R v Young and Pitts, Esquires
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 1758 |
| Date | 20 April 1758 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 97 E.R. 447
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
See 2 Burr. 653. 3 Burr. 1317, 1318. 1 Durn. 692.
Referred to, Sharp v. Wakefield, 1888-91, 21 Q. B. D. 73; 22 Q. B. D. 239; [1891], A. C. 173.
rex versus young and pitts, esquires. Thursday, 20 April 1758. Information for refusing an ale licence refused. [See 2 Burr. 653. 3 Burr. 1317, 1318. 1 Burn. 692.] [Referred to, Sharp v. Wdkefield, 1888-91, 21 Q. B. D. 73; 22 Q. B. D. 239; [1891], A. C. 173.] A motion was made on the 10th of May 1757, for an information against these two justices of the peace, for arbitrarily, obstinately, and unreasonably refusing to grant a licence to one Henry Day, to keep an inn at Eversley ; where it was alledged and sworn to be fit and proper, and even necessary that there should be an additional one, (there being one there already;) and for which occupation of keeping an inn, this man was (as these two justices themselves had allowed on a former occasion) a proper person, they having before licensed him to do so at another place. Upon this original motion- Lord Mansfield and Mr. Just. Denison were of opinion, that notwithstanding this was a matter leit in a great measure to the discretion of the justices, yet if it appeared to the Court, from sufficient circumstances laid before them, that their conduct was influenced by partial, oppressive, corrupt, or arbitrary views, instead of exercising a fair and candid discretion, the Court might call upon them to shew the reasons whereby they guided their discretion ; and therefore they were for granting the rule to shew cause, as prayed. But, Mr. Just. Foster (who happened to know the place, and said there was another house of good entertainment there already,) thought it sufficient to make a rule upon the two justices " to shew cause why they should not grant this licence." And [657] Lord Mansfield and Mr. Just. Denison concurred with him, to express the rule in that manner, though the substance was the same: because, if they did uot shew sufficient cause, the consequence must be granting an information. The Court therefore unanimously-(Mr. Just. Wilmot being absent in Chancery) made a rule upon these two justices to shew cause, "why they did not grant this licence to this Henry Day." On Monday, 27th of June 1757, upon shewing cause-the justices, by their affidavits, made no personal objections to Day; but considered the certificate as insufficient because not signed by the parson, vicar or curate. The Court was of opinion " that the certificate, being signed by three or four reputable and substantial house-keepers, &c. was sufficient." But though the justices had mistaken the act, the Court cleared them from any wrong motive. But it being suggested " that the present parson and church-wardens were ready to sign a certificate in his favour." The Court enlarged the rule to the first day of next term; with a view that he might be licensed at Michaelmas, if there should be no other objection than what arose from the certificate's not being signed by the parson and churchwardens; and the matter (which seemed to have raised great heats, and was strongly supported by Sir John Astley, on the part of Day,) be accommodated, The rule was accordingly enlarged in these terms, viz. " that the first day of the next term be farther given them, to shew cause why they have not granted, &c." N.B. By 26 G. 2, c. 31, 1, it is enacted, that upon granting licences by justices of peace, to any person, to keep an ale-house, inn, &c. every such person shall enter into a recognizance in 101. with two sufficient sureties, each in 51. or one sufficient surety in 101. under the usual condition, " for maintaining of good order and rule within the same." By 2, it ia enacted, that no licence to keep the same shall be granted to any person not licenced the year preceding; unless such person produce, at the general meeting of the justices in September, a certificate under the hands of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ming v Greaves (Magistrate)
...for malicious prosecution, he having committed an accused, subsequently acquitted, to stand trial. In R v YoungENRENR(1758) 1 Burr 556; 97 ER 447, and R v FieldingENRENR(1759) 2 Burr 719; 97 ER 531, there are judicial observations as to the possibility of justices having a civil liability. ......
-
The Queen (Smith) v The Justices of The County Cavan
...CAVAN (Clitheroe) v. the Recorder of DublinUNK Ir. R. 11 C. L. 412. Sharp v. WakefieldELR [1891] A. C. 173. Reg. v. Young and PottsENR 1 Burr. 556. Clitheroe's CaseUNK Ir. R. 11 C. L. 412. Reg. (O'Brien) v. Justices of TipperaryUNK 6 L. R. Ir. 129. Pugh v. The Golden Valley Railway Co. 15 C......
-
Ming v Greaves
...for malicious prosecution, he having committed an accused, subsequently acquitted, to stand trial. In R. v. Young (1758), 1 Burr. 556; 97 E.R. 447, and R. v. Fielding (1759), 2 Burr. 719; 97 E.R. 531, there are judicial observations as to the possibility of justices having a civil liability......
-
R. v. Boulanger (D.), (2006) 350 N.R. 326 (SCC)
...v. Bembridge (1783), 3 Doug. K.B. 327; 99 E.R. 679; 22 Howell's State Trials (K.B.), refd to. [para. 12]. R. v. Young (1758), 1 Burr. 557; 97 E.R. 447 (K.B.), refd to. [para. R. v. Williams (1762), 3 Burr. 1317; 97 E.R. 851, refd to. [para. 17]. R. v. Borron (1820), 3 B. & Ald. 432; 106......