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.

GAYFORD V CHOULER 1898

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.

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. The evince tend to show that some time the year 1884 Ebenezer Gaylord, havg some trouble wh his first wife, Deborah, and his father--law, orr to place his property so that his wife uld tablish no claim upon se of ligatn, had a ed prepared and ma over to his brother, wh the unrstandg and agreement that Sam was to give the ed back to Ebenezer when the latter should ll for . Bullock, who seems to have prepared the ed, ttified as follows: "Sam Gaylord asked me to e to my office; that Ebenezer wished to make him a ed, as he was trouble, and for fear that his wife would get a part of his property a su she wanted to brg.