Gordon v Hassard

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 10 May 1859
• Date: 10 May 1859
• Court: Court of Common Pleas (Ireland)

Common Pleas.

GORDON

and

HASSARD.

O'Malley v. Lindsay 12 Ir. Law Rep. 100.

Kelly v. Dolphin Smythe, 147.

Booth v. Bearde Smythe, 154, note.

Oƒ€™Brien v. Whitlaw 2 Law Rec., N. S., 148.

Walters v. MaceENR 2 B. & Ald. 756.

Rostall v. StrattonENR 1 H. Bl. 49.

O Brien v. Whitlaw Ubi sup.

Regina v. NaghtenUNK 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 593.

Phillips v. ShawENR 4 B. & Ald. 435.

Noble v. ChapmanENR 14 C. B. 400.

Hunter v. EmanuelENR 15 C. B. 290.

Buckland v. Johnson 23 Law Jour., C. P., 207.

COMMON LAW REPORTS. 195 trial, the point now raised was not the subject of discussion. It was assumed, there being no evidence on the bill of exceptions to the contrary, that the forty-five acres in dispute were part of DromardÂÂmore, and comprised in the map ; and on that state of facts we decided that their being stated to be under a lease was merely falsa demonstratio, and could not control the earlier description in the instrument, and that if they were not in fact included in the lease they passed in possession. We are now extending the latter doctrine to the present case ; and what we decide is this, that nothing but Dromardmore passed under the deed of 1853 ; and should our judgment be acquiesced in or affirmed, whenever the case comes on again for trial, the question for the jury will be this, whether these forty-five acres are or are not part of the lands of DromardÂÂmore ? and if this question be found in the affirmative, then the Judge shall inform the jury that the lands pass to the plaintiff, otherwise not. Under these circumstances, we must allow the exception, and award a venire de novo. Exceptions allowed. H. T. 1859. CommonPleas. ROE V. LID WELL. • G ORDON V. • HA S SARD. E. T. 1859. May 3, 6, 10. THIS was an action of debt upon a judgment, to which the defend- In 'an action upon a judg ant pleaded nul tiel record. In the margin of the summons and went, the plaintiff was plaint, the plaintiff was described as "Michael Gordon, of No. 35 described as " Michael . High-street, Bel rave-road Pimlico, jeweller, England.z' The sum- Gordon, of No. 35 High- mons and plaint averred that the plaintiff; on the 26th of January street, Bel-1857, in the Court of Exchequer in Dublin, recovered against the grave-road, Pimlico, Eng- landel." defendant the sum of 28. 2s. 4d., together with costs, which judg- The desler crip- ment still remained unreversed. It also claimed 2. 5s. for interest. tion in the judgment was, Upon the production of the judgment roll (26th of January " Michael Gordon, late 1857), the plaintiff was described in the judgment recovered as of...