Kent and Kent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1815 |
| Date | 01 January 1815 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 95 E.R. 30
King's Bench Division
Cun. 44. Ridgw. 21.
30 TRINITY TERM, 7 GEO. IL CM. T. ICARD. ment on demurrer must usually occasion that delay. That another rule is laid down, that where the faultiness of the plea is wilful, the party injured may on his prayer have it amended, though the other party may not ; and this indeed may be a true rule. It is certainly a stronger inducement to the discretion of the Court to grant an amendment if the party would otherwise lose his action, though it is no rule ; and in the present case it is an inducement equally strong, that the defendant must lose his office without this amendment. Many cases shew that amendments may be granted after joinder in demurrer and argument thereon, as 2 Saund. 401. Vent, 221. One objection chiefly relied on this case is, that it is a criminal suit, and therefore cases of amendments in civil causes are not applicable to it ; hut there is no such distinction made in the books as to amendments at common law ; as to amendments on the Statutes of Jeofails it may he true, since there are express words in them to that purpose. In the case of The Queen and Toudiin, Salk. 51, it was the opinion of Mr. Justice Powell, that amendments may be granted equally in criminal, as in civil matters. Indeed the case of Cox and Wilbraham, Salk. 50, is somewhat different, Neither does this seem to be a criminal suit, it being a doubt which divided the twelve Judges in the case of Shaflsbury, whether informations in the nature of quo warranto are civil or criminal suits but they rather partake of both natures, though more largely of the former, especially since the Act of 4 & 5 Will. & Mar. e. 18, which reduces them almost to a civil action. The case of Hughes, though it is the single opinion of Lord Raymond, yet it is a great one, and was never complained of nor excepted against. Another objection is, that they have lost a trial and though this is no rule, yet it might be a strong inducement to the Court not to grant this amendment, but then to make it any inducement it is necessary that it appear to have been lost merely on account of this mistake. But it is sworn on the contrary, that had it been brought on it would have gone off on a challenge, and therefore the prosecutors consented to put it off. [503 Another objection is from the inconvenience arising from this proceeding, as it tends to frustrate the intention of the 9 Ann. c. 20, which was partly, made for the more speedy trial of those informations, that the right of annual officers might be determined within the year. And indeed had this bad plea been wilfully put in for that purpose, it would have been a great inducement to the Court to have refused this amendment ; but as it is on the contrary sworn to have been a mistake, that is -out of the question, and the defendant might have obtained his end by writ of error ; for which in these matters...
To continue reading
Request your trial