CASES FOR ENGLAND:

S. CASE FACTS ISSUE OF HELD

N CONTENTION
O.
1.
2. Jones v. Gaming – Declaration that In an action upon Lord Mansfield
Randall there was a promissory note a wager, whether maintained that the ‘the
on a wager given to the a decree of the law of England prohibits
piaintiff by defendant in Court of everything which is contra
case of a decree in the Court Chancery would bonos mores’.
of Chancery should be be reversed on
reversed in the House of appeal to the
Lords, to which decree the House of Lords?
person who had laid upon
the reversal was party, and
had set off his loss by the
reversal, upon which the
decision would be against
him by his gain upon the
wager if it should be
reversed. They gave in
evidence a copy of a
minute-book of the House
of Lords.
The points in this case were
two.
1. That the evidence was
insufficient, which went to
the new trial.
2. That the contract was
illegal which went to the
motion in arrest of
judgment.
3. Shaw v The defendant created The defendant The appeal was dismissed
DPP magazines, which contained appealed the and the conviction was
personal adverts for conviction of upheld. The Court found
prostitutes. This included conspiracy to the defendant’s decision to
their personal contact corrupt public feature prostitute adverts
details, photographs and morals, arguing in his magazines as
descriptions of their that this was not dangerous to the welfare
services. The solicitation of a charge of society and it was their
prostitution was now illegal recognized by duty to protect the public
by virtue of the Street the law of majority’s morals, as
Offences Act 1959. The England. The well as safety and order.
defendant also received issue for the This meant that the Court
 money from the prostitutes
for the directory; thus, he
was living on the earnings
of prostitutes. The
defendant was convicted of
conspiracy to corrupt public
morals, as well as acting
contrary to s30 of the
Sexual Offences Act 1956
(living on the earnings of
prostitution) and s2 of the
Obscene Publications act
1959 (publishing an obscene
article).
4.
5.
6. Donoghue On August 26 1928, Mrs
v. Donoghue’s friend bought
Stevenson her a ginger-beer from
Wellmeadow Café1 in
Paisley. She consumed
about half of the bottle,
which was made of dark
opaque glass, when the
remainder of the contents
was poured into a tumbler.
At this point, the
decomposed remains of a
snail floated out causing her
alleged shock and severe
gastro-enteritis.
Mrs Donoghue was not able
to claim through breach of
warranty of a contract: she
was not party to any
contract. Therefore, she
issued proceedings against
Stevenson, the manufacture,
which snaked its way up to
the House of Lords.
7. Queen v. Three seamen and a boy, the
Dudley and crew of an
Stephenson English yacht were cast
away in a storm on the high
seas and were compelled to
Court was was able to create offences
whether there in order to adapt to
was a charge of changing standards in life
conspiracy to and in regard to the
corrupt public values and morals of
morals and if the society. Thus, this case
court had the created the new offence of
discretion to conspiracy to corrupt
create such an public morals and
offence. established that an offence
that was not written in
criminal statute could be
recognized as a legal
charge.
.
The question for Atkin deduced his legal
the HoL was if decision from a higher,
the manufacturer moral principle i.e.
owed Mrs protection of the health
Donoghue a duty and interest of the public
of care in the through reasonable care.
absence of
contractual The moral obligation
relations Was not translated into a
contrary to legal obligation.
established case
law.
The panel found that there
was no defence of
necessity to a charge of
murder:
1. on the basis of legal
 put
into an open boat belonging
to the said yacht. They had
no food and water in the
boat
and in order to save
themselves from certain
death, they put the boy to
death and fed
on the boy's body, when
they were picked up by a
passing vessel. They were
tried for
the killing of the boy.
8.
9. Sommerset James Somerset, an
t case, enslaved African, was
purchased by Charles
Stewart (or Steuart), a
customs officer when he
was in Boston, Province of
Massachusetts Bay, a
British crown colony in
North America.
Stewart brought Somerset
with him when he returned
to England in 1769, but in
October 1771 Somerset
escaped. After he was
recaptured in November,
Stewart had him imprisoned
on the ship Ann and Mary
(under Captain John
Knowles), bound for the
British colony of Jamaica.
He directed that Somerset
be sold to a plantation for
labour. Somerset's three
godparents from his baptism
as a Christian in England,
John Marlow, Thomas
precedent; nor
2. on the basis of ethics
and morality
The principle that
emerged from the
observation of Coleridge
CJ is that ‘no man has a
right to take another's
life to save his own’ .
Hence, the killing of the
boy is immoral and
contrary to ethical
considerations.’
They were guilty of
murder and the plea of jus
necessitates was not
accepted.
Somerset's Lord Mansfield decided
advocates argued that:
that while
colonial laws The state of slavery is of
might permit such a nature that it is
slavery, neither incapable of being
the common law introduced on any reasons,
of England nor moral or political, but
any statutory law only by positive law,
made by which preserves its force
Parliament long after the reasons,
recognised the occasions, and time itself
existence of from whence it was
slavery and created, is erased from
slavery was memory. It is so odious,
therefore that nothing can be
unlawful. suffered to support it, but
The advocates positive law. Whatever
also argued that inconveniences, therefore,
English contract may follow from the
law did not allow decision, I cannot say this
for any person to case is allowed or
enslave himself, approved by the law of
nor could any England; and therefore the
contract be black must be discharged.
binding without
 Walkin and Elizabeth Cade,
made an application on 3
December before the Court
of King's Bench for a writ
of habeas corpus. Captain
Knowles on 9 December
produced Somerset before
the Court of King's Bench,
which had to determine
whether his imprisonment
was lawful.
10. Horwood
v. Miller's
Timber and
Trading
Co. Ltd.,
11. Moses v. Moses owed Macferlan £26,
Macfelan did not pay him and was
sued. A settlement was
reached at arbitration
whereby Moses would pay
Macferlan £20; and endorse
to Macferlan the four
promissory notes he had
received. Moses, endorsed
these notes to Macferlan,
thus transferring over rights
to the money. Prior to
Moses endorsement,
Macferlan assured him that
his endorsement would not
prejudice him. In other
words, Macferlan would not
seek to get the value of the
notes from Moses. There
was also an agreement
signed by Macferlan that
Moses should "not be liable
to the payment of the money
or any part of it".
Despite Macferlan's
the person's
consent.
The court rejected
as unreasonable a contract
which would have reduced
a person to a condition of
virtual
slavery.This was followed
by the statutory
prohibition of the slave
trade.
Whether the law Lord Mansfield stated that
of restitution a recipient of money was
holding that in obliged by the
certain ties of natural justice and
circumstances equity to refund it.
such as when
money is paid by Lord Mansfield's
mistake, for judgment in Moses v
failed Macferlan is credited with
consideration or founding the entire
under common law of unjust
oppression; the enrichment. It has been
law will allow described in the United
the money to be Kingdom Supreme Court
recovered or as "a corner-stone of
not? common law restitution".
 assurances and agreement
with Moses; he summoned
Moses into the Middlesex
Court of Conscience as the
endorser of the four
promissory notes.
12. Riggs v. On the 13th day of August Was Elmer E. The case decided that a
Palmer 1880, Francis B. Palmer Palmer, who legatee under a will
made his last will and murdered his who had murdered his
testament, in which he gave grandfather by testator would not be
small legacies to his two poison in order permitted to take the
daughters, Mrs. Riggs and to obtain and property bequeathed to
Mrs. Preston, the plaintiffs enjoy the him. The claims of
in this action, and the possession of dominant opinion rooted
remainder of his estate to property left to in sentiments of justice
his grandson, defendant him bin his and public morality are
Elmer E. Palmer, subject to grandfather's among the most powerful
the support of Susan will and shaping-forces in law-
Palmer, his mother, with a testament, be making by courts.
gift over to the two allowed to obtain
daughters, subject to the and possess the
support of Mrs. Palmer, in same?
case Elmer should survive
him and die under age,
unmarried and without any
issue. The testator at the
date of his will owned a
farm and considerable
personal property. At the
date of the will, and,
subsequently, to the death of
the testator, Elmer lived
with him as a member of his
family, and at his death was
16 years old. Elmer knew of
the provisions made in his
favor in the will, and, tin
order to prevent his
grandfather from revoking
such provisions (which the
testator had manifested
some intention to do) and to
obtain the speedy enjoyment
and immediate possession
of his property, Elmer
willfully murdered testator
 by poisoning him.
Defendant was now
claiming the properties
bequeathed to him by the
virtue of the will. He argued
that Palmer’s will was made
in due form and has been
admitted to probate, and that
therefore, it must have
effect according to the letter
of the law.
13. Liversidge The validity of The majority held that
v. the Home Sanctity of the person
Anderson, Secretary's order must yield before national
for Liversidge's security.
incarceration
was in question.
14. R. v.
Secretary
of State for
the Home
Department
, Exp
Hosenball
15. Council of
Civil
Service
Unions v.
Minister
for the
Civil
Service,
16. Entick v.
Carrington