Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Markham v. . Cob, (1793)

Court: Court of King's Bench Number:  Visitors: 3
Judges: JONES, J.
Filed: Jul. 05, 1793
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: If he be discharged on an ignoramus on an indictment at the suit of the party, he shall not be liable to action. The statute of 21 H., 8, 11, p. 189, gives restitution in case of goods or money. But then what shall be done if the party has neither the money nor the goods stolen

In 3 E., 3, Tit. Corone and 8, 3, Tit. Corone. If one takes my horse and waves it in the manor of the lord, and afterwards it is found by a verdict that he stole it, the party shall not have trespass.

WHITLOCK and DODERIDGE, JJ., thought the indictment does not take away the action of the party, and the plaintiff here is not to have restitution under the statute. For the statute precisely says attaint per evidence: *But here he is not attainted. Judgment was given on the third point. Noy, 82; Roll., 557; Bendl., 185; Jones, 147; Entr., 248, 246; 1 Cr., 213, 216; 3 Inst., 215; 2 And., 45; Ow., 69; 1 Leon., 326. *Page 736

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer