Goss v Jackson, Esq. and Bushell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1799 |
| Date | 01 January 1799 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 586
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
July 10 Goss v. jackson, esq. and bushell (Where an Act of Parliament gives the form of conviction for any offence prohibited by the Act, that form must be followed : and a warrant granted on a conviction drawn up in any other form is illegal, and the justices and those acting under it are trespassers ) This was an action of trespass for taking the plaintiff's goods, brought against the defendant Jackson, who was a justice of peace, and Bushell, the constable. The goods had been taken under a warrant issued by Jackson, directed to the constable, to levy the penalty on a conviction made by him against the plaintiff, under the stat 33 Geo. III. ch. 84, for not having his name painted on his cart. The plaintiff's counsel stated, that the conviction had been made without any summons having been issued. Lord Kemyon interrupted him, and said, that as a conviction had in fact taken place^ he could not in this action inquire into the regularity or irregularity of it ; it was sufficient that there was a conviction. Erskine, for the plaintiff, then stated, that the warrant and conviction were both defective in form, and contrary to law. That the statute had specifically pointed GOSS V. JACKSON 587 out the form, as well as mode of proceeding in both : and in neither had the form been attended to That the statute required the warrant of [199] distress to set out the name of the witness, the informer, and the distribution of the penalty : this had not been done. It also required that the order should be served on the party convicted, and demand be made of the penalty before any distress could be made , which in this case had not been done, the order having been served on the plaintiff's son by mistake. With respect to the conviction itself, the form was given at the end of the Act of Parbament ; which he contended was the only legal form of conviction which Gould take place, and which Mr. Jackson, the defendant, had not thought fit to follow. Garrow, for the defendant, contended, that it was optional in the justice, in drawing up the conviction, to follow the prescribed form or not, as given in the Act of Parliament. That it was sufficient to make such a conviction, to which no legal objection could be made,-the statute being merely directory Lord Kenyon said, he was of opinion that the statute was imperative, and that the form of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Posner v Collector for Inter-State Destitute Persons (Victoria)
-
R v Frost and Eleven Others
...26, it is necessary that the two witnesses to a will must be present " together " [Sir F Pollock also cited the cases of O'os.s v. Jackson (3 Esp. 198) ; Rex v. Rickets (A. & E. 537, and IN & P. 680) ; Jones ^. Kmart (I T. R 44) ; Rex v. Inhabitant* ofBarham (H B. & C. 99); Notley v. Budt (......
-
Earl of Mountcashell v Viscount O'Neill
...Cham. EARL OF MOUNTCASHELL and VISCOUNT O'NEILL. The King v. JefferiesENR 4 T. R. 767. Davison v. GillENR 1 East, 64. Goss v. JacksonENR 3 Esp. 198. Galwey v. Baker 7 Cl. & F. 379. King v. May Doug. 193. Wright v. ClementsENR 3 B. & A. 503. Sheppard v. GosnoldENR Vaugh. 159 Dunbar v. Duches......
-
Earl of Mountcashell v Viscount O'Neill
...Bench EARL OF MOUNTCASHELL and VISCOUNT O'NEILL. The King v. JefferiesENR 4 T. R. 767. Davison v. GillENR 1 East, 64. Goss v. JacksonENR 3 Esp. 198. Galwey v. BakerENR 7 Cl. & Fin. 379. King v. May Doug. 193. Wright v. ClementsENR 3 B. & Ald. 503. Sheppard v. Gosnold Vaugh. R. 159. Magistra......