Floyd and Barker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1616 |
| Date | 01 January 1616 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 77 E.R. 1305
IN THE STAR-CHAMBER.
Kemp v. Neville, 1861, 10 C. B. N. S. 550; Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby, 1873-75, L. R. 8 Q. B. 263.
[23] floyd and barker. Paseh. 5 Jacobi Regis. In the Star-Chamber. [Kemp v. Neville, 1861, 10 C. B. N. S. 550; Dawkins v. Lord RoTceby, 1873-75, L. R. 8 Q. B. 263.] When a grand inquest indicts one of murder or felony, and after the party is acquitted, no writ of conspiracy lies for him against the indictors. If a witness conspire out of Court, aurl afterwards swear in the Court, the party acquitted may have a writ of conspiracy against him. When a party indicted is convicted of felony, upon not guilty pleaded, he shall never have a writ of conspiracy. Where a party is convicted or attainted of murder or felony, none of the parties to the proceedings are to be drawn in question in the Star-Chamber, or elsewhere, for any conspiracy. Nor in such cases shall a Judge be charged before any other Judge at the suit of the King. Records are of so high a nature, that for their sublimity they import verity in themselves, and none shall be received to aver any thing against the record itself. Vide post. 32. 91, 92. 99. &c. 1 Hawk. eh. 72. per Mum. In this very term, between Rice ap Evan ap Floyd, and Richard Barker, one of the justices of the grand sessions in the county of Anglesey, and other defendants : it was resolved by Popham and Coke, Chief Justices, the Chief Baron, and Egerton, Lord Chancellor, and all the Court of Star-Chamber, that when a grand inquest indicts one of murder or felony, and after the party is acquitted, yet no conspiracy (a) lies for him who is acquitted, against the itidictors, for this that they are returned by the (b) In Jetik. Cent. 230. it is said, that the owner of a freehold in a wood, in a forest, may cut down any wood there without the licence or view of the forester without a prescription. But this is contrary to Co. Litt. 115 a., and appears not to be law. Such a prescription is, it seems, good ; but it has been denied. Vid. Mr. Hargrave's note (15). Co. Litt. 115 a. (c) N. B. " In 4 Inst. 298. is an accurate account of these resolutions : but what is here reported as the fifth resolution, is there totally omitted."-Note in Serjt. Sill's copy. (a) Vid. note (b) The Poulterers' case, 9 Co. 57 a. 1306 CASE OF CONSPIRACY 12 CO. REP. 24. sheriff by process of law to make inquiry of offences upon their oath, and it is for the service of the King and the commonwealth. And as it is said in the 10 El. 265. they are compellable to serve the law, and the Court: and their indictment or verdict is matter ;of record, and called F~eredictum, and shall not be avoided by surmise or supposal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D'orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid
...(1620) Cro Jac 601 [ 79 ER 513]. As to judges, see, for example, Windham v Clere (1589) Cro Eliz 130 [ 78 ER 387]; Floyd v Barker (1607) 12 Co Rep 23 [ 77 ER 1305]; Metcalfe v Hodgson (1633) Hut 120 [ 123 ER 1143]; Nichols v Walker (1635) Cro Car 394 [ 79 ER 944]. 41 See, for example, Revis......
-
Marrinan v Vibart
...recognised by law. The principle which pervades andgoverns the numberless decisions to that effect is established by the case of Floyd v. Barker and many earlier authorities….down to the time of Lord Coke and which are to be found collected in Yates v. Lansing and Revis v. Smith. These two ......
-
Christopher Dunkley v Guardian Life Ltd
...by law. The principle which pervades and governs the numberless decisions to that effect is established by the case of Floyd v Baker [ (1607) 12 Co Rep 23] and many earlier authorities … down to the time of Lord Coke; and which are to be found collected in Yates v Lansing [ (1810) 5 Johnson......
-
Somasundaram v Luxton
...(at 538-539): The submissions of the defendants are supported by authorities stretching from the Year Books (see Floyd v Barker (1607) 12 Co Rep 23; 77 ER 1305) to the present day. The need for and recognition of judicial immunity have been upheld or acknowledged in the House of Lords (eg M......
-
Governmental Immunity: Recent Developments Concerning the 11th Amendment and the Kansas Tort Claims Act
...34-41 (detailing exceptions found in the KTCA). 37. The concept had been applied as early as 1607. See e.g., Floyd v. Barker, 12 Coke 23, 77 E.R. 1305 (1607) (English court refused to consider a civil action for damages against a judge of the Assizes for his role as judge). By the seventeen......