Wood v Brown
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 1815 |
| Date | 03 May 1815 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 998
Common Pleas Division
S. C. 1 Marsh. 522. Referred to, Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 743.
9 98 WOOD V. BROWN 6 TAUNT. 168- exception was entered on the 24th of November, but in the mean time the Plaintiff had commenced an action for an escape, in which he recovered. The bail never justified, but the Defendant had nevertheless applied to the filazer to enter on the roll the recognizance of the same bail, which it is the practice of that officer to do, if required ; for notwithstanding that the bail are rejected, they still stand as bail in the filazer's book, and though the exception appears on his book, it never appears thereby whether they have justified or not. The sheriff had now sued the bail below on the bail bond, and they had pleaded comperuerunt ad diem, whereupon Best Serjt. moved for a rule nisi to take the bail recognizance off the file, under an apprehension that the bail would prove their issue by the production of this record, against which the Plaintiff could not aver. The Court at first intimated, that the evidence of the recognizance might be met by evidence of the rejection of the bail : they could nut perceive for what honest purpose the bail should now enter into this gratuitous undertaking, but (168] they conceived it would be no answer to the bail bond, to shew a recognizance voluntarily entered into, when the sufficiency of the bail had not been allowed by the Court ; it was not, however, fit that the sheriff should have to encounter that difficulty, and they granted a rule nisi. Shepherd Solicitor-General now shewed cause against this rule. He contended that the Defendant had done every thing which was incumbent on him, having put in his bail in due time. If the bail did not justify within four days after exception, the sheriff's officer might have treated them as a nullity ; but it was by his own neglect that he had subjected himself to the action for the escape, while the Defendant had been guilty of no neglect. The Court, interposing, observed, that it was not the question there, whether the sheriff bad misconducted himself, but whether there was sufficient ground to take off the roll the recognizance of bail, because, standing where it did, it testified a falsehood. The Court thought it ought not to remain. The remedy of the sheriff is by proceeding on the bail bond : if the Defendants, on their plea of comperuerunt, give that recognizance in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Craft v Boite
...&o.; for such a mode of statement deprives the defendant of taking the opinion of the Court upon the words of the libel by demurrer. 6 Taunt. 169, Wood v. Brown. 1 Marsh, 522, S. C. [See also 3 B. & A. 503, Wright v. Clements, ante, p. 121, note (a).] So in actions for verbal slander, the w......
-
Solomon against Lawson
...also the principle o!Zenobiov. A-xtdl (6 T. R. 162), Cook v. Cox (3 M. & S. 110), Wright v. Clements (3 B. & Aid. 503), and Wood v. Brown (6 Taunt. 169). The rule 8 ft B. 836. SOLOMON V. LAW8ON 1089 manifestly applies, not merely to such words as are formally declared upon as the gist of th......
-
Saunders v Bate
...Philhp-t, 18 Beav. 629 , Palnn.f v. The Juytite Association bocitty, G El. & Bl. 1015 (6) See Hey. v. Diake, 2 Salk. 660, Wood, v Bimon, 6 Taunt. 169; Wiight v. Clbinent-i,, J i & Aid 50 J , CuoL \. G'w, J AI. & Sel. 110. English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 1259 IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER A......
-
Walsh v Henderson
...13 East, 554. Sydenham v. ManENR Cro. Jac. 407. Maitland v. GoldneyENR 2 East, 425. Rex v. BreretonENR 8 Mod. 330. Wood v. BrownENR 6 Taunt. 169. Rutherford v. EvansENR 3 Bing. 554. Cartwright v. WrightENR 5 B. & Al. 615; S. C. 1 Dowl. & R. 230. 34 CASES AT LAW. only set forth the overt act......