Re Charles Smith
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 April 1858 |
| Date | 15 April 1858 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 455
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 27 L. J. M. C. 186, 6 W. R. 440.
[227] in ke charles smith April 15, 158.-A wilt of habeas corpus having issued directed to the kcepei of a Hoube of Correction in the boiough of Kingston-upon-Hull to bring up S , a prisoner detained in his custody, the keeper made a return setting out a warrant of commitment by a niagistiate of the borough, stating that S , did unlawfully aid and abet T., a handicraftsman, who had contracted in writing to serve H, a shipbuilder, in neglecting and lefusrug to commence his service with H. according to his contract. The leturn then stated that whilst S was in the keeper's custody, the same magistrate delivered to him another warrant of commitment which stated that IS. was duly convicted . " for that T., a handicraftsman, did on &c., at the parish of Holy Trinity in the borough aforesaid, contract with H , a shipbuilder, to serve him in the capacity of a shipwright for a period not then expired, the said contract being in writing and signed by the contracting parties, and that T did not then and theie, or at any day since then, enter into his service according to his contract, and that he had not the consent of H. nor any lawful excuse for such his default in not entering into his service : and that S. before the committing of the offence by T. unlawfully did aid, abet, counsel, and procure T. the said offence m manner and form aforesaid to commit, that is to say, S did then and there aid, abet, counsel, and procure T. so as aforesaid not to enter his service according to the said contract: " and it was thereby adjudged that S. for his said offence should be imprisoned in the House of Correction in the said borough, &c. The first warrant of commitment was bad on the face of it -Held First, that the defect in the first warrant was cured by the second, it appearing by the return that the second was substituted by the same magistrate as an amendment of the first -Secondly, that the second warrant sufficiently stated that S. aided T , "knowing that he had not the consent of H or any lawful excuse for not entering into his service."-Thirdly, that the warrant was not bad, because it stated that S. " did aid, abet, counsel, and procure," without stating of which offence he was convicted -Fourthly, that an affidavit could not be received for the purpose of shewing that T. did not in fact contract within the borough, as stated in the warrant [S. C. 27 L. J. M. C. 186, G W. II. 440.] In this case a writ of habeas corpus had issued, directed to the keeper of the House of Correction for the borough of Kiugston-upori-Hull, commanding him to bring up the body of Chailes Smith detained 111 his custody. The keeper of the House of Correction made the following return - On the 30th of March, 1858, Charles Smith wa& committed to my custody by virtue of a certain warrant of commitment, &c The leturn then set out the warrant, which was under the hand and seal of T. Trail, E=q , a stipendiary police magistrate for the borough of Kingston-upon-HuIl, and was addressed to the keeper of the House of Correction in that borough, and (so far as material) was as follows -Whereas Charles Smith, late of the borough of Kingston-upon-Hull, shipwright, was on &e. duly con victed befoie me the undersigned stipendiary police magibtiate in and for the &aicl 456 IN RE SMITH 3 H & N. 228 borough: For that he the said Charles Smith did, on the 23id day of March, A.D. 1858, [1K8J] at tlie said borough, unlawfully aid and abet one George Thompson, a certain handicraftsman, who before that time had entered into a contract in writing to serve one James Hallett, a certain shipbuilder, for a period not then expired, in neglecting and refusing to commence his service with the said James Hallett, according to the said contract, contrary to the form of the statute, &c.; and that it was thereby adjudged that the said Charles Smith for his said offence should be imprisoned in the House of Correction in the said borough, and there kept to hard labour for the space of twenty-one days: These are therefoie to command you, &c , to receive the said Charles Smith into your custody, &c. The return then proceeded as follows. And afterwards, and whilst the said Charles Smith was so in my custody as aforesaid, that is to say, on the 12th day of April, A.D. 1858, before the coming to me of the said writ, T. Tiail, Esq , her Majesty's stipendiary police magistrate in and for the borough of Kingston-upon-Hull aforesaid, the police magistrate in the wariant of committal herein above set forth named, caused to be delivered to me a certain other warrant of commitment, the tenor of which is as follows : - Borough of Kingston-upon-Hull To all and singular...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Giorgianni v R
- Gough v Rees
-
Hughes (The State) v Lennon and Others
...B. 792. (3) 6 Q. B. 620. (4) 7 Q. B. 984. (5) 10 Q. B. 492. (6) 3 E. & B. 607. (7) 10 Ex. 201. (8) 16 C. B. 97. (9) E. B. & E. 828. (10) 3 H. & N. 227. (11) 4 B. & S. 935. (12) L. R. 8 Q. B. 102. (13) 1 Wms. Saund. 228 c. (14) L. R. 2 C. C. R. 74. (15) [1914] 2 K. B. 720. (16) [1906] 1 K. B......
-
The State (Caddle) v Judge McCarthy and Others
...portions typed into the blanks on the printed form. (2) 7 Dow. and Ry. 622. (3) 39 L. J. M. C. 129. (4) [1858] 2 E. B. and E. 828. (5) 3 H. & N. 227. (6) Before Maguire C.J., Lavery, Kingsmill Moore, O'Daly andMaguire JJ. (7) 17 Ir. C. L. R. 383, at p. (8) 21 Q. B. D. 362. (9) 4 B. and Ad. ......