R against The Inhabitants of Pennegos and Town of Mackynlleth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1822 |
| Date | 01 January 1822 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 53
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 2 D. & R. 209
[142] kex against the inhabitants of pennegoes and tovn of mackynlleth. 1822. The Court will not grant a certiorari to remove an indictment from the Quarter Sessions after judgment has been pronounced in that Court. [S. C. 2 D. & R. 209.] In this case, a bill of indictment for not repairing a bridge had been found against the defendants at the Quarter Sessions for the county of Montgomery. At the trial a verdict was found for the Crown, and judgment pronounced accordingly, that a fine1 be imposed upon the defendants. Sir William Owen now moved for a certiorari, to remove the indictment into this Court for the purpose of taking objections to it, and after stating that it was doubtful 54 JONES V. DA TIES 1B..&C.M3. whether a certiorari ought to issue in this stage of the proceedings, he referred the Court to The Queen v. Dixon(l Salk. 150. 3 ibid. 78. 2 Ld. Raym, 971. 6 Mod. 61), and The King v. The Inhabitants of Oxfordshire (13 East, 411), and Bex v. Nicholls (ibid. 412, in notes), where Lee C.J. recognizes the authority of The Queen v. Dixon ; and he suggested that it would be hard upon the defendants to refuse this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against Wilson and Others
...Cr. 148 (7th ed.), book 2, eh. 27, s. 31; Rice v. Begem (Cro. Jac. 404); Long's case (Cro. Eliz. 489); Rex v. Pennegoes and Machynlleth (1 B. & C. 142); Dickin- K. B. xliv.-8* 234 the qtteen v. wilson bq. B.82i. [621] Gloucestershire to wit. Be it remembered that, at the General Quarter Ses......