Enfield against Hills
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 83 E.R. 535
COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[236] term. sanct. hill. anno 30 & 31 cab. II. in banco regis. enfield against hills. Freemen admitted to be witnesses for the corporation. See p. 231. S. C. 2 Jon. 115. Case, whereas the plaintiff was an alderman of Canterbury, arid put out of his place, and sued a mandamus to be restored ; the defendant falso, &c. procured a return to be made in the name of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of Canterbury, and set forth the whole return in haec verba, atid the falsity of it, by which he lost his place. Upon non culp. pleaded, and a trial at Bar, the defendant produced seven freemen of Canterbury, as witnesses for him to prove the truth of the return ; to whom it was objected, that they being freemen of Canterbury ought not to be received as witnesses ; producing a by-law there made, by which their return was ordered to be made, and that the charges insuing should be borne by the corporation. To which the counsel for the defendant answered, and shewed a release from the defendant to the mayor, aldermen and commonalty, and all others, the freemen of Canterbury, of all advantages, contributions and demands which he might have against them by virtue of this by-law, or any other order, ant olio tiwdo quocurupue. And yet by the opinion of Kainsford and Twysden, contra Jones, these three Judges being only then in Court, the seven witnesses were not allowed to give evidence, and the jury gave their verdict for the plaintiff, and 3001. damages. Hereupon the defendant's counsel prayed the Court to sign a bill of [237] exceptions for not admitting the witnesses, which they agreed to do accordingly, and before judgment it was drawn, signed and sealed by them. And now it was moved in arrest of judgment, upon the bill of exceptions, and divers points shewed and argued. And for the defendant 'twas said, 1st. That a bill of exceptions lies upon a trial at Bar as well as a trial by Nisi Prius, and that upon Stat. of AVestmin. 2, 31, and for authorities were cited 27 H. 8, 24, 25, upon a trial by Nisi Prius, 2 E. 4, 66, upon a trial at Bar in Cimi. Sane, and also 21 E. 4, upon a trial at Bar in C. B. And Co. 2 lust. 427, upon the words of the stat. Et si dominim Rex venire facial conim illo, who says it is to be intended of a writ of error, which does not lie in Banco liegis upon a judgment in the same Court, therefore he supposes that a bill of exceptions would not lie upon a trial by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v Kinnoull
...individual corporators cannot be sued. In the case of The King v. The Mayor of Ripon (1 Lord Eaym. 56-1), Lord Holt cited Enfield v. Hills (2 Lev. 236; Sir T. Jones, 116), to show that an action for a false return lies against particular persons; a mandamus having gone to a corporation, of ......
-
The King on the Prosecution of M. Scales, Esq. against The Mayor and Aldermen of London
...could not bring an action for a false return until after the return had been adjudged to be good in point of law. In Enfield v. Hills (2 Lev. 236), in an action for a false return, where a verdict has been given for 3001. damages, an objection was taken to the declaration, in arrest of judg......
-
R v London Corpn.ex parte Scales
...could not bring an action for a false return until after the return had been adjudged to be good in point of law. In Enfield v. Hills (2 Lev. 236), in an action for a false return, where a verdict has been given for 3001. damages, an objection was taken to the declaration, in arrest of judg......
-
Ferguson v Kinnoull
...to wilfully doing an illegal act. In Gray v. Forbes,(h) the individual liability of corporators appears to have been (a) 1 Ld. 564. (b) 2 Lev. 236 ; Jones, J., 116. (c) 2 Lev. 236. (d) Carth. 171. (e) 1 East, 559. ( f ) 1 East, 563n. (g) 6 Mod. 45 ; 2 Ld. Raym. 958 ; 14 St. Tr. 785. (It) 5 ......