R v Verelst, Esq
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 1813 |
| Date | 28 July 1813 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1435
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Attornies, Cannon and Mills.
[432] Wednesday, July 28, 1813. rex v. verelst, esq. (Upon an indictment for perjury before a sarrogate in the Ecclesiastical Court; the fact of the person who administered the oath having acted as a surrogate is sufficient pnma facie evidence of hi& being duly appointed and having authority to administer the oath. But if it appear that the surrogate was appointed contrary to the canon which requires* that no judicial act shall be speeded by amy ecclesiastical judge, unless in the presence of the registrar or his deputy, or other persons by law allowed in that behalf, his appointment ia a nullity, and the averment that he had authority to administer the oath is negatived.) * So a ship having run on some wooden piles four feet under water, erected about nine yards from the shore to keep up the banks of the river , and having lain on these piles till they were cut away;-this was held to be a stranding within the meanimg of the memorandum Dobson v. Bolton, Marsh. 239. But it was decided that there had been no such stranding, where a ship in the river Thames was run foul oi by two other vessels, and being thereby driven a-ground, lemained fast for an hour. Banng v. Henkle, Marsh. 240. 1436 BEX V. VERELST 3CA,438. [Considered, R. v. Roberts, 1878, 38 L. T. 690. Referred to, Woolton v. Gavin, 1850, 6 Q. B 48; Dale\ Case, 1881, 6 Q B D. 376 ] This was an indictment for perjury in an answer to an allegation in the Ecclesiastical Court The indictment stated, that on the 2d day of December, 1811, a certain allegation was exhibited in the Gonsistonal and Episcopal Court of London, before the worshipful Samuel Pearce Parson, doc-tor of laws arid surrogate of the Right Honourable Sir Win. Scott, knight, doctor of laws, vicar general of the Right Reverend Father in God the Lord Bishop of London, and official principal of his Consistorial and Episcopal Court of London, by and on the part and behalf of Elizabeth Amelia Verelst, wife of the deiendant, in a certain cause then depending, and before them instituted in the said Court by the said defendant, for the purpose of procuring a divorce and separation from bed, board, and mutual co-habitation with his said wife by reason of adultery. Mrs. Verelst's allegation, imputing adultery to the defendant, was then set out. The indictment proceeded afterwards to aver, that the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v John Mattcocks Chapman
...the charge of perjury, I must contend that that case is founded in error. It was decided without argument , and the case of Rex v. Verelst (3 Camp 432) was not referred to. Parke, B.-That case was before Lord Ellenboiough at Nisi Prius Lord Denman, C. J.-I think, Mr. Fitzherbert, that there......
-
Jajhay v Rent Control Board
...of rental if the Board exercises its powers in terms of sec. 8 (1). See further the Lenz Township case (W.L.D. May B 1959); R. v Verelst, 170 E.R. 1435; Claphan's case, 79 E.R. 669; R v Cronin, 1940 (1) A.E.R. 618. Sec. 6 (1) can be construed to mean that the Board itself acted unlawfully i......
-
McMahon v Sir Thomas Barrett Lennard and Others
...profit from his own wrongful acts. But it is not necessary here to consider that question. It may be admitted that The King v. Verelst (3 Camp. 432) shows that acting in an office is prima facie proof of appointment to it, but it also shows that it is only prima facie proof, and may be rebu......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Stainforth
...(2 T. R. 466), aupport this view of the case, as well as Regina v. Silkstone (2 Q. B. 520), Taylor v. Clemson (k), Bex v. Verelst (3 Campb. 432, 433). liut, if it were held that there is on the face of theae examinations no sufficient evidence of an allowance within the county, it would be ......