Dominus R v Kilderby
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 85 E.R. 424
COURT OF KING'S BENCH
424 DOMINUS REX V. KILDEEBY l WMS. SABOT. SOB. [308] 48. dominus rex versus kilderby. Hil. 20 & 21 of King Charles II. Eol. 3, among the Pleas of the King. Suffolk, to wit.-Otherwise, to wit, on the llth day of October, in the 19th year of the reign ol our Lord Charles the Second, by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the faith, &c. by an inquisition taken for our lord the King at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace of our lord the King, holden for the county aforesaid,(l) at Woodbridge, in the county aforesaid, before Walter Devereux, Esquire, Christopher Milton, and Thomas Bacon, Esquires, and other their fellows, justices of our said lord the now King, assigned to keep his peace in the said county, and also to hear and determine divers felonies, trespasses, and other misdemeanors, in the same county committed, by the oath of twelve jurors, good and lawful men of the said county, impanelled and sworn to inquire for our lord the King and the body of the said county, it is presented,(2) that [309] Francis Kilderby, late of Framlingham, in the said county of Suffolk, yeoman, on the llth day of July, in the (1) It is usual in practice to insert the name of the county in the caption, as the county of Suffolk, instead of the county aforesaid: and perhaps it is better to adhere to thie form. But I have not been able to find any authority where this is held to be necessary. On the contrary, all the cases upon the subject agree, that the word aforesaid is sufficient, because it refers to the county in the margin. So in the indict ment itself, it is held sufficient to allege the place, where the offence was committed, to be, in the county aforesaid, unless indeed another county has beeti mentioned before, and then because it is uncertain to which county the word aforesaid refers, it is necessary to insert the name of the county. In either case, to mention the place only, without the addition of the words " in the county aforesaid, or the county of S." is held insufficient, notwithstanding the place has been before alleged to be in the county.(g) But in civil cases it is otherwise; for it is held sufficient to name the place only in the declaration, because the place is always construed to refer to the county in the margin, although another county has been mentioned before. 3 P. Will. 496, 497, Rex v. Burridge. ò2 H. H. P. C. 165, 166. 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 25, a. 128. Cro. Eliz. 137, Lenthal's case. Ibid. 606, Child's case. Ibid. 751, Hammond v. The Queen. Ibid. 101, Morgan's case. Ibid. 184, Elnor's case. 1 Sid. 345, Parker v. Sadd. Cro. Eliz. 436, Ross v. Morris. Cro. Jac. 96. Ibid. 618, Hall v. Walland. 3 Wils. 340, Sutton, v. Fenn, S. C. ò1 Black. 847.(a) (2) When an Inferior Court, in obedience to the writ of certiorari, returns an indictment to the K. B., it is annexed to the caption, then called a schedule, and the caption concludes with stating, that "it is presented in manner and form as appears in and by a certain indictment annexed to this schedule," and the caption and indictment are returned upon separate parchments. The caption, when the proceedings are afterwards entered of record in the Court of K. B., becomes part of the record, and concludes that it was presented, " in manner and form following, that is to say, Suffolk, to wit, the jurors for our lord the King," &c. So setting out the indictment in hcec verba. It seems formerly, however, not to have been considered as necessary so to set it out, either in K. B. or in other Courts, but that it was sufficient to allege, as it is done here, "that it is presented that A. B." &c. But all the modern precedents in the Court of K. B. are to set out the whole indictment verbatim. () [But this defect is at all events cured, by stat. 7 Geo. 4, c. 60, s. 24, after verdict. 1 Dav. & Mer. 89, Reg. v. Albert.} (a) After the statute 4 Ann. c. 16, s. 6, which directed the jury in civil cases to be taken from the body of the county, it was held sufficient in civil cases to state the county in the declaration without any place at all. 3 M. & S. 148, Ware v. Bo-ydell. [By stat. 6 Geo. 4, c. 50, s. 13, the jury are now returned from the body of the county in criminal as well as in civil cases. And by the Eeg. Gen. H. T. 4 W. 4, all statement of venue in civil pleadings is abolished, except as respects the name of a county (i.e. the venue in the action), in the margin of the declaration. See ante, p. 8, note (d).] 1 WMS. SADND. 309. MICH. 21 CAR. II. EEGIS 425 19th year of the reign of our Lord Charles the Second, by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France^...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Stoughton
...is to say, on the 14th day of July in the 20th year of the reign of our Lord Charles the Second, by the grace of God, of England, (1) See 1 Saund. 308, Hex v. Kilderby, note (1). (2) The words, "which saul presentment follows in these words, or in manner and j"mini following, that is to say......