Dominus R v Perin
| 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. 1202
COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[389] de term. sancti mich. anno regni regis car. II. 22. 63. dominus rex versus perin. Micb. 23 Car. II. Regis, Rot. 8. Error from the justices of goal delivery to the King's Bench. Somersetshire, fowit.-Our lord the King has sent to his justices assigned to deliver his gaol in the county aforesaid of prisoners being in the same, and to the keepers of his peace in the said county, and also to his justices assigned to hear and determine divers felonies, trespasses, and other misdemeanors committed in the same county, and to 2 WMfc SAUND. 380. MICH. 23 CAB. II. REGIS 1203 every of them, his writ close in these words, to wit; Charles the Second by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the faith, &c., to our justices assigned to deliver our gaol in the county of Somerset of prisoners being in the same, and to the keepers of our peace in the said county, and also to our justices assigned to hear and determine divers felonies, trespasses, and other misdemeanors committed in the same county, and to every of them, greeting : because in the record and proceedings, and also in the giving of judgment, in a certain presentment made against Matthew Perin, late of Taunton, in the county aforesaid, husbandman, at the Assizes and general gaol delivery of the aforesaid county of Somerset, balden for the county aforesaid, at the castle of Taunton, in the said county, on Monday, to wit, the 24th day of August in the 15th year of our reign, before Sir Robert Foster Knt., then our Chief [390] Justice assigned to hold pleas before us, and John Archer, then serjeant at law, now knt., one of our justices of the Bench, then our justices assigned to take the Assizes in the county aforesaid, for a certain trespass and contempt in obstinately refusing and denying to take and pronounce the oath of allegiance, mentioned and expressed in a certain Act lately made and provided in the Parliament of our Lord James, late King of England, &c., begun and holden at Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, on the 19th day of March, in the first year of his reign of England, and of Scotland the 37th, and holden by prorogation at Westminster aforesaid in the said county of Middlesex, on the 5th day of November, in the 3d year of his reign of England, France, and Ireland, and of Scotland the 39th, intitled An Act for the better Discovering and Repressing of Popish Recusants, offered by the said Robert and John, our justices aforesaid, to the said Matthew, against the form of the statute in such case lately made and provided, whereof the said Matthew was accused before the said Robert and John our justices aforesaid, and was thereupon convicted thereof by a certain jury of the country taken between us and the said Matthew, aa it is said, manifest error hath intervened to the great damage of the said Matthew, aa by his complaint we are informed; we being willing that the error, if any there be, should in due manner be corrected, and full and speedy justice done to the said Matthew in this behalf, do command you, that if judgment be thereupon given, then you send to us distinctly and openly, under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith et Al v Martin
...of it in any other way. 6 T. R. 766, Addismi v. Overend. 1 Salk. 32, Child v. Sands. See 1 Saund. 291, note (4), Cabell v. VaMghcun. 2 WMS SAUND. 389. PASCH. 23 CAR. II. REGIS 1209 the said Samuel above complains against them, and of this they put themselves upon the country, and the said S......
-
Ryalls against The Queen
...the fact.] 4. The conclusion of the indictment, " the jurors aforesaid " " did aay," instead of "do say," is erroneous; Rex v, Perin (2 Saund. 393), Rex v. Alway and Dixon {\ VeDtris, 170); and cannot be rejected as surplusage. Rex v. Bromley (\ Ventr. 13), seems to shew that the conclusion......
-
Cox against St. Albans
...against clarke. The acts of a Court must be in the present tense, but those of the party may be in the lireterpei-fect.-% Keb. 846, 861. 2 Saund. 393. 1 Stra. 608. Ld. Kay. 1347. Cowp. 29. A writ of error of a judgment in Whitechapel. After the record was read, Hale, Chief Justice, said, th......
-
Oliver Waterloo King against The Queen, in Error
...273, where a rule for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection, was moved for and refused. (a) See ante, p. 38, and note (e), ibid. (d)3 2 Saund. 393. The word " was " appears to be only part of the narrative, in this Court, of what took place before the certiorari, and to be therefore pr......