Rumpelheimer v Haddock: Difference between revisions

The President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division ( who had the assistance of an assessor) giving judgment. This action was originally instituted in the King’s Bench, but, Mr Justice Juice holding that the issues disclosed pertained to the Law of Admiralty, although the ground of the claim was damage to a motor-car, the case was withdrawn from the King's Bench List and referred to this Court.

NOTE—See Bracton “''Lex non risu deletur''” or “Ridicule will not repeal”, or (Lord Mildew in ''The Dukeries Case'') “A man may laugh at the law, but the law will laugh last”. See Rex v Flanagan (I9I9) 2 AC, in which the wife of a plumber died intestate leaving issue three children and net personalty £31,482. A charge of murder was preferred against the plumber, who raised the defence that, man and wife being at Common Law one person, it could not be murder to kill his wife. The plea was allowed, and a verdict of “Suicide while of unsound mmd” was returned, but it was held (Mould, L J , dissenting) that, being insane, the man was ineligible for unemployment relief See also ''Earl of Erne v Maltravers and Gareth'' (1893, 2 HL ), where the Yaffle hounds hunted an aged peer for four miles over the property of the plaintiff, who had forbidden the Hunt to cross his boundaries. In an action for trespass it was held (Fruit, LJ, dissenting) that though the Master had been guilty of negligence in employing short-sighted foxhounds their pursuit of Lord Gareth was an Act of God which he could not have foreseen or prevented. On appeal, however, the House of Lords decided that, though not responsible for damage done by the dogs, he must make good that which was due to the passage of himself and his horse, and the case was referred to assessors for apportionment ''quantum pertinent''. Later, on a writ of ''quo corpore'' (''Rex v Maltravers''), the Master was found guilty of constructive assault in venery, and went bankrupt. (And see Wedderburn on Water-courses).