Woodward and Others v Goulstone and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 July 1886 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1886] UKHL J0716-3 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 16 July 1886 |
[1886] UKHL J0716-3
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel, as well on Thursday the 24th, as Friday the 25th, and Tuesday the 29th days of June last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Edward Francis Woodward, of Southwell Street, Kingsdown, in the city and county of Bristol, Builder and Contractor; Eliza Peters, of 3, Oldbury Villas, in the Parish of Saint Michaels, in the same city; and Mary Hardwick Quick, of the same place, wife of William Henry Quick, of the said city of Bristol, Photographer, praying, That the matter of the Orders set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 4th of July 1885, and also an Order of the said Court of Appeal, of the 11th of August 1885, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Orders, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Elizabeth Goulstone and Ann Williams; also upon the printed Case of Caroline Tilly and Mary Kingdon; also upon the printed Case of Herbert Hewlett Wilmot James; and also upon the printed Case of John Green and the said Herbert Hewlett Wilmot James, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and also upon the matter of the Petition of the Appellants, presented on the 16th of April last, praying their Lordships to order that a Commission might issue, directed to a British Consul in the United States of America, for the purpose of taking viv� voce the evidence of Jonathan Perrin, a Solicitor, formerly of Bristol, and that the return of such Commission might be made to their Lordships to receive and consider such further evidence on the hearing of the Appeal, or that the hearing of the Cause might be remitted to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal or to the Probate Division of the High Court of Justice, and that the return of such Commission might be made to either of such Courts with directions to receive and consider such further evidence; the matter of which said Petition was, by an Order of this House of the 1st day of June last, reserved to the hearing of the Appeal at the Bar; which said Appeal was, in pursuance of an Order of this House of the 26th day of January last, heard ex...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myers v DPP
...have been established and exist, and we have to see whether this case comes within any one of those." 9 In Woodward v. Goulstone 11 App. Cas. 469 the question was whether a lost will was set up by parole evidence. There this House considered views expressed in the Court of Appeal in Sugden ......
-
Re H (A Minor); Re K (Minors) (Child Abuse: Evidence)
...both statutory and common law, grew up. After referring to Sturla v. Freccia (1880) 5 App. Cas. 623 H.L. and Woodward v. Goulstone (1886) 11 App. Cas. 469 H.L., Lord Reid in effect stated that what could not be fitted into an existing exception could only be remedied by legislation. It is e......
- Mccauley v Mccauley
-
Isabella Flood and Henrietta Flood, Plaintiffs; William Houghton Russell, Defendant. Robert Grove Annesley and Louisa Thornhill, Intervenients. in the Goods of Warden Hatton Flood, Deceased. in the Goods of Warden Hatton Flood, Deceased
...Wilson's CaseUNK 26 L. T. 405. Silver v. SilverUNK 27 L. T. 766. Sugden v. Lord St. LeonardsELR 1 P. D. 154. Woodward v. GoulstoneELR 11 App. Cas. 469. Sly v. SlyELR 2 P. D. 91. Shallcross Palmer 16 Q. B. 747. Knee v. KneeELR L. R. 3 P. & D. 105. Whiteley v. KingENR 17 C. B. (N. S.) 756. Cl......