Norris v Staps
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 80 E.R. 357
King's Bench Division
268. norris versus staps. Pasch. 14 Jac. Rot. 907. Corporations have power to make laws, and the validity of them. Mesme case, Hutt. 5. 1 Roll. 364. Brownl. 1. R. 48. Mo. 869. Norris and Trussell guardians, and the fellowship of the weavers of Newbury, brought an action of debt of five pounds against Staps, and declared, that Queen Elizabeth incorporated them an. 44. by that name, and gave them power to make laws rationi consonas, and not contrary to the laws and statutes of the realm, with a proviso to the same effect; and that the Queen by the same letters patents did ordain for her, her heirs and successors, that none should exercise the trade of weaving within the said town, except he were first admitted thereunto, by the Guardians and Society of Weavers. And then shews the Act of 19 H. 7. and then [211] that two guardians, and the greater part of the fellowship of weavers did make an ordinance, that no person should use the said art of weaving within the said town, except he had been an apprentice to the art within the said town, and had used it there by the space of fiva years before the ordinance, or were admitted by the guardians and fellowship, upon the pain of 20 shillings a month. And then shews the allowance of the same ordinance according to the law of 19 H. 7. and that one of the guardians gave notice of it to the defendant. And then shews, that the defendant had used the art, &c. there, by the space of five months after, whereas he had not been an apprentice there, nor used the same art there five years before the ordinance, nor was admitted, &c. 358 NORRIS V. STAPS HOBAHT, 212. Against the said ordinance and the Queen's letters patents, &c. The defendant pleads nihil debet, and it was found for the plaintiffs, and yet judgment was given against them quod nihil capiant per bre. The reason of the judgment were gross fault* in the declaration. The first, that it did not appear that the corporation did consist of two guardians, for there was no more declared, but that they were incorporated by the name of guardians, &c. which may be more than two, and they had omitted the clause whereby the number was appointed. I am of opinion, that they needed not to shew how they were incorporated, for the name argues a corporation, as the like of cities, and the plea nihil debet (or the like) requires proof of it. But the worst fault is in the law it self, for it excludes all...
To continue reading
Request your trial