Cuffe v Wilson

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 January 1866
• Date: 20 January 1866
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench.

CUFFE

and

WILSON.

Price v. HarrisonENR 8 C. B., N. S., 617.

Bull v. ClarkENR 15 C. B., N. S. 851.

Shadwell v. Shadwell 28 Law J., N. S., C. P. 275.

iv Appendix. A. T. 1866. Queen's Bench CUFFE v. WILSON.* Jan. 20. Inspection of Tars was a motion for liberty to inspect and take a copy of a documents. document in the plaintiff's possession. The plaint alleged a con The plaint in tract for the purchase of sheep for ready money, and the breach this action was for breach of thereof by the defendant's refusing to pay for the said sheep, and the agreement re lating to the damages were laid at 84. The defendant's affidavit, on which sale of sheep, this motion was grounded, stated that there was no foundation what- ?, for ready money. The ever for the agreement, bargain, or arrangement alleged in the defendant, plaint. That he had a good defence on the merits. That he had filed an affi- davit, denying had some negotiation with the plaintiff about sheep, and that de-that there was fendant, on one occasion, wrote a document and gave it to said Joseph any agreement whatever, but Cuffe, and the affidavit continued :-" And I say I did not keep any stat that he hading on one oc- " copy, and have no copy of the said document, nor have seen any casion written "copy of it since I gave the same to the said Cuffe ; but I say that, a letter to the plaintiff relat- "to to the best of my recollection, the said document was a proposal ing to a sale "by me to buy the said sheep on credit, and to give my bill, and to on credit; that he had no copy " deposit the lease of my farm-house as a security, on the terms of thereof, and cc my being given possession of said sheep at once. I say that I do had seen none since the writ- " not recollect the precise terms of the document, but that the only ing, and that " proposal I ever intended to make, or ever discussed with the said it was neces- sary for his "J. Cuffe, was a proposal to the effect above stated; and I say that defence to see said letter, and "if the document does not fully set out the same, it was only applied for an " through inadvertence and mistake." The affidavit further stated, order to in spect and take that it was necessary for the defence to get a copy of this proposal, a copy thereof, and that a preliminary application had been made without effect to Held, that he was entitled to plaintiff's solicitor. - such an order James Monahan.-From the statement in the plaint, there must notwithstand-...