Kirk against Nowill and Butler
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1786 |
| Date | 31 January 1786 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 1006
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
kirk against nowill and butler. Tuesday, Jan. 31st, 1786. A corporation, created by letters patent, with a power of making bye laws, cannot make any laws, to incur a forfeiture; neither can a corporation created by Act of Parliament, unless such a power be expressly given. This was an action of trespass for seizing and taking a quantity of forks, the property of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded, 1st, the general issue. The second plea stated, that the town of Sheffield, in which the said trespass is supposed to have been committed, was within the lordship and liberty of Hallamshire in the county of York. That the Company of Cutlers was incorporated by stat. 2L Jac. 1, c. 31. That that Act directed that one master, two wardens, six searchers, and four and twenty assistants, should be annually chosen out of the said company to govern the said corporation. That it was by the said Act of Parliament further enacted, " that no person or persons using the said arts or manufactures within the liberty of Hallamshire, or six miles compass of the same, should at any time hereafter make, or cause to be made, any knives, or knife-blades, shears, scissors, or sickles, except he or they did put steel into the edges of them, upon pain to lose for every such offence 10s. and the wares so deceitfully made; to be seized and recovered by the master and wardens of the said company for the time being, and to be levied, distributed, and employed to the use of the said corporation, to and for the relief and benefit of the poor of the said corporation." And that the forks mentioned in the declaration were forfeited and seized under that Act. [119] The third plea set forth the incorporation of the said company by the said Act of 21 Jae. 1 ; that it was, by the said Act, further enacted, " That no person using the said mystery or crafts, or any of them, within the said lordship or liberty, or six miles compass thereof, should at any time thereafter strike, grave, or use, upon his knives, or the wares before mentioned, any more marks than one, and that to be such as should be first appointed as aforesaid unto him by the said masters, wardens, and searchers of the said company for the time being, or the greater number of them ; upon pain to forfeit and lose, for every time that he should offend therein, all such goods so marked, and the sum of 40s. to the master and wardens of the said company for the time being, to be employed to the use of the said corporation to and for the relief and benefit of the poor of the said corporation ; " and that the forks mentioned in the declaration were forfeited and seized under that Act. 4thly, and for further plea, &c. the defendants say, "That the said plaintiff ought not to have or maintain his said action thereof against them, because they say that the town of Sheffield, in which the said trespass is above supposed to have been done, is, and at the respective times hereinafter mentioned, and also at the said time when the said trespass is above supposed to have been (lone, was, a certain place, situate and being in and parcel of the lordship and liberty of Hallamshire in the said county of York, and mentioned in the Act of Parliament and bye-law hereinafter mentioned. And the said defendants further say, that by a certain Act of Parliament made and passed in the Parliament of the late King James 1. at a session thereof holden at Westminster in the one and twentieth year of his reign, entitled, ' An Act for the Good Order and Government of the Makers of Knives, Sickles, Shears, Scissors, and Other Cutlery Wares, in Hallamshire in the County of York, and the Parts near Adjoining,' it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- C J Burland Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Meat Industry Board
-
Ex parte Topham
...where the bankrupt has in himself the equity of redemption.(3) (1) See Anon., 1 P. Wms. 327, Spring on dem.; Titcher v. Biles, in note to 1 T. R. 118; Green v. Howard, 1 Ves. jun. 31; Wright v. Atkins, Cop. 118. (2) The words " share and share alike " have been held to have the same meaning......
-
Clement v Lewis, Gent
...case, 3d Eesolution (10 Rep. 119 a.), [299] Heydon's case (11 Rep. 6 a.), Eichorn v. Le'maitre (2 Wils. 367), and Kirk v. Nowill (1 T. R. 118, 266). Marryatt, for the Defendant in error. It may be true, that where the first jury omits something which it ought to have found, the Court cannot......