Williams v Ward
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1861 |
| Date | 01 January 1861 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 1229
QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Referred to, Willey v. Great Northern Railway Co (1891), 2 Q. B. 194.
Michaelmas Term, 1861, coram Keating, J williams v ward. (In an action for assault and battery, the defendant justifying the assault and the battery (in defence of possession), and plaintiff replying excess, and proving that tie defendant struck him with his clenched fist, the jury finding for the plaintiff, damages forty shillings ; the Judge-the justification being proved-certified to deprive him of costs, under CLP Act, 1860, s. 34. And the Judge taking time to consider may certify next day ) [Referred to, Wilkyv. Great Northern Railway Co (1891), 2 Q. B. 194 ] Assault and battery. Plea, that the plaintiff was unlawfully in the house and premises of the defendant making a disturbance, and that the defendant desired him to withdraw, and on his refusing, molhter manus imposuit, &c. Replication : 1. Taking issue 2. Excess. Rejoinder : not guilty. Issue. Hawkins, Seymour, and Gibbons for the plaintiff Karslake and Keane for the defendant. It appeared that the defendant had formerly lived with a Miss H. and she had illegitimate children by him, who were in his custody. The plaintiff had gone with H. to the defendant's house with the object of her seeing them. She rang the bell, the street door was opened, and she went in. The defendant was in the passage and allowed her to pass, but, according to the plaintiff's account, rushed at him and struck him with his clenched fist on the eye so as to inflict a serious injury. The defendant was called and his case was, that the [660] plaintiff being in his house, and refusing to leave when requested, he forcibly removed him, but he did not strike him. Keating, J. (to the jury) -Even although the defendant had mvited the plaintiff to his house, yet if afterwards he requested the plaintiff to withdraw and he refused, the plaintiff might lawfully remove him, using no unnecessary violence. And the question therefore is, whether he did use unnecessary violence ? If so, find for the plaintiff. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages, forty shillings. Keane, for the defendant, just after the trial applied to the learned Judge, under the Common Law Procedure Act, 1860, s. 34, to certify, in order to deprive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitmore v O'Reilly
... ... Brett and Cotton, L.JJ., concurred with this decision. In Williams v. Ward ( 2 ) which also was a jury case, the Court of Appeal (Lord Esher, M.R., and Bowen and Fry, L.JJ.) upheld the order of the Judge, on the ... ...
- Connolly v "Sunday Times" Publishing Company Ltd and E W Finn
-
Cummins v Murray
... ... If he had such materials, the mode in which he exercised his discretion cannot be reviewed: Bostock'sCase (1); Williams v. Ward (2). It is conceded that the established principles on which the Court of Probate used to act, in exonerating an unsuccessful defendant ... ...
-
Zsigmond v. Sabulsky, [1993] B.C.T.C. Uned. B31
...given as an indemnity to the party entitled to them. The statement of Bramwell B. in Harold v. Smith (1860), 5 H. & N. 381 at 385, 175 E.R. 1229 at 1231, is generally quoted. He said: 'Costs as between party and party are given by the law as an indemnity to the person entitled to t......