William Armestede port Action de Transg v William Stedeman & auters pur

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1664
Date01 January 1664
CourtCourt of Common Pleas

English Reports Citation: 123 E.R. 327

DEL COMMON-BANK

William Armestede port Action de Transg
and
ers William Stedeman & auters pur

XXVIII. William Armestede port Action de Transgf vers William Stedeman & auters pur infreinder de son close, & in homines & servientes suos insultum fecerunt, &c. & declare que lea Defendants in homines & servientes suos, viz. in quosdara Willielmum Armesteda filium querentis, ac Ursulam Clerk & Wynifrid Coppin servientes suos insultum fecerunt, &c. le defendant plede al issue & ceo fuit trove pur le Plaintiff, et 328 1 ANDERSON, 14. judgment staye intent obatant verdit done; car fuit dit que le Declaration vary del breve pur ceo que le breve est in homines, &c. insultum fecerunt, et en le Declaration nul mention est fait de homes. Mes Quaere de cest reason ; car homines est parol que...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • British Oxygen Company v South West Scotland Electricity Board (No 2)
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 16 April 1959
    ...21 The next relevant legislation was the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. I note, without elaborating, the provisions in sections 12 and 13 with regard to damages and pass to section 27, which placed the onus on the railway company to disprove "undueness" where the complainant establish......
  • Kemp v Magistrates of Larges
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 30 March 1939
    ...the late Thomas Brisbane and Sir Thomas Makdougall Brisbane also as heir and representative of the late Thomas Brisbane his father, dated 7th and 13th June and recorded in the Particular Register of Sasines, etc., kept for the Shire of Ayr, 7th December, all in the year 1833. 7 By section 3......
  • Barry v Medical Council
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 2 March 2007
    ...In accordance with the court's judgment, I now enclose a cheque payable to your client in the sum of €15,000." 5 4. On 11 th, 12 th and 13th July, 2006, the Fitness to Practice Committee of the Medical Council sat and enquired into complaints arising against Dr. Barry as to his treatment of......
  • Aughey v Ireland
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1986
    ...... Sligo town", until after the trial of this action. . . 6 Having heard the evidence, I am ...William Keaveney was their representative on it. He kept ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT