R v Fuller
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 1240
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
See Blake v. Beech, 1876, 1 Ex. D. 329; R. v. Hughes, 1879, 4 Q. B. D. 625.
rex vers. fuller. [See Blake v. Beech, 1876, 1 Ex. D. 329 ; B. v. Hughes, 1879, 4 Q. B. D. 625.] Under an authority to hear and determine an offence a man cannot be convicted except an information has been laid against him for such offence. Such information must be set forth in the conviction. An information cannot be supported but by evidence of fact prior to the information. S. C. 12 Mod. 303. I. S. came before the justices of peace, viz. two, according to the method directed by 12 Car. 2, c. 23, s. 31, and gave them information, that the defendant kept two concealed wash-backs, contrary to 8 & 9 W. 3, e. 19. This information was given the thirtieth of March 1699. Upon which the two justices issued their summons to summon the defendant to appear before them the third of April following. At which day, upon his appearance, and oath being made by a credible witness, that the defendant modo habet et eustodit eadem duo privata sen concelata vasa, Anglice wash-backs, they adjudged, that he should forfeit 201. for each wash-back. This conviction having been contrived fraudulently, to avoid conviction by a later Act, by which the penalty was increased to 1001. Mr. Attorney General Trevor caused the conviction to be removed by certiorari into the King's Bench, and now moved to quaah it; because the information was given the thirtieth of March, and the oath of the witness upon the third of April, upon which the conviction is grounded, is quod modo habet, &c. which must be understood of the time of the conviction, which is [510] a different offence from that of which the information was given to the 1LD. RAYffl. 811. MICH. TERM, 11 WILL. 3 1241 justices; because though he had concealed vessels the third...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State (at the prosecution of John Clarke) v Maura Roche
...Council) v. Kildare Justices [1912] 2 I.R. 64. R. (Daly) v. Cork Justices [1898] 2 I.R. 694; (1898) 32 I.L.T.R. 83. R. v. Fuller (1699) 1 Ld. Raym. 509; 12 Mod. Rep. 309. R. v. Millard (1853) 1 Deans C.C. 166; 22 L.J.M.C. 108; 21 L.T.O.S. 108; 17 J.P. 279; 17 Jur. 400; 1 W.R. 314; 1 C.L.R. ......
-
Attorney General (McDonnell) v Higgins
...I. R. 198. (1) [1945] I. R. 266. (1) [1912] 2 I. R. 76, per Gibson J., at p. 87. (2) [1898] 2 I. R. 694, per Gibson J., at p. 696. (3) 1 Ld. Raym. 509. (4) 1 Dears. C.C. (5) (1876) 1 Ex. D. 320, per Field J., at p. 329. (6) (1879) 4 Q. B. D. 614. (7) 1 Ld. Raym. 583. (8) (1833) 6 C. & P. 16......