Attorney-General (on Behalf of HM) v Till
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 December 1909 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1909] UKHL J1208-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 08 December 1909 |
[1909] UKHL J1208-1
House of Lords
Whereas Monday, the 15th day of November last, was appointed for hearing Counsel upon the Petition and Appeal of His Majesty's Attorney-General (on behalf of His Majesty), praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 17th of February 1909, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Herbert Till, lodged in answer to the said Appeal: Counsel were accordingly called in, and Counsel for the Appellant were heard, as well on Monday the 15th, as Tuesday the 16th, days of November last; and no Counsel appearing for the said Respondent, the said Herbert Till, he was heard for himself on the said 15th and 16th days of November last; and due consideration being had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 17th day of February 1909, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Reversed, and that the Judgment of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, of the 8th day of July 1908, thereby reversed, be, and the same is hereby, Restored: And it is further Ordered, That the Respondent do pay, or cause to be paid, to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Hinchy
...of the Act, in the attempt to construe section 25. Although they did not use the words of Lord Loreburn in Attorney-General v. Till [1910] A.C.50 at page 52, that the penalties were "unreasonable or oppressive", yet they clearly considered these to be of that nature. I asked Mr. Pennycuick ......
-
Hunter and Company v Coleman
...in his judgment. A. E. C. (1) Before Cherry, L.C.J., and Kenny and Dodd, JJ. (1) 2 Coke's Inst., p. 61. (1) 19 Q. B. D., at p. 638. (2) [1910] A. C. 50. (1) 5th ed., p. (1) 2 Coke's Inst., p. 61. (2) 12 Rep. 74; 2 St. Tr. 723. (1) 2 Wm. Bl. 977. ...
-
Attorney General v Casey
...(1) [1927] I. R. 1. (2) L. R. 9 C. L. 107. (3) 4 L. J. (Ex.) 94. (4) [1900] 1 I. R. 22. (5) L. R. 4 H. L. 1. (6) 7 Sess. Cas. 984. (7) [1910] A. C. 50. (8) [1909] 2 I. R. (9) 10 Ch. D. 558. (1) 11 Price, 183. (2) 14 Q. B. D. 667. (1) I. R. 1 C. L. 573. (2) [1906] 2 K. B. 345. (3) Equity Jur......