Dominus R v Bear
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 363
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
Hill. 10 W. 3, B. R. 1 Ld. Raym. 414, S. C.
[417] libellus famosus. dominus rex versus bear. [Hill. 10 W. 3, B. R. 1 Ld. Raym. 414, S. C.] See 4 Co. 14, 15. 5 Co. 125, &c. 9 Co. 53, 59. 3 Inst. 174. Mo. 813, 627. 1 Sid. 242. 2 Show. 468, 471, 488. Post, 646, S. C. Ante, 324. 3 Salk. 226. Cases B. R. 218. Holt 422. Carth. 407. The whole libel need not be set forth in indictment, but if any part qualifies the rest, it may be given in evidence. See 5 Mod. 163, 164, &c. 1 Sid. 270, 271. Indictment for composing, writing, making, and collecting several libels, in uno quorum continetur inter alia juxia tenorem & ad effectum sequent', and then sets out the words. Upon not guilty pleaded, the jury found the defendant guilty as to the writing and the collecting prout in indidamento supponif & quoad omnia alia prceter scriptionem & collectionem not guilty. An exception was taken in arrest of judgment, that inter alia shewed there was something else which perhaps might, if it appeared, qualify the rest. Et per Cur. Non allocatur; for if that had been the case, the defendant could not 364 LIBELLUS FAMOSUS 2 BALKEID. 8. have been found guilty ; and regularly, where a man speaks treason, God save the King will not excuse him. Vide 2 Ro. Rep. 89. And it is not necessary to set forth all the libels; but if any thing qualify that which is set forth, it must be given in evidence. 2dly, It was agreed, ad effectttm sequentem of itself had been naught; for the Court must be judge of the words themselves, and not of the construction the prosecutor puts upon them; but juxta tenorem sequent' imports the very words themselves. Vide Co. Entr. 116. Reg. 169. For the tenor of a thing is the transcript: and Rokesby said, the wards ad effedum, were loose and useless words ; and the words, juxta tenorem, being of a certain and more strict signification, the force of the latter was not hurt by the former, for utile per inutile non vitiatur; quod Holt, G.J. concessit; and the case of SaUashe, H. 33 & 34 Car. 2, B. R. Rot. 1154, was remembered and agreed; and all were of opinion, that the words ad effedum were corrected by the words juxta tenorem. 3dly, It was held, that the finding guilty of bare writing and collecting was criminal, not but that collecting had been better out of the case ; for, per Holt, C.J., bare copying out of a libel, by one that is neither contriver nor composer, is highly criminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lake, Bar. v King, Ar
...said Sir Edward Lake, in the execution of his said office, the tenor * of which said writing and libel is * See 1 Salk. 324, Rex v. Bear. 2 Salk. 417. S. C. 2 Salk. 660, Reg. v. Dmke.(a) (a) From which it appears that the word "tenor" binds the party to set out the very words of the libel. ......
-
Entick v Carrington
...a power can be justified by the common law. I have now done with the argument, which * Reported Carth. 407. 1 L. Raym. 414. 12 Mod, 299. 2 Salk. 417. 646. 1073] Entick Carrington. has endeavoured to support this warrant by the practice since the Revolution. It is then said, that it is neces......
-
Hern contra Merick
...all debts, a legatee shall stand in the place of a simple contract creditor, vvho has been satisfied out of personal assets, Hazlewood v. 2 SALKELD. 417. LIBELLUS FAMOSUS 363 Pope, 3 P. Wms. 323. So where legacies by will are charged on the real estate, but not the legacies by codicil, the ......
-
Pope v Coates. Coates, Plaintiff in Error; Pope, Defendant in Error
...POPE and COATES. COATES, plaintiff in Error; POPE, defendant in Error. Sandwell v. SandwellENR Holt, 296. Rex v. BearENR 2 Salk. 417; S. C. 1 Lord Ray. 414. Reg v. LovettENR 9 Car. & P. 462. Ward v. WeekesENR 7 Bing. 211. Parker v. Scott 31 Law Jour., Exch. 331. Smith v. WoodENR 3 Camp. 323......