Williams v Davies
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1833 |
| Date | 01 January 1833 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 481
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 3 Tyr. 383; 1 Dowl. P. C. 647; 2 L. J. Ex. 102.
[464] wiiliams v. davies. Exch. of Pleas. 1833.-Where there are cross demands, and the defendant pleads a set-oft', the plaintiff is not obliged to prove the whole of his account in the first instance, but may prove only the balance which he claims ; and after the defendant has proved his set-oft', the plaintiff may prove other parts of his account to shew that a larger sum was due. [S. C. 3 Tyr. 383 ; 1 Dowl. P. C. 647 ; 2 L. J. Ex. 102.] Assumpsit on several bills of exchange with the common counts. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, the statute of limitations, and a set-off. : At the trial before Lord Lyndhurst, C. B., at the Middlesex sittings after last Michaelmas Term, the plaintiff, in the first instance, proved a sum of 221. (is. 8d. to be due to him from the defendant, and said that he had documents to prove a larger sum to be due, which he should not put in, unless the defendant proved his set-off. Chilton, for the defendant, insisted that the plaintiff was bound to prove his whole demand in the first instance, and had no right to go into evidence in reply, having in Ex. Div. v.-16 482 SABINE V. FIELD 1 C. & M. 488. part met the defendant's case. The defendant then proved his set-off to a larger amount than the plainti'i had proved. In answer to the defendant's case, the plaintiff proposed to prove two bills of exchange which he had accepted for the defendant's accommodation, and had paid ; and the learned Judge having allowed him to do so, a verdict was found for the plaintiff'. Chilton now moved for a new trial on the ground, amongst others, that the evidence in reply had been improperly received ; and that it was too late after the plaintiff had closed his case, to give evidence of demands which he had not made part of his case in the first instance. Ho relied upon Rues v. Smith (2 Stark. N. P. C. 3i), where Lord Ellenborough states the general rule to be, that when by pleading or by means of notice the defence is known, the counsel for the plaintiff' is hound to open the whole case in chief, and cannot proceed in parts; that when it is known what the question in issue is, it must be met at once lie also cited...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zainal bin Kuning and Others v Chan Sin Mian Michael and Another
...(Pte) Ltd [1991] 1 SLR (R) 169; [1991] SLR 436 (refd) Subramaniam v PP [1956] 1 WLR 965 (refd) Williams v Davies (1833) 1 C & M 464; 149 ER 481 (refd) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68,1985 Rev Ed)s 32 (1) (a) (consd);ss 121,122 (6) Evidence Act (Cap 97,1990 Rev Ed)ss 7, 8, 45,76, 125,126 J B......
-
Bridges Christopher v Public Prosecutor
...that a discretion lies with the trial judge to allow the plaintiff to call evidence to rebut evidence of the defence: Williams v Davies 1 Cr & M 464; 149 ER 481. This is so even where the defence was disclosed in the cross-examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses: Shaw v Beck (1853) 8......
-
Bridges Christopher v Public Prosecutor
...that a discretion lies with the trial judge to allow the plaintiff to call evidence to rebut evidence of the defence: Williams v Davies 1 Cr & M 464; 149 ER 481. This is so even where the defence was disclosed in the cross-examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses: Shaw v Beck (1853) 8......
-
Public Prosecutor v BPK
...lies with the trial judge to allow the plaintiff to call evidence to rebut evidence of the defence: Williams v Davies (1833) 1 Cr & M 464; 149 ER 481. This is so even where the defence was disclosed in the cross-examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses: Shaw v Beck (1853) 8 Exch 392. ......