Gayford v Chouler - Case Summary - IPSA LOQUITUR

Contents:

• GAYFORD V CHOULER – CASE SUMMARY
• GAYFORD V CHOULER 1898

GAYFORD V CHOULER – CASE SUMMARY

For example, Gayford v Chouler (1898) 1 QB 316, tramplg down grass was held to be damage. An olr se, om before the new piece of legislatn, Gayford v Chouler [1898] 1 QB 316 went so far as to nsir tramplg on grass as damage. Gayford v Chouler [1898] 1 QB 316.

There is no need for the property to be renred els – the damage might only be slight: Gayford v Chouler [1898] 1 QB 316. Dtroys orDamag Defendant mt stroy or damage property, but the damage need not be nstut to damage is a matter of gree and fact Gayford v Chouler [1898] - Held that tramplg down grass amounts to damage. Grass n be damaged by tramplg down - Gayford v ChoulerBasic CD AR: Dtroy or damage - there mt be some expense on the part of the owner torectify the apparent harm - A (a juvenile) v RBasic CD AR: Dtroy or damage clus temporary impairment of value or e.

‘stroys or damag’Damage vers ‘jury, mischief or harm’ to the property (Samuel v Stubbs)There is no need for the property to be renred els – the damage might only be slight (Gayford v Chouler)What nstut crimal damage is for a jury or magistrat to ci (Roe v Kgerlee)Damage clus not only permanent or temporary physil harm, but also permanent or temporart impairment of value of efulns (Morph and Salmon)Any alteratn to the physil nature of the property ncerned may amount to damage (R v Wheley)Whether property is damaged is a matter of gree and pends on factors such as:The nature of the property (Samuel v Stubbs)The method by which the property is affected (Samuel v Stubbs)The extent of physil tsn to property and the victim’s abily to e (R v Fiak)Dtroy means damage which is so extreme pletely molish, lays to waste, or kills the property (Bar London BC v Eastern Electricy Board)‘property’s. The damage need not be permanent, so tramplg on grass n nstute damage (Gayford vChouler [1898] 1 QB 316), but mt be more than merely trivial, so sptle on a police officer’sra at has been emed not enough to nstute damage (A (a juvenile) v R [1978] Crim LR689). ACTUS REUS- Dtroy/damage (Gayford v Chouler 1898 slight damage, Fiak (2005), morphis v salmon 1990);.

GAYFORD V CHOULER 1898

Gayford v Chouler.

The platiffs, vise, children and heirs of Ebenezer Gaylord, ceased, seek to rever posssn of land which formerly belonged to their father, Ebenezer, om their uncle, Sam Gaylord, who is now posssn, claimg to own the land unr an alleged ed to himself om his brother Ebenezer, bearg date 13 November, 1884.