R v Robinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 March 1837 |
| Date | 16 March 1837 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 144
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
S. C. 5 Tyr. 1095; 4 Dowl. P. C. 447; 1 Gale, 209; 4 L. J. Ex. 319. Discussed, Roe v. Hammond, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 306; Mortimore v. Cragg, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 220. Referred to, Bissicks v. Bath Colliery Company, 1877, 2 Ex. D. 460.
rex v. robcnson. Exch. of Pleas. 1835.-Under a writ of extent for penalties under the excise laws, the sheriff levied goods of the defendant of the value of 8241. A negotiation took place; the sheriff remained in possession, and ultimately the Crown accepted 5001. in satisfaction of the penalties, which amounted to 10001. :-Held, that the sheriff was errtitled to poundage only on 5001. [S. C. B Tyr. 1095; 4 Dowl. P. C. 447; 1 (J-ale, 209; 4 L. J. Ex. 319. Discussed, Roe v. Hammond, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 300; Mwtimvre v. Uragg, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 220. Referred to, Bissiclcs v. Bath Colliery Company, 1877, 2 Ex. D. 460.] Tancred had obtained a rule calling upon the sheriff of Staffordshire, or his under sheriff, to pay over into the hands of the collector of excise for the district, for the use of the Grown, the sum of 472. 10s., being the balance of a sum of 5001. levied on the defendant's goods under an extent, after deducting the sum of 271. IOs. for the sheriff's poundage thereon. The facts, as admitted between the parties, were, that judgment having been obtained for the Grown against the defendant for the sum of 70001., to secure penalties amounting to 10001., under the Kxcise laws, a writ of extent, indorsed to levy 10001., was issued to the sheriff of Staffordshire, under which be seized the defendant's goods. They were appraised at the sum of 8241. The (b) See 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 32. The S & 9 Will. 3, c. 11, s. 1, only applied to trespass, assault, false imprisonment, or ejectment. See Murray v. Nichols, 6 Bing. 380; M. & P. 280. The recent enactment extends to cases like the present. 2C.M. & R. 335. REX V. ROBINSON 145 sheriff continued in possession about seven weeks after the seizure, in consequence of a treaty being commenced between the defendant and the Excise for a compromise. The Excise ultimately agreed to take 5001. in satisfaction of the penalties. The question now was, whether the sheriff was entitled to poundage only on this sum of 5001., or on 8241., the whole value of the goods taken. Jervis shewed cause. The sheriff is entitled to poundage on the whole amount of the; goods levied. The question depends on the construction to be put...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v Bailey
...(a) Vide 1 N. & M. 189 (J); Bird v. Bass, ante, p. 143. (b) See The Prince's case, 8 Co. Rep. 1. (c) Vide Bex v. RoUnsm, 5 Tyrwh. 1095 ; 2 C. M. & R. 334; 1 Gale, Exch. 209 ; 4 Dowl. P. C. 447; Scales v. Sargeson, 4 Dowl. P. C. 231. (d) Vide Crossfieldv. Stanley, 4 B. & Ad. 87, 1 N. & M. 66......
-
Parchue v R
... ... 341 of the Criminal Code but that having regard to the particular definition of extortion in Hawkins Pleas of the Crown a4 well as to what is now S. 29 (iii) of the English, Larceny Act, and the observations of Patterson J. in R. v Robinson 174 E.R. 198, where the judge said that it was a felony under the former law, to extort money by threatening to accuse of a crime, Hogan J.A., would not think, on the material presently available to him, that the offence of extortion at common law is necessarily confined within the limits suggested ... ...