R v Sheward
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1879 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Application having been made to the High Court of Justice for a writ of certiorari, to bring up and quash the proceedings upon an inquisition before the sheriff as to the amount of compensation to be awarded to a claimant under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, on the ground that the jury in assessing the compensation had taken into consideration matters which were not legally the subject of compensation; it was proved that the applicants for the writ had allowed five months to expire without taking any objection to the proceedings:—
Held, that as the time allowed for setting aside an award made under the provisions of the above-mentioned Act had expired before the application was made, the writ of certiorari ought not to be granted.
APPEAL by the Metropolitan and St. John's Wood Railway Company against the discharge of a rule for a writ of certiorari, to bring up the proceedings taken before the sheriff of Middlesex with respect to a claim for compensation under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845.
The facts are fully stated in the report of the judgment in the Queen's Bench Division.F1
Mr. Sheward, the claimant, had a leasehold interest in certain premises on which he trained and exercised steeplechase horses and hunters. The railway company had power to take these premises compulsorily by virtue of their special Act which incorporated the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. In December, 1875, the company gave the usual notice to treat, and in February, 1879, an inquisition was taken before the under-sheriff of Middlesex, when the jury assessed the compensation at 6000l., which included a large sum for loss in respect of the claimant's business. The claimant's costs were taxed and paid in April, 1879. Some correspondence ensued, in the course of which the claimant's solicitors pressed for payment, and ultimately, on the 11th of June, issued a writ to recover the sum of 6000l. The company moved for the rule for the certiorari on the 21st of July, 1879.
Bidder, Q.C. (L. E. Pyke, with him), for the company. The under-sheriff allowed the jury to go beyond their jurisdiction; for they gave compensation for damage to the claimant's business...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mary Williams Claimant v Attorney General Defendant
...of any delay at all, it is for him to get over it and not for the other side. In support, I would refer to R v Sheward (1880) 5 QBD 179; 9 QBD 741, where five months had elapsed. And in R. v Glamorgan Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Fricker (1917) 33 TLR 152, Lord Reading CJ said at page 153: "â€......
- Jones and Others v Solomon
-
Dekra Éireann Teo v Minister for Environment
...been guilty of any delay at all, it is for him to get over it and not for the other side. In support, I would refer to Reg. v. Sheward (1880) 9 Q.B.D. 741; 5 Q.B.D. 179, where five months elapsed. And in Rex v. Glamorgan Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Fricker (1917) 33 T.L.R. 152. Lord Reading C......
-
R v Inner London Crown Court, ex parte Greenwich London Borough Council
...at all, it is for him to get over it and not for the other side. In support, I would refer to The Queen v. Steward (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 179; 9 Q. B. D. 741, where five months had elapsed. And in Rex v. Glamorganshire Appeals Tribunal (ex parte Fricher) (1917) T. L. R. 152, Lord Reading, Chief ......