Lessee Heywood v Reynolds

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 June 1843
• Date: 01 June 1843
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench.

Lessee HEYWOOD

and

REYNOLDS.

Regina v. MitchelENR 2 G. & Dav. 274.

Justices of GloucestershireENR 4 Ad. & El. 689.

Rex. v. PillerENR 7 C. & P. 337.

Regina v. O'Neil 3 Leg. Rep. 160.

Rex v. HarrisENR 3 Burr. 1333.

Morgan v. MorganENR Hard. 66.

Stock v. Willett Arm. & Mac. 8.

Gillmore v. ShuterENR 2 Mod. 310.

Couch v. JeffriesENR 4 Burr. 2460.

Wilkinson v. MeyerENR 2 Ld. Raym. 1350.

Ashburnham v. BradshawENR 7 Mod. 239.

Paddon v. BartlettENR 3 Ad. & El. 884.

Hitchcock v. MayENR 6 Ad. & El. 943.

Hunt's caseENR 3 Lev. 394.

Horton v. NanfanENR Sir T. Raym. 392.

Bailiff of Litchfield v. Slater Wiles, 431.

Mayor of London v. ColeENR 7 T. R. 583.

Mostyn v. Fabrigas Cowp. 176.

Goodright v. WilliamsENR 2 M. & S. 270.

Rumby v. Alday 1 Cr. & Jer. 301.

Johnstone v. Cottingham 1 Jebb & B. 31.

Crafte v. BoiteENR 1 Saund. 246.

CASES IN THE COURTS OF QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, AND Oxtbetuter of illeao. 1843. Lessee HEYWOOD v. REYNOLDS. Qu,een'sBench. (Queen's Bench.) Trinity Term. June 1. EJECTMENT on the title, tried before Crampton, J., at the Spring Assizes Where an ej ectme of 1843, for the county of the town of Drogheda. The declaration was broughtnt for filed as of Easter Term 1842, venue, county of the town of Drogheda ; lands in one county, and af to this declaration an appearance was entered, and defence taken in ter issue joined Trinity Term 1842, on the 3rd day of June. On the trial of the but before the trial of the cause, the plaintiff having proved his title to the premises, closed his case. cause, those Counsel for the defendant then referred to the 3 & 4 Vic. c. 109, s. 1, lands, by vir tue of a staÂwhereby it appeared that from and after the time that Act had come into tute, were de clared to be operation, certain portions of the county of the town of Drogheda (in- within the eluding the premises in question) were thereby transferred to the county boundaries of another counÂof Louth. That by the thirteenth section, the Act was to come into ty, and at the trial a operation on the day after the election of a Town Council. He then was foundverdict for proved, on the evidence of the town-clerk and the production of his books, the plaintiff. Held, that a that certain persons had been elected and had acted as Town Conn- motion for a nsuit, on cillors, since the ejectment had been brought ; and having shown thereby ground that the that the premises were no longer in the county of the town of Drogheda, the Court had nourc, called on the learned Judge to nonsuit the plaintiff, or to direct a verdict cojuldis di notti bone for the defendant ; which his Lordship refused to do, but directed the maintained, the parties Jury to find for the plaintiff. The Jury found accordingly. having appear- An order nisi having been obtained to set aside this verdict, and to ed and tried the issues. have a nonsuit entered- the Semble, proper course Mr. Hercules Ellis with whom was Mr. Holmes, showed cause.- to have , been have would h The venue at the time the ejectment was brought was rightly laid, the put - ut the ques tion on the re- premises being then in the county of the town of Drogheda. But it is cord, and then moved in ar rest of judgment. Qucere :- Is this a mis-trial, and cured by the 17 & 18 Car. 2, 0. 12 T. T. 1843. Queen'sBench. Lessee HEYWOOD v. REYNOLDS. 2 CASES AT LAW. said...