Smith v Whittingham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 July 1833 |
| Date | 05 July 1833 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 1153
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Referred to, Carmarthen, &c Rly. Co. v Manchester, &c. Rly. Co, 1873, L R 8 C. P 685
[78(J Adjourned Sittings in London, after Trinity Term, 1833, before Mr. Baron Gurney (who sat for the Lord Chief Baron). July 5th, 1833. smith v. whittingham. (A.| was clerk to B. from the year 1829. In 1832, C. gave a bond for the faithful conduct of A. as such clerk After that, B. dismissed A , and after his dismissal A. made an admission of various sums that he had not accounted for:- Held, that in an action on the bond this admission was not evidence against C., as A was living at the time of the trial, and might have been called as a witness:-Held, also, that it appearing that one item in the admission was of a sum received by A. before the date of the bond, C would not be liable to the amount of the admission, although it had been shewn to him, and he had said that B, must get what he could of A,, and he (C ) would pay the rest) [Referred to, Carmarthen, &c Rly. Go. v Manchester; &c. Ely. Go , 1873, L R 8 C. P 685 ] Debt on a bond, dated April 16th, 1832, ior the good conduct of J. Fisherwick, a clerk of the plaintiff. Pleas-first, non est factum ; second, fraud ; third, performance ; fourth, another plea of performance in a different form. Replication N. P. 1154 SMITH V. WHITTmOHAM 8 CAB. tf.n. - assigning breaches by Fisherwick, in not paying oveT-.an^ accounting for monies received by him for the plaintiff, after the date of the bosH- It appeared that Mr Fisherwick had been a clerk of the plaaatitf since the month of June 1829, and that in the month of April 1832, the plaintiff required him to find security, when the defendant and three other persons agreed to tpcorae h sureties ; and the present bond wasnn ( onsequenc^ executed by the defendant, and oBe ef the other persons, but not by the two remaining ones Fisherwiek was'-dftsmissed from the plaintiff's service in the month of May, 1832. \ On the part of the plaintiff three persons -were called, who had paid^ on account of the plaintiff, sums amounting to £4, 9s 6d , since the date of which had not been accounted for , but with a view of shewing a deficit of a greater amount, an account was offered in evidence It was partly written by of the plaintiffs attormes, and partly by FisJierwick, and corrected by him jon ike 1st of -lune, 1832 This account was headed - " Account of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guardians of The Poor of The Abbeyleix Union v Sutcliffe and Others
...Div. Before O'BRIEN, HOLMES, and GIBSON, JJ. GUARDIANS OF THE POOR OF THE ABBEYLEIX UNION and SUTCLIFFE AND OTHERS Smith v. WhittinghamENR 6 C. & P. 78. Kitchen, Ex parte Young 17 Ch. Div. 668. Fraser v. Walsh 2 Ir. Jur. (O. S.) 183. Loveland v. KnightENR 3 C. & P. 206. Whitnash v. GeorgeEN......