Pike v. Jenkins
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Debt qui lam, against the defendants, as selectmen of the town of Madbury, for the years 1S37 and 1838, to recover penalties for alleged neglect of duty on their part, in those years, in not providing the town with a complete set of weights and measures, and a scale beam, similar to those owned by the state of New-Hampshire on the 15th of December, L797, as is required by statute of that date.
Read the full summary
Debt qui lam, against the defendants, as selectmen of the town of Madbury, for the years 1S37 and 1838, to recover penalties for alleged neglect of duty on their part, in those years, in not providing the town with a complete set of weights and measures, and a scale beam, similar to those owned by the state of New-Hampshire on the 15th of December, L797, as is required by statute of that date. The writ was dated on the 6th of July, 1839. Two of the counts were for penalties which occurred prior to the 6th of July, 1838. Plea, nil debet. On trial it appeared that the defendants were duly…
1Opinion of the CourtUpham, J.
In this case the defendant, among other grounds of defence, relies upon the statute of limitations to a portion of the plaintiff’s claim. His plea is nil debet, but it is well settled that if there be any limitation with respect to the time within which an action on a penal statute is to be brought, the defendant need not plead the matter in defence, but may avail himself of it on the general issue. 13 Pet. Ab. 296, and authorities cited; 3 Stark. Ev. 1129; Bul. N. P. 225; 2 Roll. Ab. 683; 1 Chit. Pl. 481. The same point is directly decided in Moore vs. Smith, 5 Greenl. 490, which was a qui…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Davis v. W. T. Grant Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1936
- Fowler v. TuttleSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1851
- Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1864
- Wilson v. WentworthSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1852