 A scintilla of evidence, or a mere surmise that there may have been negligence on the part of the defendants, clearly would not justify the judge in leaving the case to the jury : there must be evidence upon which they might reasonably and properly conclude...  A Handy Book of the Law of London Cabs and Omnibuses - Stran 109avtor: Sir William Thomas Charley - 1867 - 219 straniCelotni ogled - O knjigi
 | John Scott, Great Britain. Court of Common Pleas - 1859 - 518 strani
...that a case of this sort against a railway company could only be submitted to a jury with one result. A scintilla of evidence, or a mere surmise that there...would not justify the judge in leaving the case to the jury: there must be evidence upon which they might reasonably and properly conclude that there was... | |
 | Ireland. High Court of Chancery - 1865 - 656 strani
...and South Coast Railway Company (b) : — " It " is not enough to say that there was some evidence : a scintilla " of evidence, or a mere surmise that...not justify the "Judge in leaving the case to the jury." And Mr. Justice Williams, in delivering judgment in Cotton v. Wood, says: — "I wish " merely... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Common Pleas, Octavian Baxter Cameron Harrison, Henry Rutherfurd - 1868 - 972 strani
...that case : " It is not enough to say METROPOLI- " f TAN RAILWAY that there was some evidence; * * * A scintilla of evidence, or a mere surmise that there...would not justify the Judge in leaving the case to the jury : there must be evidence upon which they might reasonably and properly conclude that there was... | |
 | 1869 - 370 strani
...that a ca?e of this sort against a railway company could only he suhmitted to a jury with one result. A scintilla of evidence, or a mere surmise that there may have heen negligence on the part of the defendants, clearly would not justify the jndge in leaving the case... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Exchequer - 1869 - 444 strani
...idea thus : " It is not enough to say that there was some evidence. ... A scintilla of evidence . . . clearly would not justify the judge in leaving the case to the jury. There must be evidence on which they might reasonably and properly conclude that there AMIS negligence,"—the... | |
 | 1892 - 554 strani
...to anthorize the submission of a question as one of fact to the jury, that there is some evidence. A scintilla of evidence, or a mere surmise, that there may have been negligence on the part of the defendant, would not justify the jndge in leaving the case to the jury." Rugor, CJ, in Dwi9ht v. Insurance... | |
 | Thomas William Saunders - 1871 - 338 strani
...Bramwell, B., said, " It is not enough to say that there was some evidence; a scintilla of evidence; a mere surmise that there may have been negligence...would not justify the judge in leaving the case to the jury; there must be evidence upon which they might reasonably and properly conclude that there was... | |
 | Great Britain. Courts - 1871 - 552 strani
...that a case of this sort against a railway company could only be submitted to a jury with one result. A scintilla of evidence, or a mere surmise that there may have been negligence on the part of the defend*5731 &n ^ s i dearly would not justify the judge in *leaving the case to J the jury: there must... | |
 | Victoria. Supreme Court - 1871 - 380 strani
...Railway Company, 3 CBN 8., 146 ; 27 LJCP, 39. "It is not enough to say that there was some evidence— a mere surmise that there may have been negligence on the part of the defendant clearly would not justify the judge in leaving the case to the jury. There must be evidence... | |
 | New South Wales. Supreme Court - 1872 - 558 strani
...Ryder v. Wombwell (b). "It is not enough to say that there was some evidence. A scintilla of evidence clearly would not justify the Judge in leaving the case to the jury. There must be evidence on which they might reasonably and properly conclude that there was negligence... | |
| |
