R v Vipont and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 April 1761 |
| Date | 09 April 1761 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 97 E.R. 767
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Referred to, R. v. Surrey JJ. [1892], 2 Q. B. 722.
[1163] rbx versus vipont and others. Wednes. 9th April, 1761. Conviction of journeymen woolcombers for conspiring to raise their wages, quashed. [Referred to, E. v. Surrey JJ. [1892], 2 Q. B. 722.] This was a conviction that stood in the Crown-paper, and was as follows,- Borough of Derby, to wit. Be it remembered that on, &c. at, &c. Thomaa Eaton of the said borough, hosier and wool-comber, cometh before us Joseph Bingham, Esq. mayor of the said borough, and John Smith, gentleman, two of His Majesty's justices of the peace of and for the said borough, and upon his oath before ua deposed that Joseph Vipont, Henry Greatorex, John Hall, Edward Chapman, and Thomas Allen, journeymen wool-combers, who for aome months next before their leaving his service as herein after is mentioned, were employed by the said Thomas Eaton in the wool-combing business, to work for him at reasonable wages, had, each for himself, at the said borough, confessed to him, " that they had, in the month of November last past, at the said borough, agreed one amongst another and with other journeymen wool-combers, to raise and advance their wages, and that they would not work with him or any other master in the wool-combing business, unless he and they would advance their wages ; " and that the said Thomas Eaton thereupon refused so to do; and thereupon, all hia said journey-men refused to work for him at their former reasonable wages, and had left his service. Whereupon, the said Joseph Vipont, Henry Greatorex, John Hall, Edward Chapman, and Thomas Allen, appearing before us to answer the said charge; and having heard the said charge; and, in the presence of the said Thomaa Eaton, being called upon by ua to shew cause why they ahould not be convicted for unlawfully entering into such combination as aforesaid contrary to the statute in that case made and provided; and having nothing to say, nor being able to make out any thing whereby to defend themselves before us touching and concerning the premises aforesaid; thereupon the aforesaid Joseph Vipont, Henry Greatorex, John Hall, Edward Chapman, and Thomas Allen, the day and year aforesaid, by the oath of the said Thomas Eaton, a credible witness, are convicted before us for unlawfully entering into such combination as aforesaid, at the said borough of Derby, to raise and advance their wages in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tangney v Kerry District Justice
...the High Court, that the omission invalidated the conviction. R. v. Walcot, Show. Parl. Cas. 127; R. v. Hawks, Stra. 858; R. v. VipontENR, 2 Burr. 1163; and R. v. HarrisENR, 7 T. R. 238, followed. Held also, by the Supreme Court, that the conviction is the spoken pronouncement of the Distri......
-
The King (Martin) v Mahony
...L.C.J., Palles, C.B., and Gibson, Madden, Boyd, Kenny, Wright, and Dodd, JJ. (1) 22 L. R. Ir. 98. (2) Ibid. 500. (3) Ibid. 504, note (1) 2 Burr. 1163. (2) 4 Burr. (3) 3 Law Rec. (N. S.) 190, 191. (4) 3 Mod. 95. (5) 6 T. R. 375. (6) Ibid. 177. (7) 8 T. R. 588. (1) 28 L. R. Ir. 440. (2) 4 A. ......
-
Sanders's Case, by Conviction of Easter Term
...may^have an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses; and it must appear on the face of the conviction that the evidence was so given. 2 Burr. 1163, Sex v. Fipmt. 1 T. E. 125, Sex v. Crowther. 6 T. E. 75, Bexv. Barwell. In which last case it is observed by Lord Kenyon, that the preceden......
-
The Queen against Tordoft
...though with regret, by so many learned Judges, that the Court is compelled to take the (a) Rex v. Baker, 2 Str. 1240; Rex v. Vipmt, 2 Burr. 1163. (J)1 Rex v. Aikin, 3 Burr. 1785 ; Rex v. Kempson, 1 Cowp. 241 ; Rex v. Thompson, 2 T. R. 18; Rex v. Pearse, 9 East, 358; Rex v. Ben-well, 6 T. R.......