Smith v Blandy and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date31 May 1825
Date31 May 1825
CourtHigh Court

English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 1013

IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS

Smith
and
Blandy and Another

SY. ft MOOD 257. SMITH V. BLAND Y 1013 [257] in C. P at the sittings after easter term, 6 geo. IV. 1825. Adjourned Sittings in London. Guildhall, May 31, 1S25. smith v blandy and another. (Where by the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness, who had proved a prima facie case of the sale of goods, it appeared that the plaintiff had said that the goods were sold under a, written contract, which he produced to the witness : Held, that the written contract spoken of was evidence for the plaintiff, without calling the broker, by whom it purported to have been made and signed The assertion of a party, in a conversation given in evidence against him, of facts in his favour, la evidence for him of those facts Where goods were sold under a written contract at so much per load, " to be taken by the dock account, and paid for in cash, allowing 2^ per cent discount within 14 days from the date ; the goods to be taken on board, and the duty deducted " , and the duty was payable by the buyer : Held, that the discount was to be calculated on the sum to be received by the seller only, exclusive of the duty. The construction of a mercantde contract is matter for the jury.) Asaumpsit for goods and sold and delivered. A prtnta fftcie case having been made out for the plaintiff, by proof of the delivery of a large quantity of timber, and of the value thereof, Wdde Serjt , for the defendants, cross-examined one of the plaintiff's witnesses,, who proved that he [258] had heard the plaintiff say, that the timber was sold under a written contract, which the plaintiff at the same time shewed the witness. Pell Serjt. then produced a broker's note, which the witness said, was the paper spoken of by the plaintiff Wilde Serjt. objected to the paper being received as evidence of the contract, unless the broker was called to prove it. That what the plaintiff said was proof against him that the goods were sold under a written contract , but that his assertion m his own favour, though made at the same time, could not be taken as true, so as to relieve him from the necessity of proving the written instrument. And he cited Remime v. HaU, Manning's Index, 2d edit. p. 376 For the plaintiff it was answered, that the whole conversation was evidence to go- to the jury ; and a case tried at Winchester (day v. Halls, Summer Assizes 1824, ex relatwne Moody) before Abbott Ld...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Walsh v Sligo County Council
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 20 December 2010
    ...[1999] 3 All E.R. 385. Smeltzer v. Fingal County Council [1998] 1 I.R. 279; [1998] 1 I.L.R.M. 24. Smith v. Blandy (1825) Ry. & Mood. 257; 171 E.R. 1013. Smith v. Wilson [1903] 2 I.R. 45. South Dublin County Council v. Balfe (Unreported, High Court, Costello P., 3rd November, 1995). Stoney v......
  • Rex v Valachia and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...on the accused's behalf, on the strength of a number of English 1945 AD p835 Greenberg, J.A. cases which he quoted (Smith v Blandy (171 E.R. 1013); Rex v Jones (172 E.R. 285); Rex v Higgins (ibid. 565); Rex v Steptoe (ibid. 756)). Sec. 320 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1917 binds us to f......
  • Rex v Valachia and Another
    • South Africa
    • Appellate Division
    • 18 September 1945
    ...by Mr. Lakier, on the accused's behalf, on the strength of a number of English Greenberg, J.A. cases which he quoted (Smith v Blandy (171 E.R. 1013); Rex v Jones (172 E.R. 285); Rex v Higgins (ibid. 565); Rex v Steptoe (ibid. 756)). Sec. 320 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1917 binds us to......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT