Williams against Clough, Clerk
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 1834 |
| Date | 08 May 1834 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 1249
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
1AD.&E.373. WILLIAMS V. CLOUGH 1249 [376] williams against clotjgh, Clerk. Thursday, May 8th, 1834. A line drawn through two words in the jurat of an affidavit, leaving them, however, perfectly legible, is an erasure within the rule of Court, Michaelmas term, 37 G. 3, and vitiates the affidavit, though the omission or retention of the words would not vary the sense. Sir James Scarlett, on shewing cause against a rule obtained by the Attorney-General in this case, objected that an affidavit on which the rule had been grounded Held, that trams could not be distrained for arrears of tolls due from the owners for goods carried in them, if they were not carrying goods of such owners at the time of the distress. The statute enacted, that any action, brought for any thing done in pursuance of the Act, or in execution of the powers and authorities granted by it, should be brought within six calendar months next after the fact committed: Held, first, that such a distress was a thing done in pursuance of the Act. But, held, secondly, that where an owner of trams let them to a third person, and during such letting they were illegally distrained for arrears due from the person hiring, while not carrying such person's goods, and afterwards sold, such owner might sue within six months from the time of sale, on a count complaining of injury done ta his reversionary interest by the seizure and sale. The declaration contained counts for an excessive distress and sale of the plaintiff's goods, generally, and other counts for an injury to his reversionary interest in such goods, by an excessive distress and sale of the same, they being at the time let to hire by the plaintiff to Joseph Drayton Je-nkins and John Jenkins, and in their possession. The seventh count "alleged that, while the plaintiff was proprietor of certain trams, &c. which had been let on hire (as before), the defendants seized and took them from the possession of the said J. D. J. and J. J., and absolutely sold, and converted and disposed thereof, to the injury of plaintiff's reversionary interest. There was also an eighth count in trover. Plea, the general issue. At the trial before Gurney B., at the Monmouthshire Summer Assizes 1832, it appeared that the defendant was clerk to the Monmouthshire Canal Navigation Company, and had distrained and sold, for tonnage due to them, several tram-waggons, -which...
To continue reading
Request your trial