Lowther against The Earl of Radnor and another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 November 1806 |
| Date | 27 November 1806 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 287
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[113] lowthbr against the earl of radnor and another. Thursday, Nov. 27th, 1806. The statute 20 G. 2, c. 19, giving the magistrates jurisdiction to determine differences between masters and servants in husbandry, artificers, handicraftsmen, miners, potters, &c. " and other labourers " employed for any certain time, or in any other manner, " respecting wages within certain sums, extends to labourers of all descriptions, and not merely in the particular trades or business there enumerated : and consequently includes wages earned by a labourer who contracted to dig and stean a well for cattle, to be paid for by the foot, and who employed another to assist him in the work. The party appealing to the sessions is not thereby concluded from afterwards disputing its jurisdiction in the particular case. Trespass lies not against magistrates acting upon a complaint made to them on oath, by the terms of which they have jurisdiction, though the real facts of the case might not have supported such complaint, if such facts were not laid before them at the time by the party complained against, having notice of such complaint, and being properly summoned to attend. [See Colder v. Halket, 1839, 3 Moo. P. C. 64; Eiley v. Warden, 1848, 2 Ex. 68; Houlden v. Smith, 1850, 14 Q. B. 852; Ex parte Allsop, In re Disney, 1875, 32 L. T. In trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff's close, and taking his goods (which was for a distress) at Tilshead, in* the county of Wilts, the defendant pleaded the general issue ; and at the trial at Salisbury, in March 1806, before Le Blanc J. a verdict was found for the plaintiff, damages 61. 13s. 6d. subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case. On the 27th of Nov. 1804 the two defendants, justices of the peace for the county of Wilts, made and signed the following order. " Wilts to wit. To Thomas Lawes, one of the tything men of Tilshead, in the county of Wilts, &c. Whereas James Sopp of Shrewton, in the county of Wilts, labourer, hath complained unto J. T. B. Esq. one of H. M. justices of the peace in and for the said county of W. that G. Lowther, Esq. residing at T. in the said county, refused to pay unto him, the said J. Sopp, 41. 13s. 6d. for wages justly due unto him for work and labour done by the said J. Sopp, and by T. Franklin, in the service of the said G. Lowther, by digging and steaning part of a well at the said parish of T. : And whereas on the 13th of Nov. inst. the said J. T. B. by a precept under his hand and seal directed to the aforesaid T. Lawes, &c. did require them to summon the said G. Lowther to appear before him, J. T. B. and such other of His Majesty's justices of the peace as should be present at Fisherton Anger, in the said county, on Tuesday the 20th of Nov. inst. to answer to the complaint of the said [114] J. Sopp, and to shew cause why an order should not be made on the said G. Lowther for payment of the aforesaid sum : And whereas the said G. Lowther was, on the 16th of Nov. inst., duly served with the said summons by the said T. Lawes, but hath neglected to appear to answer the said complaint, and hath not paid to the said J. Sopp the said 41. 13s. 6d. or any part thereof, and hath not shewed to us any sufficient cause why the same should not be paid : We, whose hands and seals are hereunto subscribed and set, two of His Majesty's justices of the peace, &c. being present at the time and place above appointed for the hearing of the said complaint, having duly examined the said J. Sopp, upon oath, touching the truth of the said complaint, and upon consideration thereof, do adjudge the said complaint to be true, and that the said 41. 13s. 6d. is justly due and owing unto him, the said J. Sopp, from the said G. Lowther. And we do hereby also adjudge and order the said G. Lowther to pay, or cause to be paid unto the said J. Sopp, 41. 13s. 6d. which appears to us to be just and reasonable to be paid by him, the said G. Lowther, to the said J. Sopp, as and for his wages as aforesaid. And we do hereby require you, &c. forthwith to give notice to the said G. Lowther of this our adjudication and order, and to certify to us what you shall 288 LOWTHEE V. RADNOR 8 EAST, 115. have done concerning the premises when duly required, that in default of payment such other proceedings may be had therein as the law requires, &c." Mr. Lowther appealed to the Wilts Quarter Sessions against the order; and the appeal was heard at the Epiphany Sessions 1805, when the order was affirmed by the sessions with 40s. costs to be paid by Mr. Lowther to J. Sopp. On the 19th of April 1805 the defendants made and signed the following warrant of [115] distress. "Wilts to wit. To Tho. Lawes, &c. Whereas we, the Earl of Eadtior and Willm. Eyre, Esq. two of His Majesty's justices, &c. by an adjudication and order under our hands and seals, bearing date the 27th of Nov. last, did, amongst other things, upon the oath of J. Sopp of S. in the said county, labourer, adjudge and order G. Lowther, Esq. residing at T. in the said county, to pay, or cause to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King (Martin) v Mahony
...E. & B. 399. (7) 8 Q. B. 566. (1) 10 Ir. C. L. R., at p. 185. (2) 8 E. & B. 529. (3) 8 E. & B. 451. (4) 2 Q. B. 1037. (5) 8 T. R. 536. (6) 8 East, 113. (7) 8 East, 394. (8) L. R. 5 Q. B. 466. (9) 4 A. & E. 498. (10) 22 Q. B. D. 345. (11) 3 B. & S., at p. 632. (1) [1905] 2 I. R. 101, 112. (2......
-
R v Queen's County Justices
...(4) [1895] A. C. 587. (5) L. R. 2 H. L. (Sc. & Div.) at. (6) 7 Q. B. 232. [p. 359 (1) 7 Q. B. 555. (2) 7 A. E. 807. (3) 1 Q. B. 66. (4) 8 East, 113. (5) [1894] 2 I. R. (6) 20 L. R. Ir. 625. ...
-
Houlden v Smith
...And he cites Gwinne v. Poole (2 Lutw. Appendix, 1560, 1566), Pike v. Carter (3 Bing. 78), and Lowther v. The Earl of Eadnor (8 East, 113). The defendant, in the present case, had in fact no jurisdiction; for the plaintiff dwelt and carried on his business out of the limits of the defendant'......
-
Houlden v Smith
...by statute "; also a plea of ant of notice of action ; but the notice (a) (T.) Jones, 214. (b) 2 Lutw. Appendix, 1566. (c) 3 Bing. 78. (d) 8 East, 113, 119. (e) 1 Vent. 236. ( f) 1 Q. B. 18. (g) 1 Q. B. 3. (h) 14 M. & W. 57, 70, 71. (i) 3 Camp. 388. ( j) 2 Str 993. (k) 2 W. Bl. 1141. (1) 3 ......