R v Thomas Whalley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 August 1835 |
| Date | 01 August 1835 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 108
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, AND EXCHEQUER.
Referred to, Gallard v. Laxton, 1862, 2 B. & S. 363.
August 1st, 1835 rex v thomas whalley. (If commissioners of bankrupt issue a warrant to apprehend a bankrupt, and direct the warrant " To J. A. and W. S , our messengers, and their assistants," £c. ; this warrant does not justify the apprehension of the bankrupt by anyone who is not in the presence, actual or constructive, of J. A. or W. S. ; and therefore B , who was the assistant of W. S , in his business of a sheriff's officer, is not justified in apprehending the bankrupt in the absence of W. S and J A , although B has the warrant in his possession Held, also, that if B , in attempting to take the bankrupt, be struck down by the bankrupt with a stone, and, in a struggle which ensued, have a part of his nose bitten off by the bankrupt, this, in case death had ensued to B , would have been a case of manslaughter only ) [Referred to, Golliard v Laxton, 1862, 2 B & S 363 ] Wounding.-The first count of the indictment charged the prisoner with having feloniously wounded John Aston, with intent to maim him , the second count charged the intent to be to disfigure him , the third count, to disable him ; and the fourth count, to do him some grievous bodily harm. The fifth count charged the intent tebe, " to resist the lawful apprehension of him the said T. W. for an offence for which he the said T. W was then and there liable by law to be apprehended by the said J. A " The sixth count was exactly similar, except that it added, " to wit, for refusing and neglecting to attend, without having lawful impediment, before Edward Jeremy Lloyd, George Condy, John Taylor, Oswald Milne, and James Blackledge Biackenbury, commissioners under a fiat of bankruptcy awarded against the said T. W, pursuant to a summons issued by the said E J L , G C , and J T , the major pait of the said commissioners, directed to the said T W , requiring the said T W. to be and appear personally before the major part of the said commissioners, on Thursday, the 6th day of November, 1834, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon of that day, at the commissioners' rooms, Manchester, then and there to be examined by the said commissioners, by virtue of the said fiat " It ttss opened by Maule, for the prosecution, that the prisoner had been a wholesale shoe manufacturer at Staf-[246]-ford, that he had become bankrupt, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Howe
-
Creagh v Gamble
...Trustees v. GibbsELR L. R. 1 H. L. 93, 111. Parton v. WilliamsENR 3 B. & Ald. 330. Cook v. NethercoteENR 6 C. & P. 741. Rex v. WhalleyENR 7 C. & P. 245. Rex v. Patience Ibid. 775. Rex v. WeirENR 1 B. & C. 288. Hoye v. Bush 2 Scott's N. R. 86. Peppercorn v. HofmanENR 9 M. & W. 618-628. Abrat......
-
Galliard Appellant, Laxton Respondent
...[Crompton J. In those cases the parties making the ar-[370]-rest were not authorized to do so by their warrant.] In Hex v. WTialley (7 C. & P. 245), where Commissioners of bankrupts issued a warrant to apprehend a bankrupt, directed to certain persons by name and their assistants, it was he......