Tapling v Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 March 1865 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1865] UKHL J0316-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 16 March 1865 |
[1865] UKHL J0316-1
House of Lords
Whereas by virtue of a Suggestion of Error entered upon the Judgment Roll in the Court of Common Pleas at the Instance of the Defendant there, in a Cause wherein Hugh Jones was Plaintiff, and Thomas Tapling was Defendant, the said Judgment Roll and Proceedings of the said Court of Common Pleas were brought into this House on the 7th Day of August 1862, in order to reverse a Judgment given in the Court of Exchequer Chamber affirming a Judgment of the said Court of Common Pleas for the said Plaintiff there (Defendant in Error); and Counsel having been heard for the said Thomas Tapling (Plaintiff in Error), as well on Friday the 17th as Monday the 20th and Tuesday the 21st Days of February last, to argue the Error so suggested as aforesaid; and Counsel appearing for the said Hugh Jones (Defendant in Error), but not being called on, the Counsel were directed to withdraw; and due Consideration had this Day of what was offered for the said Plaintiff in Error:
Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, That the said Judgment given in the said Court of Exchequer Chamber, affirming the said Judgment of the said Court of Common Pleas, be, and the same is hereby Affirmed, and that the Record be remitted, to the end that such Proceeding may be had thereupon as if no such Suggestion of Error had been brought into this House: And it is further Ordered, That the said Plaintiff in Error do pay or cause to be paid to the said Defendant in Error the Costs incurred in respect of the said Suggestion of Error, the Amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Tenor.
On which Day, before the same Court of Parliament aforesaid, at Westminster aforesaid, come the Parties aforesaid, by their Attornies aforesaid: Whereupon, all and singular the Premises having been seen, and by the said Court of Parliament now here fully understood, and as well the Judgment Roll and Proceedings aforesaid, and the Judgment thereupon given, and the Affirmance thereof, as also the Suggestion of Error aforesaid by the said Thomas Tapling, being diligently examined and inspected, and mature Deliberation being thereupon had; It appears to the said Court of Parliament now here, that there is no Error, either in the Judgment Roll and Proceedings aforesaid, or in the giving of the Judgment aforesaid, or in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Fearn and Others v Board of the Trustees of the Tate Gallery
-
Fearn and Others v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery
...the offensive window.” There are further dicta to similar effect in Turner v Spooner (1861) 30 LJ (Ch) 801, 803, and in Tapling v Jones (1865) 20 CBNS 166, a decision of the House of Lords. For example, in Tapling v Jones, at p 179, Lord Westbury LC said that “invasion of privacy, by openin......
-
Thomas Tapling, - Plaintiff in Error; Hugh Jones, - Defendant in Error
...Restoration - 2 and 3 Will. 4, c. 71. Mews' Dig. v. 1131, 1154, 1158. S.C. 34 L.J. C.P. 342; 12 L.T. 555; 13 W.R. 617; 11 Jur. N.S. 309; 20 C.B. N.S. 166. On point (i.) as to right to ancient lights, adopted in Jordeson v. Sutton, Southcoates and Drypool Gas Co. (1898), 2 Ch. 626; (ii.) alt......