Attorney General v Parsons
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 01 January 1836 |
Date | 01 January 1836 |
Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 652
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 5 Dowl. P. C. 165; 2 Gale, 227; 6 L. J. Ex. 9.
attorney-general v. parsons. Exoh. of Pleas. 1836.-In an information of intrusion, the Crown may of right lay the venue in any county, or have the inquisition taken in a different county from that in which the venue is laid.-The title of the Crown to lands of which it has been out of possession for 20 years, may be tried in the information of intrusion itself, and need not be first found by inquest of office; the only effect of the atat. 21 Jac. I, c. 14, being, to throw l the onus of proving title in the first instance, in such case, on the Crown.- Semble, that, in an information at the suit of the Attorney-G-eneral, a tales may be prayed for the Crown without his warrant, though he be not present; but not for the defendant. [S. C. 5 Dowl. P. C. 165; 2 Gale, 227; 6 L. J. Ex. 9.] This was an information of intrusion, to recover possession of certain encroachments on the wastes :of the Crown within the manor of Iscoed, in the county of Radnor (see-Doe d. Watt v. Morris, 2 Bing. N. C. 189). The Attorney-General, in Trinity term, prayed that the inquisition might be taken in the county of Hereford, instead of the county of Radnor, where the venue was laid, on an affidavit stating that there were not in the latter county forty-eight persons qualified to serve as special jurors, and that a fair trial could not be had there. 2M.&W.24. ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. PARSONS 653 He cited Rex v. Webb (Ventr. 17) as an authority to shew that the King may choose his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
M'Mahon v Leonard, Whiteside and Another
...428. Powell v. Milburn 3 Wils. 355. Watkins v. Johns Cro. Eliz. 187. Vaux v. JefferenENR 2 Dyer, 114, b. Attorney-General v. ParsonsENR 2 M. & W. 23. Bulwer's caseENR 7 Coke, 49. Bishop of Rochester v. BridgesENR 1 B. & Ad. 847, 859. Stevens v. Jeacocke 11 Q. B. 731. Underhill v. Ellicombe ......
-
Attorney General v Lord Churchill
...might issue into the county of Hertford, instead of into the county of Oxford : and on the authority of The Attorney-General v. Parsons (2 M. & W. 23), the Court made an order for that purpose absolute in the first instance. On a subsequent day in the same term, Sir W. W. Follett, for the d......
-
Sampath v The Attorney General and Trinidad and Tobago Housing Development Corporation
... ... The claimant contended that the first defendant has failed to prove that they have a better title than the claimant to the lands. Counsel relied on the case of Attorney General v. Parsons (1836) 150 ER 652 page 653 in which Lord Abinger C. B. stated: “It means only that the onus is thrown on the Crown to prove its title in the first instance. The defendant shall not be bound to plead his title especially where he has had twenty year's possession without disturbance; in that case ... ...