Taylor against George Rolf, John Bush, William James, Henry Usher and William Mazey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 November 1843 |
| Date | 22 November 1843 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 1276
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
taylor against george rolf, john bush, william james, henry usher AND william mazey. Wednesday, November 22d, 1843. Where plaintiff in trespass obtains judgment on demurrer, and a writ of inquiry is executed, he is entitled to costs of suit, under stat. 3 & 4 VV. 4, c. 42, s. 34, though the verdict be only for one farthing damages, and the Judge do not certify ; stat. 3 & 4 Viet. c. 24, s. 2, being inapplicable to such a case. This was an action of trespass commenced against the five defendants by summons of November 1840. On 16th February 1841, Rolf, Bush and James pleaded not guilty; and, on 19th February 1841, Usher and Mazey, by another attorney, pleaded not guilty, and also leave and licence. The plaintiff, on the same day, replied a similiter to the pleas of not guilty, and traversed the plea of leave and licence, adding a aimiliter, and on the 19th February notice of trial was given [338] for the next (a)1 May 27th. Before Lord Denman C.J., Patteson, Williams, and Coleridge Js. (a)2 See Regina v. Jones, 10 A. & E. 576, 582. (6) The following note is from Mr. Robinson of the Crown Office. Ruth Cope, a married woman, applied to be discharged out of custody upon an attachment; and the Court granted a rule to shew cause. Cause was shewn, and the role discharged with costs. A doubt having suggested itself in the office, as to awarding the coats either against Ruth Cope, as a married woman, or against her husband, who (though a co-defendant in the cause) was no party to the application, Mr. Justice Bay ley's direction was requested by Mr. Deal try aa to the mode of entering the rule; and his Lordship wrote as follows. " The husband cannot be ordered to pay the costs. The rule should be discharged with coats to be paid by the said Ruth Cope. A married woman is not to be entitled to harass a party with a vexatious rule, without being liable to the ordinary consequence of paying the costs if the rule is discharged. " J. B." (a)3 1 Rol. R. 426. S. C., more fully, as Motteram v. Motteram, 3 Bulst. 264. (c) Lord Denman C.J., Williams, Coleridge and Wightman Js. (/) See Sparkes v. Bell, 8 B. & C. 1. BQ. B.SS9. TAYLOR V. ROLF 1277 Wiltshire Asaizes. At the Wiltshire Assizes held in March 1841, the defendants pleaded, puis darrein continuance, the bankruptcy of plaintiff. In May 1841 the plaintiff demurred to the last...
To continue reading
Request your trial