Watson v Quilter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 June 1843 |
| Date | 15 June 1843 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 1011
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 D. & L. 244; 12 L. J. Ex. 405; 7 Jur. 630. Referred to, Scott v. Bennett, 1871, L. R. 5 H. L. 243.
[760] watson v. qulltkk. Exch. of Pleas. June 15, 1843.-A suggestion under the Middlesex County Court Act, (23 G-eo. 2, c. 3.'!, s. 19), to deprive the plaintiff of costs, and allow the defendant double costs, on the ground that the plaintiff has recovered less than 40s. damages, and that the defendant was an inhabitant of and resident in Middlesex, and liable to be summoned to the county court, is traversable; and that, notwithstanding the plaintiff has previously shewn cause against a rule to enter the suggestion,-If the defendant succeeds, he will lie entitled to the costs of that traverse.-A rule having been made absolute for the plaintiff to bring in the postea, so that the defendant might enter the suggestion thereon, the plaintiff himself entered the suggestion on the roll in a traversable form, and added a traverse :-Held, that this was irregular.-Where the right of a party to any costs depends upon a fact, the determination of which is not by the statute law vested in the Court, and which must be stated on the record to justify the award of costs contrary to the usual course, the fact is traversable, and may be tried by a jury. [S. C. 1 U. & L. "244; L2 L. ,T. Ex. 405 ; 7 Jur. GUI). Referred to, &:oll v. F,mmtl, IS71, L. E. 5 H. L. 1243.] This was a rule calling upon the plaintiff to shew cause why the suggestion which had been entered on the plea roll in this case, together with the traverse thereon, should not be struck out, with costs. The action was to recover a sum of £14, for goods sold and delivered, work and labour, &c., in which the plaintitt, on the trial before one of the Secondaries in London, obtained a verdict on the second count of the declaration, for work and labour, with Us. damages only, the verdict on the other issues being for the defendant. In last Michaelmas term, a rule was obtained an the part of the defendant, for the plaintiff' to bring the postea into Court, and file the plea roll, to enable the defendant to enter a suggestion on the roll, under the 23 G-eo. 2, c. 23, s. 19, to deprive the plaintiff of costs, and allow the defendant double costs, upon an affidavit that the defendant, at the commencement of the action, was au inhabitant of and resident within the county of Middlesex, and liable to be summoned to the county court of that county. There being conflicting affidavits as to the facts stated in the defendant's affidavit, the case was referred to one of the Masters of the Court, who reported thereon, and the rule was made absolute. The plaintiff accordingly filed the plea roll, having first inserted in it the following suggestion, traverse, and notice of trial: " Therefore it is considered, as to the premises whereof the defendant is acquitted by the jury in form aforesaid, that the defendant go thereof without day, &c. ; and it is further considered that the plaintiff do recover against the defendant the sum of 1 Is. for his damages aforesaid, by the jurors aforesaid [761] in the form aforesaid assessed; and hereupon the defendant alleges and gives the Court to understand and be informed, that the causes of actiou, in the said second count of the said declaration mentioned, arose and accrued to the plaintiff' in the county of Middlesex, and not elsewhere ; and that ha the defendant did, at the time of the commencement of this suit, live and reside within the said county of Middlesex, and was then liable to be summoned to the county court of the said county, for the damages so as aforesaid assessed ; which allegation the plaintiff denies, and says, that the said causes of action did not arise and accrue to him within the said county of Middlesex; and this the plaintiff prays may be inquired of by 1012 WATSON V. QUILTKR 11M. &W. 762. the country; ;ind the defendant doth the like. Thereupon the sheriffs are commanded," &o. The present rule was obtained on the ground that the suggestion whs not traversable. Jervis, E. James, and Lush shewed cause in Kaster term, (May 10). The question is, whether die plaintiff is not. entitled to traverse this suggestion, c.ntered under the -',] Ci-eo. 2, c. .'!.'!, s. LI), to deprive the plaintiff of costs, and allow double costs to the defendant. Now, the suggestion involves no question of law to be determined by the Court, but only a question of fact Lo be determined by the jury : and the general rule is, that all questions of fact are to he determined by a jury. In the Aliltil of tit?ut:i Mu.-rcfMtt'n caw (!) Uep. 2~ a.), it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitmore v O'Reilly
...D. 27 (C. A.). (2) 13 Q. B. D. 262. (3) 55 L. J., Q. B. 566. (4) 4 Q. B. D. 611. (5) 5 Times L. R. 207. (1) 3 A. C. 944, at p. 953. (1) 11 M. & W. 760. (2) L. R. 5 H. L. (3) 3 Madd. 409. (4) 6 Ves. 41. (5) 8 Q. B. D. 515. (6) 1 Ves. Sen. 249. (7) 1 Brown's Ch. Cases, 140. (1) 3 A. C. at p. ......
-
Norwood v Pitt
...has sustained no damage, or that the breaches assigned have not been committed, would the defendant get hi3 costs ?] In IVahwi v. QuiUei (11 M. & W. 760) there was a suggestion, under the Middlesex County Court Act (23 Geo. 2, c. 33, s. 19), to deprive the plaintiff of costs and allow the d......
-
Peterson and Another v Davis
...reference to the other provisions of the act, and particularly to the 40th section. The suggestion being traversable,-Watson v. Quilter (11 M. & W. 760),-there can be no reason why the court should deprive the defendant of an opportunity of contesting the matter on affidavit. [Coltman, J. I......
-
Sherwin v Swindall
...be a suggestion on the record of the notice in writing; which, according to the recent decision of this Court (Watson v. QitUter, 11 M. & W. 760), would be traversable, and might be tried at the next assizes : unless the section is to be construed as making it imperative on the judge to cer......