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
Sears
and
Lyons
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...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
6 cases
-
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 ......
-
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......
-
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......
-
Emblen v Myers
...It is said that the act of the defendant was wilful, and therefore the plaintiff' cannot recover on this declaration ; but the act2 Stark N. P. 317) So also in actions for defamation : Pearson v Lemattie (o Man & G. 700). But there is no instance of it in an action like this. [Pollock, ......
Get Started for Free