Wetherston v Edgington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 March 1809 |
| Date | 23 March 1809 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1092
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
[94] Thursday, March 23, 1809. wetherston vf edgington. (Where an agreement not under seal is produced at the trial by one of the parties in pursaance of an undertaking to produce it, the opposite party, to make it evidence, must prove it in the same manner as if it had come from his own custody.) The pleadings in this case were similar to those in the last The holding was to be proved by an agreement not under seal, which the plaintiff's attorney had undertaken to produce, and dad produce accordingly. ** The only case resembling this to be found in the books is Rex v. Sir Charles Sedkp, M. T. 15 Car. II.; Sid. 168 ; 1 Keb. 620, S C The defendant, being indicted for shewing himself naked from a balcony, in Covent Garden to a great multitude of people, confessed the indictment, and was sentenced to pay a fine of 2000 marks, to be imprisomed a week, and to give security for his good behaviour for three years.- It seems an established principle, that whatever openly outrages decency, and is injurious to pubKc morals, is a misdemeanour at common law. 4 Bl Com. 65; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 5, s. 4; 1 East, P. C. c. 1, s 1. *2 But a rated inhabitant of a parish is to be considered as a party to an appeal between his parish and another, touching the settlement of a pauper , and since he cannot be compelled to be a witness, his declarations are evidence for the adverse parish Rex v. Woburn, 10 East, 395 Great confusion, however, would be introduced into proceedings at law, if it were to be inferred as a corollary from this decision, that where an action is brought by or against a trustee, the declarations of the cestm que trust shall be evidence for the opposite party.-The declarations of the trustee being admissble, it seems to follow that the cestm que trust must be called as a witness. Bai&erman v. Rademus, 1 T. R. 663. 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nagle v Shea
...548. Henman v.LesterENR 12 C. B. (N. S.) 781. Rearden v. Minter 5 M. & Gr. 204. Collins v.Bayntun 1 Q. B. 117. Weatherston v. EdgingtonENR 2 Camp. 94. Gillet v.Abbott 7 A. & E. 783. Scott v. ClareENR 3 Camp. 236. Summersett v. AdamsonENR 1 Bing. 73. Mason v. JohnstonENR 1 Esp. 89. Smithwick......
-
Clarke, Esq, v Earnshaw
...is bound to prove its execution in the ordinary mariner by the testimony of the subscribing witness See also Wetherston v Edqinqton, 2 Campb. 94, S. P But the rule, as thus laid down, has been narrowed and restricted by the determination in the recent case of Pearce v. Hooper, 3 Taunt. 60. ......