Dominic Regan steps back in time & sweeps through the evidence at hand
A boy climbed up a chimney. In 1722 he went to court as a direct result. His case has recently been invoked in a number of significant decisions. How strange is that?
Every litigator needs to appreciate the principle established in Armoury v Delamaire (1722) and more recently extended. It touches upon phone hacking, professional negligence, injury liability and any matter where potentially illuminating evidence has been “lost”.
Armoury itself is a fascinating tale. The boy, employed by a sweep, ascended a chimney and there found a gem that had been hidden in the flue. He took it to the defendant in order to have his discovery valued. The scoundrel swiped the stone, precluding an accurate assessment of its value. In a terse judgment, shorter than the introductory comments in any and every case now, it was declared that: “As to the value of the jewel, several of the trade were examined to prove what a jewel of the finest
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
