R v Thomas and Henry Millard

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1853
Date01 January 1853
CourtHigh Court

English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 681


Thomas and Henry Millard

S. C. 20 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. 70; 6 Cox C C. 150. Referred to, Blake v. Beech, 1876, 1 Ex. D. 320; R v. Hughes, 1879, 4 Q B D 614

1853. regina v thomas and henry millard. (Section 24 of the stat 8 Geo. IV c 30 gives a magistrate jurisdiction to convict summarily in cases of malicious damage to property Section 30 enacts, that when any one shall be charged on the oath of a credible witness, before any justice, with such offence, such justice may summon the party, and if he do not appear, may determine the case ex parte, or issue his wairant to apprehend the party, or, without summons, may issue his warrant, and the justice before whom the party charged shall appear or be brought, shall hear and determine the case. Held, that sect 30 did not control the effect of sect 24, and that it was not necessary that there should be an information on oath to give the magistrate jurisdiction to hear the case, when the party charged appeared before him.) [S. C. 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. 70; 6 Cox C C. 150. Referred to, Blake v. Beech, 1876, 1 Ex. D. 320 ; R v. Hughes, 1879, 4 Q B. D 614 ] The defendants were severally indicted for perjury, in the evidence they gave before two magistrates upon the trial of an information under the Malicious Trespass Act, 7 & 8 Geo IV c 30, s 24 Mr. Robertson, a gentleman of the county of Pembroke, laid an information (but not on oatl) before a justice of the peace against a person of the name of Wiggin, for wilful damage to the carnage of the complainant A summons was issued against Wiggin to appear to answer the charge, and he appeared accordingly ; the defendants, Thomas Millard and Henry Millard, were examined as witnesses against Wiggin, and the indictment was for perjury upon that examination tt was objected for the defendants that to give the magistrates jurisdiction the information must, by the 30th section of the Act, be on oath, which it was not in cr. ca. n.-22* 682 REGINA 15. ABRAHAM REED DEARS, 187. [187] the present case I thought that the magistrates had jurisdiction, and that the omission to lay the information on oath was an error m procedure only , but as th* case is one of very general application, I reserved the point for the opinion, of the Court of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State (at the prosecution of John Clarke) v Maura Roche
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1987
    ...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. 70; 6 Cox, C.C. 150; 169 E.R. 681. Blake v. Beech (1876) 1 Ex.D. 320; 45 L.J.M.C. 111; 34 L.T. 764; 40 J.P. 678. R. v. Hughes (1879) 4 Q.B.D.; [1874-80] All E.R. Rep. Ext. 15......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT