R v Justices of Shrewsbury
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1766 |
| Date | 01 January 1766 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 94 E.R. 1041
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[28] Rix versus justices of shrewsbury. Poor's rate not to be removed. A certiorari was moved for to remove a poor's rate made at the sessions ; and the Court granted rule to shew cause, because it was said this differed from the case of (a) Utoxeter Parish, because there the rate was made by the officers of the parish, from (a) This case was in E. 5 Geo. 2, and is thus reported by Sir John Strange, p. 932, "Upon great debate, and search of precedents, it was held, that a certiorari would not He to remove the poor's rate itself, the remedy being to appeal, or by action when a distress is taken, which will answer all the end of justice in coming at an equal rate; whereas if the rate itself should be required to be sent up, great inconveniencies and delays would follow; and a case was cited Mich. 10 Ann. Regina v. Inhab. de St. Mary the Virgin in Marlborough, where it was so resolved." The same case is reported in a MS. as follows: Mr. W. moved for a certiorari to remove a rate which was appealed from to the sessions. Mr. A. strongly opposed it, saying it was never done, and if it was removed it could be of no use. He cited 2 Salk. 483, 524. Carth. 464. Hil. 7 Geo. 1, E. and Inhabitants of Bridgward. Hil. 3 Geo. 2, Rex and Inhabitants of Winseinton, Mich. 7 Geo. and Rex and Inhabitants of Barnstable; and he said that a rate is never made a record of the sessions, but is only used as an evidence; and if the rate be confirmed, it is always delivered back to the parish officer to collect his money. Mr. F. contra argued, that if this doctrine was allowed of, the justices would make themselves absolute judges; and though they made an order confirming a rate, which was void in itself, yet this Court would not be able to examine into it, and suppose this Court should quash an order of sessions reversing a rate, then the rate would stand in lorce, when perhaps, could you see the rate, you would think it ought to be set aside. Lee Just. If the rate be not good, the party has his remedy on a distress. The complaint is on the assessment, and the rate is only an evidence of that, and the act of the sessions has only a relation to the assessment, which, I believe, is always kept by the officer, not by the Court. Page Just. I cannot find out a distinction between a rate and an assessment; I apprehend they are the same. Ch. Just. A certiorari goes to remove the order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The "Ida."
...held that [9] the whole of the Bristol Channel is within the counties by the shores of which its parts are respectively bounded, R. v Cunningham (28 L J M. C. 66) . it is enough to say tkat this Court has not taken cognisance of torts m any foreign river, except in Turkish waters, where spe......
-
Dominus R v Inhab. de Uttoxeter in Com' Stafford
...Com' Stafford dominus rex vers. inhab. de uttoxeter* in com'stafford. The poor's rate is not to be removed. 1 Bott by Const, 351, pi. 247. Cunn. 28. 1 Seas. Ca. p. 150, No. 143. 1 Barn. B. R. 443. 2 Kely. 117, S. C. Upon great debate, and search of precedents, it was held, that a certiorari......
-
Throgmorton Ex Dimiss' Miller v Smith et Al
...Com' Stafford dominus rex vers. inhab. de uttoxeter* in com'stafford. The poor's rate is not to be removed. 1 Bott by Const, 351, pi. 247. Cunn. 28. 1 Seas. Ca. p. 150, No. 143. 1 Barn. B. R. 443. 2 Kely. 117, S. C. Upon great debate, and search of precedents, it was held, that a certiorari......
-
Dominus R v Justices of Shrewsbury
...Rex and ers. Justices of Shrewsbury dominus rex vers. justices of shrewsbury. Poor's rate not to be removed. 1 Sess. Ca. p. 253, No. 201. Cunn. 28. 2 Barn. B. R. 272, 440, 457, S. C. Ante, 932. Upon appeal to the sessions the poor's rate was quashed, and the sessions made a new one. To remo......
-
Trial
...or by admitting the testimony. 27 he Eleventh Circuit similarly held that Reh’s testimony was properly admitted. In United States v. Cunningham , 28 the defendant operated a chemical company, which sold a machine to electroplating companies that removed hexavalent chromium from their wastew......