R v Killett, Clerk
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 May 1767 |
| Date | 20 May 1767 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 76
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
eex vers. killett, Clerk. Wednesday, 20th May 1767. Evidence must be set out in a conviction. A conviction of a clergyman, before a justice of the peace, upon 19 G-eo. 2, c. 21, 13, for neglecting to read the Act to prevent profane cursing and swearing was, quashed because the evidence was not stated and set out, so as that the Court could judge of its sufficiency. [20643 It set forth, that on such a day and at such a place, K. E. one of the churchwardens of B. came before him, and gave information, &c. The information fully charged the offence ; specifying that the defendant was parson of the parish, and that he officiated as such, on one of the days mentioned in the Act of Parliament and omitting and neglectiug to read, &c. ; and that the defendant was duly summoned ; but neglected to appear, or make any defence : whereupon the justice proceeded to examine into the truth of the said charge; and the same, as set forth, being duly 41UBB. 2066. SAUNDERSON V. BOWLES 77 proved before him, as well by the oath of the said E. E. as by the oath of G. C. of B. aforesaid farmer, a credible witness, he adjudged the defendant guilty, and convicted him in 5. The Court held, that the evidence ought to be set out. They said, this was clearly so settled in Bex versus Bissex, Trin. 1756, 29 and 30 G. 2, in this Court. Whereas here it is only said, "the same, as set forth, being duly proved." V. 10th Mod. (Lucas's Reports) 213, Queen and Gh-een, B. R. Hil. 12 Ann. " It ought to appear to the Court from the nature of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v Rowan M'Naghten
...A. & E. 11. Lee v. ClarkeENR 2 East, 233. Regina v. Houston 3 Ir. Law Rep. 445. ex parte RansleyUNK 3 D. & Ry. 572. The King v. KillettENR 4 Burr. 2063. CASES AT LAW. 93 M. T. 1845. Queen'sBench. THE QUEEN v. ROWAN M'NAGIITEN. Nov.14, 21. CERTIORARI to certain magistrates at Petty Sessions,......
-
The King against Read
...287, and note 16, of Mr. Serjeant Williams's edition. (d) 71. [1] Vide Rex v. Theed, M. 5 Geo. 2, 2 Str. 919. Bex v. Killet, E. 7 Geo. 3, 4 Burr. 2063. ^= Bex v. Bryan, H. 11 Geo. 2, Andr. 81 [f 1]. the lessor for mesne profits. Query, therefore, on what principle, in a second ejectment, wh......
-
Walter v Stuart
...thought, the rule of Court was suspended during the negotiation, and that the defendant was not supersedeable (). Rule discharged. () See 4 Burr. 2063; Pearson v. Eawlings, 1 East, 77; 1 Tidd's Pr. 377, (ed. 1821). As to the time for declaring against a prisoner, see post, 1242. English Re......