Boulter v Justices of Kent, and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 1897 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1897] UKHL J0726-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 26 July 1897 |
[1897] UKHL J0726-1
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel, as well on Friday the 21st as Tuesday the 25th and Friday the 28th days of May last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Frederick Samuel Boulter, of Snargate Street, Dover, in the county of Kent, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 25th of June 1896, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her 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 Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of George Sharp and William Newton Chapman and others, trading together as "George Beer and Company," lodged in answer to the said Appeal; (which said Appeal was, in pursuance of an Order of this House of the 9th day of February last, heard ex parte as to the Respondents the Keepers of the Peace and Justices in and for the County of Kent, they not having lodged a printed Case in answer to the said Appeal, though ordered so to do) and due consideration 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 Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 25th of June 1896, and also the Order of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, of the 23rd of April 1896, thereby Affirmed, be, and the same are hereby, Reversed: And it is further Ordered, That the Respondents George Sharp and William Newton Chapman and others, trading together...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General v British Broadcasting Corporation
...which are clearly not "courts" are required to sit in public: for example, justices at licensing meetings ( Boulter v. Kent Justices [1897] A.C. 556). And in ( Lewis v. British Broadcasting Corporation unreported, 23rd March 1979) where the magistrates sat in public to hear an appeal agains......
-
Frome United Breweries Company v Bath Justices
...Rand, L.R. 1 Q.B. 230 and Reg. v. Meyer, L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 173, and points out that the decision in the case of Boulter v. Kent Justices (1897), A.C. 556 only related to the proceedings before the Licensing Committee, not to the meeting of the Confirming Authority; that the House of Lords hel......
-
Atkinson v United States
...case in committal proceedings. The reason for that may, perhaps, be found in the speeches in this House in Boulter v. Kent JusticesELR [1897] A.C. 556. That was a case dealing with licensing justices but Lord Herschell (with whom Lord Watson and Lord Shand concurred) and Lord Davey expresse......
-
R (Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police) v Nottingham Magistrates Court
...is needed for so obvious a proposition, it can be found long before the passing of the current Act in Boulter v the Justices of Kent [1897] AC 556 in the speech of Lord Herschell, and in Tynemouth v the Attorney General [1899] AC 293 in the speech of Lord 39 The power of a magistrate to per......