John Wilkes, - Plaintiff; The King, - Defendant (in Error)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 1769 |
| Date | 16 January 1769 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 2 E.R. 244
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. iv. 1902, v. 122. See Bradlaugh v. Reg., 1878, 3 Q.B.D. 633. Reg. v. Castro 1880-81, 5 Q.B.D. 502, 6 A. C. 236.
An information for an offence, is a surmise or suggestion upon record, on behalf of the King, to a Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, and is to all intents and purposes the King's suit; and may be filed by the Solicitor General, during a vacancy of the office of Attorney General.-In such a case, it is not necessary in point of law, to aver upon the record, that the Attorney General's office was vacant.
19 St. Tr. 1075.
INFORMATION. case 1.-john wilkes,-Plaintiff; The king,-Defendant (in Error) [16th January 1769]. [Mews' Dig. iv. 1902, v. 122. See Bradlaugh v. Beg., 1878, 3 Q.B.D. 633. Beg. v. Castro 1880-81, 5 Q.B.D. 502, 6 A. C. 236.] [An information for an offence, is a surmise or suggestion upon record, on behalf of the King, to a Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, and is to all intents and purposes the King's suit; and may be filed by the Solicitor General, during a vacancy of the office of Attorney General.-In such a case, it is not necessary in point of law, to aver upon the record, that the Attorney General's office was vacant.] **judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed.** See 4: Burr. 2527; 2553; S. P.; 2577. [19 St. Tr. 1075.] In Michaelmas Term 1763, Sir Fletcher Norton Knt. his Majesty's then Solicitor General (the office of Attorney General being vacant) filed an information ex offtcio, in the Court of King's Bench, against the plaintiff in error, stating, that before the printing and publishing the seditious and scandalous libel therein after mentioned, to wit, on the 19th day of April, in the third year of his present Majesty's reign, his Majesty did make and deliver a most gracious speech from his throne, to the purport and effect therein set forth, and that the said John Wilkes most audaciously, wickedly, and seditiously devising and intending to vilify and traduce his Majesty, and his government of this realm, to impeach and disparage his veracity and honour, and to represent and cause it to be- believed amongst 244 WILKES V. R. [1769] IV BROWN. his Majesty's subjects, that his said most gracious speech contained falsities and gross imposition upon the public; and that his Majesty had suffered the honour of his Crown to be sunk, debased, and prostituted, and had given his name as a sanction to the most odious measures of government; and also most wickedly, unlawfully, and seditiously devising, intending, and endeavouring, as far as in [361] him the said John Wilkes lay, to excite disobedience and insurrections amongst the subjects of this realm, and to violate and disturb the public tran-quility, good order, and peace of this kingdom; after the making and delivery of the aforesaid speech (that is to say) on the 2d day of August, in the said third year of the reign of our said Lord the King, unlawfully, wickedly, seditiously, and maliciously published, and caused to be printed and published, ,a certain malignant, seditious, and scandalous book and libel, intitled, "The North Briton," in one part whereof intitled No 45. Saturday, April 23d 1763, were then and there contained (among other things) divers malicious, seditious, and scandalous matters, to the effect in the information set forth. There was another count in the information to the same effect. To this information Mr. Wilkes pleaded, not guilty; and Sir Fletcher Norton, then being his Majesty's Attorney General, joined issue in that character for his Majesty. In the sittings after Hilary Term 1764, the cause was tried by a special jury of the county of Middlesex, when Mr. Wilkes, after a full and fair trial, was convicted of the offences charged in the information. But he having withdrawn himself into parts beyond the seas, proceedings to outlawry were had against him upon this conviction, and on the 1st of November 1764, he was outlawed; but in Easter Term 1768, he was apprehended by the sheriff of Middlesex, by virtue of a writ of Capias utlagatum, and being brought into the Court of King's Bench, was committed to the custody of the Marshal of that Court. In the same Term, Mr. Wilkes obtained a writ of error upon the outlawry, and having assigned errors thereon, the same were argued in that and the following Term, when the Court of King's Bench Were pleased to reverse the outlawry, for a defect of form in the return of the sheriff to the writ of exigent. Mr. Wilkes's counsel having surmised to the Court some matters, which, if available, ought to have been moved in arrest of judgment, and for a new trial, the Court relaxed their general rule, requiring such applications to be made within the first four days of the Term immediately following the conviction; and indulged Mr. Wilkes with leave to move now, as well in arrest of judgment as for a new trial. Accordingly, the ground of the motion in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grant et Al v Director of Public Prosecutions
...committed filed by the Queen's Attorney General (or in the vacancy of that office by the Solicitor General — R. v. Wilkes 4 Burr. 2527; 4 Bro. P.C. 360), in the Court of Queen's Bench, without the intervention of a grand jury.” This definition is given in Archbold's Criminal Pleading and Pr......
-
Richards v O'Donohoe
...the end of the sittings. In Ryan & Magee, The Irish Criminal Process (Mercier Press, 1983), it is stated, by reference to R. v. Wilkes 4 Bro. P.C. 360, that this meant that a sentence ran from the first day of the sittings unless otherwise stated. 28 In R. (Horan) v. Galway Justices (1903) ......
-
Money and Others v Leach
...ten calendar months; R. v. Wilkes, 4 Burr. 2527, 2574, 19 H. S. T. 1075, 1124: which was afterwards affirmed in Dora. Proc. Ibid., and 4 Bro. P. C. 360 (Toml. ed.). The record of the proceedings on this information, containing His Majesty's Speech, the No. 45, the conviction, outlawry, proc......
-
R v John Wilkes, Esq
...Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 327 IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH Rex and John Wilkes Esq. See 6 Durn. 174. 4 ves. 330. S. C. 2 Wils. 151; 4 Bro. P. C. 360; 19 How. St. Tri. 1075. Discussed, Bradlaugh v. R., 1878, 3 Q. B. D. 633. Applied, R. v. Castro, 1880, 5 Q. B. D. 502; 6 App. Cas. 236. Discus......