (1779) 2 Black. W. 1327, Merest v. Harvey (1814) 5 Taunton 442, Sears v. Lyons (1818) 2 Stark. 317, Williams v. Curry (1845) 1 C.B. 841 and Emblen v. Myers (1860) 6 H & N 54. They cover seduction, malicious prosecution ......
-
McGrath v Bourne
...222. Berry v. Da CostaELR L. R. 1 C. P. 331. Tracey v. BrennanUNK Ir. R. 8 C. L. 527. Emblen v. MyersENR 6 H. & N. 54. Sears v. LyonsENR 2 Starkie, 317. Berry v. Da CostaELR L. R. 1 C. P. 335, 336, per Keatinge, J. Leader v. RhysENR 2 F. & F. 399. Moon v. RaphaelENR 2 Bing. N. C. 310. Campb......
-
Gillard v Brittan and Others
...may consider the malicious intention of the defendant, and are not confined to the actual damage sustained by his act: Sears v. Lyons (2 Stark. 317). Where the alleged trespass consisted in destroying a picture which contained a scandalous libel, it was held that the jury, in assessing the ......