Ex parte Harrison
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1830 |
| Date | 14 November 1830 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 840
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[410] Ex parte harrison. Monday, Nov. 14th, 1830. In a warrant of commitment by commissioners of bankrupt under 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 34, for not answering questions concerning the bankrupt's person, trade, dealings, &c. it is not necessary to aver that the questions were touching and concerning those matters, or were lawful questions. The Court, on habeas corpus, will look into the examinations themselves, to see whether the questions were upon a subject within the jurisdiction of the commissioners. Stephen Harrison was brought up by virtue of a writ of habeas corpus directed to the keeper of the Bath city gaol. It appeared that the prisoner was in custody by warrant of the commissioners under a commission of bankrupt issued against-William Lewis of Bath, pursuant to the statute 6 G-. 4, c. 16, s. 34. A warrant of the major part of the commissioners, dated September 21, 1830, stated that the said Stephen Harrison, late shopman to the bankrupt, having been brought before the major part of the commissioners, and having been duly sworn and required by them to make true answers to all questions put to him by virtue of the said commission, and the questions following being then put to him, he on his oath answered to the said questions as in the warrant was subjoined thereto respectively, which said questions and answers so then put and given were as followed. The whole examination was then set out, which was of great length, and contained many questions and answers concerning the trade, dealings, and estate of the bankrupt; which answers not being satisfactory, the warrant, in conclusion, gave directions for taking and keeping the said Stephen Harrison in custody till he should submit himself to the commissioners, or the major part of them, and full answer make to their satisfaction to the questions so put to him by the commissioners signing the warrant as aforesaid. There was a second warrant, stating further examinations of the said Stephen Harrison with reference to, and in con-[411]-tinuation of, the former, on the 25th and 29th of September; it declared his answers thereon, together with his former answers, to be unsatisfactory, and again directed his committal till he should submit himself, and l B. & AD. 412. EX PARTE HARRISON 84 L make satisfactory answer. This warrant did not, as regards the present application, materially differ from the first. Barstow now moved...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pryce v Belcher
...though no actual damage be shewn to have resulted-Weller v. Baker (2 Wils. 414, The Tunbridge Veils Dippers' case) Marzetti v. Williams (1 B. & Ad. 410. 1 N. & M. 353); Blofield v. Payne (4 B. & Ad. 410); for, wherever there is a breach of duty, the law will presume some damage-Baker v. Gre......
-
Ex parte Dauncey
...of answers, as those which failed to satisfy " the commissioners. The form seems to have been equally general in Ex parte Harrison (1 B. & Ad. 410). Humfrey, contra. The language of Coleridge J., in the case In the Matter of Hadland (1 Dowl. P. C. N. S. 835), shews that he decided entirely ......
-
The the Mattter of CORNELIUS HICKEY
...Mpn. & Mac. 23. Ex parte CassidyUNK 2 Rose, 220. In re Downing 8 Ir. Law Rep. 494. Ex parte Bardwell 1 M. & Ay. 193. Ex parte HarrisonENR 1 B. & Ad. 410 Ex parte Bardwell 1 M. & Ay. 193. Ex parte Dauncey 3 G. & D. 640; S. C. 12 M. & Wel. 271. Ex parte Downing 8 Ir. Law Rep. 494. 432 CASES I......