Slatterie v Pooley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 579
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 10 L. J. Ex. 8; 4 Jur. 1038.
&LA,TTER[B v. PooLEY.(a)1 Exch. of Pleas. 1840.-A parol admission by a party tjo a suit is always receivable in evidence against him, although it relate to the contents o t deed or other written instrument: and even though its contents be directly in issue in the cause. [S. C. 10 L. ,T. Ex. 8 ; 4 Jur. 10:58.] Covenant. The declaration stated, that the plaintiff having entered into a certain deed of composition with certain of his creditors, in which reference was made to a certain schedule annexed there, containing a list and statement of the debts then due and owing to and from the plaintiff, the defendant, in consideration of the assignment of a certain equitable interest which the plaintiff then had in certain premises, by indenture-dated &c., covenanted with the plaistitt' to indemnify him against all debts or demands due from the plaintiff to such of his cre-[665]-ditors as had not executed tha said deed of composition : and alleged as a breach, that the defendant allowed and permitted one .James Thomas, a creditor whose debt was entered in the said schedule, but who had not executed the said deed of composition, to bring an action and recover against the plaintiff the amount of his said debt, together with his costs, &c. Pleas-tirst, non est faction ; secondly, that the defendant was induced to enter into the said covenant and agreement by the fraud, covin, and misrepresentation of the plaintiff; and thirdly, that the said debt of the said .James Thomas, for which the said action was brought against the plaintiff, as in the declaration mentioned, was uot included in the said schedule annexed to the said deed of composition; on which isaues were joined. At the trial before Gurney, B., at the Middlesex Sittings in Trinity Term, the composition deed and schedule were produced in evidence for the plaintiff, but the latter not being duly stamped, was rejected : whereupon, for the purpose of proving the third issne, the plaintiff's counsel tendered in evidence a verbal admission by the defendant, tlat the debt mentioned in the declaration was the same with one entered ii( the schedule. This evidence was objected to, on the ground that the contents of a "written instrument, which was itself inadmissible for want of a proper stamp, could not be proved by parol evidence of any kind : and the learned Judge being of that opinion, the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Public Prosecutor v Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim (No. 3)
-
Nicholls v the Queen
...546 at 553 [28] per Thomas JA. 176 (1992) 174 CLR 558. 177 (1995) 185 CLR 1. 178Slatterie v Pooley (1840) 6 M & W 664 at 669 per Parke B [ 151 ER 579 at 179 (1979) 20 SASR 288. 180 [2001] 1 Qd R 546. 181 (1936) 26 Cr App R 17. 182 (1893) 6 R 67 . 183 See Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 ......
-
Baker v R
...15. 14 See R v Blastland [1986] AC 41 at 52–53 per Lord Bridge of Harwich. 15Bannon v The Queen (1995) 185 CLR 1 at 9 per Brennan CJ. 16Slatterie v Pooley (1840) 6 M & W 664 at 669 [ 151 ER 579 at 581] per Parke B cited in Nicholls v The Queen (2005) 219 CLR 196 at 266 [184] per Gummow and......
-
Tofilau v The Queen
...of the confession.’ But that is not how Pollock CB put it in R v Baldry. 340Slatterie v Pooley (1840) 6 M & W 664 at 669 per Parke B [ 151 ER 579 at 341Ibrahim v The King [1914] AC 599 at 611, citing R v Baldry (1852) 2 Den 430 at 445 [ 169 ER 568 at 574], which appears to be a slip: the c......
-
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
...Oct. 1, 1987; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules While the parent case, Slatterie v. Pooley, 6 M. & W. 664, 151 Eng. Rep. 579 (Exch. 1840), allows proof of contents by evidence of an oral admission by the party against whom offered, without accou......
-
§ 30.12 Exception—Opponent Admission: FRE 1007
...original document rule.87 --------Notes:[86] Fed. R. Evid. 1007 advisory committee's note ("While the parent case, Slatterie v. Pooley, 6 M. & W. 664, 151 Eng. Rep. 579 (Exch.1840), allows proof of contents by evidence of an oral admission by the party against whom offered, without accounti......
-
§ 30.12 EXCEPTION — OPPONENT ADMISSION: FRE 1007
...original document rule.85--------Notes:[84] Fed. R. Evid. 1007 advisory committee's note ("While the parent case, Slatterie v. Pooley, 6 M. & W. 664, 151 Eng. Rep. 579 (Exch.1840), allows proof of contents by evidence of an oral admission by the party against whom offered, without accountin......
-
Rule 1007 TESTIMONY OR STATEMENT OF A PARTY TO PROVE CONTENT
...Oct. 1, 1987; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules While the parent case, Slatterie v. Pooley, 6 M. & W. 664, 151 Eng. Rep. 579 (Exch. 1840), allows proof of contents by evidence of an oral admission by the party against whom offered, without accou......
-
28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 1007 Testimony Or Statement of a Party to Prove Content
...from the Office of Law Revision Counsel: NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROPOSED RULES While the parent case, Slatterie v. Pooley, 6 M. & W. 664, 151 Eng. Rep. 579 (Exch. 1840), allows proof of contents by evidence of an oral admission by the party against whom offered, without accounting f......