Bellengeham's Case
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 73 E.R. 75
King's Bench Division
bbllencjeham's case. Upon a pardon of outlawry on an appeal of murder, defendants need not have a scire facias against the lords mediate and immediate, but only against the appellant. If such pardon vary from the indictment in the additions, defendants must aver that they are the same persons. The words in the pardon, " we pardon to A. and 13. all outlawries, ifec. against them, or either of them, proclaimed, ifcc." are sufficient, without saying " to A. and B. and to each of thr.in," (20) In the King's Bench two were outlawed upon an appeal of i i f,. :i, *-. outlawry, . murder, and purchased their charter of pardon, and had a sara facias J.J'; "''^^ ;1'(^-;,J' i9!|' against the plaintiff in the appeal, and also a sr.i.fa. against the lords 4 i :. 4, to. 4, 7, - in. i, mediate or immediate; (sed qu/vre si de rigwe juris ; for Spihnan and ;!'am.^j. ''nro.'w'ii. "21 Portman thought there was no necessity to have that against the K- (i -l ''ò lords, for the attainder is affirmed by the suing out of the charter of pardon, and not reversed, &c.) and note, that the pardon did not agree with the indictment in the additions ; wherefore the Judges òdoubted whether to allow the pardon ; but the parties made an aver ment that they were the same persons that were indicted. And the exception was taken by James Dyer for the king, that the charter was insufficient ; (21) for the words were, " we, have pardoned, remitted, and released to William Bellengeham of London, sereingman, &c. and Lawrence Bellengeham, late of London, yeoman, all and all manner of oHtlaivries against the said William and Lawrence, or against either of them, proclaimed;" which charter in the premises, s. in the words of pardon, is joint, where it should have been, ; we have pardoned, &c.. [ò irmvk. i1. o. 545, 554, to W. B. and L. B. and to each of them, &c." because each felony is .l,11Jri.see - H- rl- p- c- several, and for those several contumacies it is requisite to have several pardons; and although the sequel be "against them or either of them," that does not make the pardon several ; wherefore, &c. (22) And so is the case ruled in 22. E. 4. [7. b.] that such pardon stamf. Prcn . 102 b. was not good ; but there the case varies from this ; for the charter was, "we have pardoned to A. B. and C. all felonies by them or any of them done and perpetrated ; " but ijwx-re if it were "any one of them," &c. And on account of that case the Judges were doubtful, and Hutt. so. sent by Baker, Attorney-general, who went to the common pleas, and asked the advice of the Judges there, who were of different opinions : but at last the Judges of the king's bench ordered the precedents to be searched; and such pardon was allowed in the [2 iiuwk. p. o. ms. same year, 22. E. 4. . . . Term, Rot. 19. And it was the case of Wingfield, and so the case is misreported and contrary to the record ; wherefore without further argument the aforesaid pardon was allowed hi- . charter de i-ardon also : quod nota. 51- I[aL ''L ^
English Reports Citation: 73 E.R. 76
King's Bench Division
76 TRINITY TERM, 29 HEN. 8 1 DYER, 34 to. [34 b] SOPER ET Ux' V. LUDLOW. Dower for one hundred acres in L. and S. judgment was for that part in L. only. The writ of seisin must be special, as the quantity there is uncertain. 32h. 6,6b. 9H. 7,4 a. (23) John Soper and Alice his wife brought a sci. fa. against Reg. ibs. hoi. 185. Ludlow to have execution of a recovery in a writ of dower had in the 22d year of the now king; in which record it appears that the demand was of six houses, one hundred acres of land, &e. in Littleton and Slanwell, "in the county of Middlesex;" to which the tenant pleaded as to one third part of the said tenements in Littleton, of which, &c. that he could not deny the action, &c. wherefore judgment was given, that the plaintiffs should recover seisin of the third part of the tenements in Littleton; and as to the tenements in Stanwell, pleaded to issue, which the demandants afterwards 2Keb. 250. relinquished, and prayed execution of the land in Littleton. (24) And upon that record, by the advice of the Judges and prothonotaries, a special sci. fa. was sued out, reciting the record as it was pleaded, commanding the sheriff to garnish the tenant to shew why the 3 Cro...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kuru v State of New South Wales
...in support of the Crimes (Domestic Violence) Amendment Bill 1982 (NSW). 21 Above at [18]. 22 Maleverer v Spinke (1538) 1 Dyer 35b at 36b [ 73 ER 79 at 23 [2007] Aust Torts Reports ¶81–893 at 69,690 [3]. 24 (1991) 171 CLR 635 at 639 per Mason CJ, Brennan and Toohey JJ, 647 per Gaudron and Mc......