Chaney against Payne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 May 1841 |
| Date | 22 May 1841 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 1304
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 1 G. & D. 348; 6 Jur. 79.
[712] chANey against payne. Saturday, May 22d, 1841. A conviction under the Pilot Act, 6 G. 4, c. 125, for continuing in charge of a ship after a licensed pilot has offered to take charge, must shew, on the face of it, that the defendant knew of the offer; for it is not enough to describe the offence in the words of the statute creating it, without adding facts to shew that defendant was a party to it. But it is not necessary to state the consent in writing of the Lord Warden or Corporation of the Trinity House to the proceedings ; for the form of conviction, given by the statute, does not mention it. After a conviction has been quashed, on appeal or certiorari, for defects on the face of it, it is not competent for the convicting justice to protect himself from an action by drawing up another more formal one for the same offence ; nor can he do so after the defendant, taken under a warrant founded on and reciting a defective conviction, has been discharged by habeas corpus; though the conviction itself has not been removed or quashed. Quaere, whether a justice of the peace, who has returned and filed among the records of the Quarter Sessions an informal conviction, can afterwards return an amended one before any proceeding has been taken to quash the first, or to discharge the defendant by habeas corpus? [S. C. 1 G. & D. 348; 6 Jur. 79.] Trespass for false imprisonment. Plea : not guilty. On the trial before Tindal C.J., at the Essex Summer Assizes, 1839, it appeared that the defendant was a justice of the peace for the borough of Maldon in that county, and that the plaintiff had been brought before him on the 13th September 1837, and convicted, under sect. 70 of stat. 6 G. 4, c. 125, for continuing in the conduct and charge of a ship after a licensed pilot had offered to take charge of it. Upon this conviction he was committed to prison, and, at the following Michaelmas Quarter Sessions, the conviction was returned and duly filed among the records of that Court. In the following January he was brought up by habeas corpus before Patteson J, in the Bail Court, and discharged upon the ground that the conviction, as recited in the commitment, was bad on the face of it for want of stating that the offer by the licensed pilot was made to, or in the presence and hearing of, the plaintiff, or was in any way brought to his knowledge (a). The con-[713]-viction itself was not then produced, sect. 82 of the above statute having provided that no proceeding taken under it should be removed by writ of certiorari. After this decision of the Court, a second conviction was drawn up by the defendant, in which the defects, which had been pointed out in the first, were supplied, and evidence was adduced to shew that the clerk of the defendant had again obtained possession of the first conviction from the clerk of the peace, and had ultimately redelivered it, together with the amended one, to the clerk of the peace, in March 1838. Under the above circumstances Tindal C.J. was of opinion that the second conviction was not admissible in evidence for the defendant ; and that, upon the authority of Peaks v. Carrington (2 B. & B. 399), (which his Lordship expressed himself inclined to doubt, if the point had been res integra), the first was insufficient. The plaintiff thereupon had a verdict, damages 61., with liberty to the defendant to enter a nonsuit, if the Court should be of opinion that the second conviction ought to have been received in evidence, and that, if received, it would have been a bar to the action. The conviction, as amended, was in the following form; the words in italics indicating the amendments introduced into it after the decision in the Bail Court. " Borough of Maldon, in Essex to wit. Be it remembered that on the 13th September A.D. 1837, at the borough of Maldon in the county of Essex, John Chaney of Hey-bridge, in the said county of Essex, porter, is convicted before me, John Payne, one (a) Begina v. Chaney, 6 Dowl. P. C. 281. 1Q.B.7M. CHANKY V.PAYNE 1305 of Her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said borough of Maldon, [714] the written consent of the Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strand having been first obtained for that purpose of the party prosecuting, of having, on the 3d September A.D. 1837, at a certain place called Standsgate in the river Blackwater in the said borough of Maldon, and within the liberties and jurisdiction of the same borough, unlawfully continued in the charge and conduct of a certain ship and vessel called the ' Shipwright of Maldon,' the said John Chaney not being a duly licensed pilot in that behalf, after Abraham Handley, a pilot then and there being duly licensed and qualified to act within the limits within which, and at the place at which, the said ship and vessel then was, had then and there, and whilst the said John Chaney was so in charge of the said ship and vessel as aforesaid, come on board the said skip and vessel, and offered to the said John Chaney, and to the master of the said ship and 'vessel, in the presence and hearing of the said John Chaney, to take charge of such ship and vessel, contrary to an Act passed in the sixth year of the reign of King George the Fourth, intituled 'An Act for the Amendment of the Law Respecting Pilots and Pilotage; and also for the better Preservation of Floating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State (Barry and Others), The v District Justice O Roide in and Another
...(4) [1948] I. R. 343. (5) [1952] N. I. 1. (6) [1908] S. C. (J.) 61. (7) 37 I. L. T. R. 64. (1) [1910] 2 I. R. 458. (2) 1 East 186. (3) (1841) 1 Q. B. 712. (4) [1912] 3 K. B. (5) [1891] 2 Q. B. 208. (6) [1906] 1 Ch. 640. (1) L. R. 8 C. P. 470. (2) 44 L. T. 102. (3) [1934] N. I. 120. (1) [192......