R v Blunt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1790 |
| Date | 01 January 1790 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 96 E.R. 817
COURTS OF KINGS BENCH
rex vers. blunt. A new trial cannot be had after an acquittal upon an information in the nature of a quo warranto. Upon a motion for a new trial, it appeared ; that the defendant had been acquitted upon an information in the nature of a quo warranto. The Court refused to make a rule to shew cause. And by the Court-In the case of Bex v. Bennett, Trin. 4 G. 1, which was argued before all the Judges, a new trial was not granted after an acquittal upon such an information ; the Judges being equally divided in opinion upon the question, whether a new trial can be granted after an acquittal upon an information in the nature of a quo warranto? In the case of Rex v. Jones, Trin. 12 G. 1, wherein the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Usher against Walters, Esquire
...contrary to the form of the statutes, he took of plaintiff more consideration and reeompence than by the statutes is allowed, that is to say, 101. 4s. 6d., when by the statutes there were allowed only, &c. (naming the several sums), being at the rates severally named for poundage, for the w......
-
Robt. Jones Holdings Limited v Anthony John Mccullagh and Stephen Mark Lawrence
...clawback.100 He acknowledged the importance of insolvent companies being able to enter into such transactions. However, Nettle JA went on to say:101 It is also possible to envisage ways of accommodating [cash on transactions that may do less violence to the language of the section than the ......
-
Newberry and Benson v Colvin and Others
...Thomas Starling Benson Esquire, owner, and George Betham, Esquire, commander of the ship ' Benson,' on a voyage to India; Wages 101., say 101. per month, no primage or privilege of tonnage whatever; Cabin allowance for voyage, (it being understood that the agent, chief and second mates, and......
-
Holmes v Sparkes and Nichols
...contrary to the form of the statutes, he took of the plaintiff more consideration and recompence than by the statutes is allowed, that is to say, 101. 4s. 6d., when by the statutes there were allowed only, &c. (naming the several sums), being at the rates severally named for poundage, for t......