Dominus R v Inhab. de Uttoxeter in Com' Stafford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1795 |
| Year | 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 93 E.R. 949
COURTS OF CHANCERY, KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
dominus rex vers. inhab. de uttoxeter* in com'stafford. The poor's rate is not to be removed. 1 Bott by Const, 351, pi. 247. Cunn. 28. 1 Seas. Ca. p. 150, No. 143. 1 Barn. B. R. 443. 2 Kely. 117, S. C. Upon great debate, and search of precedents, it was held, that a certiorari would not lie to remove the poor's rate itself, the remedy being to appeal, or by action when a distress is taken, which will answer all the ends of justice in coming at an unequal rate; whereas if the rate itself should be required to be sent up, great inconveniences and delays would follow, and a case was cited Mich. 10 Ann. Regina v. Inhab. de St. Mary the Firgin in Marlborough, where it was so resolved (1). * In the very short note of the case of The King v. Inhabitants of Utloxeter, in 950 EASTER TERM, 5 GEO. 2 8 STRANGE, 933. 2 Stra. 932, the determination that in the allowance of rates the justices act only ministerially is not mentioned ; it is well known that in Mr. Ford's MSS. in which the above determination is mentioned, a great many of the cases in Strange are reported at much greater length, and more completely than by that author. Mr. Douglas had an opportunity of perusing Ford's account of this case and several others; but although those who have the pleasure of knowing his son, know how ready he is to permit his friends to consult his father's valuable MSS. it is much to be wished that he may some time or other make it publick for the general benefit of the profession. See Doug. Hist. Controv. Elect. 142, note. Note to the Second Edition. (1) Eex v. Justices of Shrewsbury, post, 975. Bex v. King, 2 Term Rep. 235.
1. In the very short note of the case of The King v. Inhabitants of Uttoxeter, in 2 Stra. 932, the determination that in the allowance of rates the justices act only ministerially is not mentioned; it is well known that in Mr. Ford's MSS. in which the above determination is mentioned, a great many of the cases in Strange are reported at much greater length, and more completely than by that author. Mr. Douglas had an opportunity of perusing Ford's account of this case and several others; but although those who have have the pleasure of knowing his son, know how ready he is to permit his friends to consult his father's valuable MSS. it is much to be wished that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (McEvoy) v Corporation of Dublin
...4 Q. B. 893. The Queen v. Boucher 3 Q. B. 641. Attorney-General v. Mayor of WiganENR Kay, 268. The King v. Inhabitants of UttoxeterENR 2 Str. 932. The King v. Justices of ShrewsburyENR 2 Str. 975. Rex v. KingENR 2 T. R. 235. Re The County of Mayo PresentmentsUNK 14 I. C. L. R. 392. King v. ......
-
The Queen (at the prosecution of John G. R Porter) v The Guardians of The Omagh Union Same v Pelly
...M'Master v. Guardians of Banbridge UnionUNK 4 Ir. C. L. R. 394. The King v. KingUNK 2 Term Rep. 234. Rex v. Inhabitants of UttoxeterENR 2 Strange, 932. The King v. James AtkinsUNK 4 Term Rep.12. The Attorney-General v. Barrett Ir. R. 3Eq. 392. Murphy v. Guardians of Belmullet UnionUNK 22 L.......
-
Dodd against Joddrell
...the costs of the second, as well as of the third issue. The defendant is entitled to the costs of the verdict, because no material (a) Vide 2 Str. 932, 975. 2T. R. 237. SCOTT V. BREST 129 issue was found for the plaintiff. The fourth issue, which was found for him, was not on the right of c......
-
John Colhoun v Henry Fox
...Bench. JOHN COLHOUN and HENRY FOX. Hayes v. WarrenENR 2 Str. 932. King v. SearsENR 2 C. M. & R. 53. Spyer v. ThelwellENR 2 C. M. & R. 692. Deriemer v. FennaENR 7 M. & W. 440. Church v. Church Sir T. Ray. 260. Lee v. MuggeridgeENR 5 Taunt. 36. Atkins v. BarnwellENR 2 East, 505. Pillans v. Mi......