Douglas v Ewing

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 17 April 1856
• Date: 17 April 1856
• Court: Court of Common Pleas (Ireland)

Common Pleas.

DOUGLAS

and

EWING.

Vernon v. HankeyENR 2 T. R. 113.

Cook v. Berry 1 Wils. 98.

Harrison v. Harrison 9 Pri. 89.

Dickenson v. Blake 7 B. P. C. 177.

Bell v. Thompson 2 Chit. Rep. 194.

Load v. GreenENR 15 M. & W. 216.

Irving v. MotlyENR 7 Bing. 543.

Wilkinson v. KingENR 2 Camp. 335.

Earl of Bristol v. WilsmoreENR 1 B. & C. 514.

White v. SpettigueENR 13 M. & W. 603.

Murphy v. Harris Bat. 206.

Knight v. EgertonENR 7 Exch. 407.

Toulmin v. HedleyENR 2 Car. & K. 157.

Buckland v. JohnsonENR 15 C. B. 145.

Wilkin v. ReedENR 15 C. B. 192.

White v. GardenENR 10 C. B. 919.

Sheppard v. Shoolbred Car. & Mar. 61.

Parker v. PatrickENR 5 T. R. 175.

Davis v. Morrison Loft. 185.

Bright v. Eynon 1 Bur. 393.

Doe v. Power 3 Ir. Law Rep. 438.

Kirwan v. Tully 1 Cr. & D., Ab. N., 388.

OBrien v. Doolan 1 Leg. Rep. 198.

Regina v. RobinsENR 1 Dears., C. C., 418.

Martin v. The Great Northern Railway CompanyENR 16 C. B. 179; S. C., 24 Law Jour., N. S., C. P., 209.

White v. GardenENR 10 C. B. 919.

Murphy v. Harris Bat. 206.

COMMON LAW REPORTS. 359 E. T. 1856. CommonPleas. DOUGLAS v. EWING. • (Common Pleas.) April 17. Tins was an action for trover, tried before the CHIEF JUSTICE Where the made iandteiff by of the Common Pleas, at the Sittings after Michaelmas Term case p the trial was 1855. The summons and plaint stated that the defendants, on a surprise on the defend- the 18th. of August 1855, converted to their own use 117 pieces, ants, the Court new a granted containing about 11,230 yards, of linen drills, the goods of the trial, though plaintiff, of the value of 253. no objection to the Judge's Pleas.-First, that the defendants 'did not convert to their own charge had been taken by use any goods of the plaintiff, as alleged. the defendants at the trial. Second-That the goods were not the goods of the plaintiff Where, from a mani at the time of the conversion. fest error in Third.-That before the time of the alleged conversion, to one ofthe i pleas, it was wit, on the 11th of August 1855, one Robert Wilson was an impossible to try the entire agent entrusted by the plaintiff with the possession of the said question be tween the par goods, within the true intent and meaning of a certain Act of ties, the Court allowed the Parliament passed in the 5th and 6th years of the reign of her plea to be amended at present Majesty, in such case made and provided ; and whilst the trial, on the condition the plaintiff was such owner as aforesaid, and whilst the said of the plaintiff lrowaend Robert Wilson was such agent as aforesaid, the defendants did btheingendale issue on the bona fide make an agreement with the said Wilson for the ad- defence as Vance of 170, to be secured, with interest and commission amended. thereon, by a deposit and pledge of the said goods with the deÂÂfendants ; and that the said Robert Wilson did, in pursuance of the said agreement, deliver said goods to the defendants, who thereupon, and upon the security thereof, did advance to the said Robert Wilson the said sum of 170 ; and the defendants further say that the said sum of 170, together with commission and interest thereon, is still due and owing by the said...