The Times 1821 - 1830 Apr 22 1825 Court of King's Bench, Suicide Case

Apr 22 1825 Court of King's Bench, Suicide Case

The Times, Friday, Apr 22, 1825; pg. 4; Issue 12634; col A                                         LAW REPORT.                                          ---------------       COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER, MAY 3.                                 TAYLOR V. LAMBERT. This was an action on a promissory note for 200L., bearing date in 1813, given by a party deceased, of whom the defendant was executor, to a man of the name of YOUNGHUSBAND, and made payable to his order. The payee, on the 8th of November, 1818, committed suicide, and was afterwards found, by the inquisition of the coroner, felo de se, and his goods forfeited to the Crown. The King, by his warrant, granted this note to the plaintiff, who in 1822, brought an action to recover the principal and interest due on the note. In his declaration he set out his title derived through the Crown. The defendant pleaded that the action did not accrue to the felon within six years, and denied the inquisition and the grant. At the trial, which took place at Carlisle in 1823, the jury found the first issue for the defendant, and the two last for the plaintiff, and the effect of this finding now came on to be argued on a special case. The case was argued by Mr. TINDAL for the plaintiff, and by Mr. Sergeant CROSS for the defendant, and involved two main questions - first, whether the statute of limitations, which does not run against the Crown, ran against the assignee of the Crown? and second, whether the plaintiff ought not specially to have replied the matter by which he would take his peculiar case out of the general rule of law. In the course of his argument, Mr. TINDAL, contending that the goods of the felon vested in the Crown from the moment when he struck the mortal blow, referred to the case in Plowden of Sir James HALES, who drowned himself, and respecting whom it was made a question whether the forfeiture occurred while he lived, or at his death; and it was ruled that the forfeiture took effect during his life - thus: "Sir James HALE was dead, and how came he by his death? It may be answered, by drowning. And who drowned him? Sir James HALES. And when did he drown him? In his life-time. So that Sir James HALES being alive, caused Sir James HALES to die; and the life of the living man was the death of the dead man." The learned counsel, however, only mentioned the case, and did not enter into its ludicrous details. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that this case certainly furnished a very celebrated poet with materials for one of his most entertaining scenes. It was quite impossible not to suppose that SHAKESPEARE was present at the argument, and drew from it the reflections of his Gravedigger on the death of Ophelia. The COURT took time to consider of their judgment.

 

< Prev		Next >