Attorney General v The Earl of Ashburnham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1823 |
| Date | 07 June 1823 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 157
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Costs. Charity.
[394] the attorney-general v. the earl of ashburnham. June 7, 1823. Costs. Charity. Where a charity information is filed under 59 Geo. 3, c. 91, without a relator, the Court has jurisdiction to order the Defendant to pay the Attorney-General his cost*. This was a charity information filed by the Attorney-General, without naming any relator, under the 59 G. 3, c. 91, s. 1; and the question was, whether the Court had any jurisdiction to order the Defendant to pay the Attorney-General his costs. 158 ATTORNEY-GENERAL V, EARL OF ASHBURNHAM 1 SIM. & ST. 395. the attorney-general [Sir Robert Gifford], and Mr. Pemberton, for the Crown, Where informations are filed on behalf of charities, the Attorney-General sues at the instance of other parties ; and whenever that is the case costs are given to the Crown ; and where the Attorney-General is Defendant the practice is to make the Plaintiff pay him his costs. This Act only substituted another remedy for charities, in lieu of the former, in which the Court could give costs. If the Court has not that power, every person whose conduct is attacked would defend it, as he would not be liable to costs. This Act was only intended to apply a new and additional remedy ; and, therefore, as it says nothing about costs, but leaves the conduct and decision of the suit the same as before, it leaves the discretion as to costs in the same situation. The rule that the Attorney-General neither receives nor pays costs applies only to suits respecting any debt or interest of the Crown. Here he does not sue for any interest of the Crown. When the Act says : " that it shall be lawful for the Court to proceed in hearing and deciding the suit, according to the due course of the Court," it means the due course of the Court in cases [395] instituted before the passing of the Act. The principle upon which a relator is named is not for the purpose of charging the Defendants with costs, but to enable them to receive costs. The object of the Act was to prevent any proceedings being commenced for the purpose of harassing individuals. It would be an extraordinary interpretation to say that this statute was passed, not to reform abuses, but to skreen delinquents from the consequences of misconduct. Mr. Wingfield, for the trustees. Mr. Sugden and Mr. Sidebottom, for the Defendant. The King neither pays nor receives costs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Madden's Estate
...RE MADDEN'S ESTATE Appeal Practice — Costs — Liability of the Crown — 18 & 19 Vict. c. 90, ss, 1, 2 Attorney-General v. AshburnhamENR 1 Sim. & S. 394. Beadle's CaseENR 7 El. & Bl. 492. Chubb's CaseUNK 43 L. T. (N. S.) 83. Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway CompanyUNK 31 L. R. Ir. 1. Foste......
-
Attorney General v The Corporation of London and Others
...Defendant Levy to the solicitors of Her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests. In The Attorney-General v. The Earl of Ashburnham (1 Sim. & St. 394), the question was, whether in a charity information under the 59 G. 3, c. 91, s. 1, the Court had jurisdiction to order the Defendant to......
-
The "Leda."
...the Crown shall neither receive nor pay costs Sir John Leach, in delivering judgment in The Attorney-General v The Earl of Ashburnham (1 Sim. & S. 394, 397), after remarking that he could find 110 such general principle in the Courts of Equity as that the Crown can neither receive nor pay c......
-
McLure v Ripley
...On the other aide, the following cases were cited; The King v. Hassell (13 Price, 279), The Attorney-General v. The Earl of Ashburnham (1 S. & S. 394), The King v. Miles (7 T. R. 367), Attorney-General v. Levi (in the Exchequer, Michaelmas Term, 1840). (Unreported.) Dec 17. the lord chancel......