KK929-944

Hanmer vs Proctor: Court of Common Pleas

1868-1874

From: 1868 To: 1874

Note: The case, brought in 1871, was an action to recover £112..4..6d arrears of admission fines. Defendant paid into court £76 and pleaded never indebted in the remainder. Issue joined whether plaintiff had right to arbitrary fines or only to fines of one year’s value. The defence was conducted by Henry Pettit and F Willis, the solicitors for the Leighton Copyholders Protective Society. Plaintiff brought in evidence. i) Court rolls Richard II – Philip and Mary where fines were arbitrary (no details after that date). ii) Chancery case: Cary vs. Hoddesdon, 1599; where plaintiff alleged that he and other copyholders of Leighton Buzzard had made composition with Christopher Hoddesdon for £1,000 that defendant should make a fine certain for admission and surrender and that this should be ratified in Chancery, but that defendant had refused to fulfil the agreement, after receiving £25, the plaintiffs share. In Hanmer’s favour since it showed that agreement was not put into effect. iii) Jackman vs. Hoddesdon in Court of Common Pleas, Michaelmas 36-7 Elizabeth iv) Early 19th century custom that rate was 1 year’s value for surrender and 2 years for a death, held not to quash evidence of early rolls that fines had once been arbitrary. Defendant alleged that no inferences could be drawn from early court rolls, since amounts were so irregular. Case settled by arbitration. Judgement in favour of plaintiff.

series

Pettit, Henry,
Willis, F.,
Cary,
Hoddesdon,
Hanmer,
Jackman