Ryalls against The Queen
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 February 1848 |
| Date | 26 February 1848 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 667
QUEENS BENCH
Affirmed, 11 Q. B. 795; 3 Cox, C. C. 254; 18 L. J. M. C. 69; 13 Jur. 259. Referred to, R. v. Paul, 1890, 25 Q. B. D. 209.
[781] eyalls against the queen. (In Error.) Saturday, February 26th, 1848. An indictment for perjury alleged, in two counts, that, after the passing of the Attorney's Act, 6 & 7 Viet. c. 73, an attorney, who had transacted certain law business for defendant, afterwards, to wit on 7th August, 1844, delivered his bill of costs ; that no application to have the bill taxed was made by the party chargeable within " one month " after delivery of the bill, nor was the bill referred for taxation within that period ; that, after the expiration of " one month " from such delivery, to wit on 25th April, 1845, the attorney obtained a Judge's summons requiring defendant to shew cause why the bill should not be referred for taxation ; that it beeame material in shewing cause to ascertain whether defendant had retained the attorney ; and that defendant falsely made affidavit in the matter of the summons, denying the retainer. Each count concluded "and so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, did say" that defendant had committed perjury. The third and fourth counts were the same, except that they omitted to aver that no application to refer the bill had been made by the party chargeable. The record then stated that, after joinder on a plea not of guilty, a venire issued for a jury to try whether defendant " be guilty of the perjury and misdemeanor aforesaid," and that the jury found that he " is guilty of the perjury and misdemeanor aforesaid in manner and form as by the said indictment above against him is supposed:" and that a general judgment of imprisonment was pronounced on the indictment. Held, on error to the Queen's Bench, that, as all the counts referred to stat. 6 & 7 Viet. c. 73, the.word " month," in the indictment, must be construed in the sense given to it by sect. 48, of " calendar month," and therefore the application, under sect. 37, to tax, did not appear to be premature. That the third and fourth counts were good, because the Judge had jurisdiction, after the month, to issue the summons, though, if it had appeared, on shewing cause, that a previous application within the month had been made by the party chargeable, the Judge might not have had jurisdiction to order taxation. That the question of retainer appeared by the indictment to be material. That, perjury having been well assigned in the part of each count preceding the words " and so the jurors did say," &e. those words might be rejected. That " misdemeanor " was noraen collectivum, and therefore there was no uncertainty in the venire or verdict. On error to the Exchequer Chamber: judgment affirmed: Held by that Court: that "month " in the indictment was to be construed in its ordinary sence of lunar month, but that, as the alleged dates were material, the videlicets were to be rejected, and the dates taken to be true, and, so, it sufficiently appeared that a calendar month bad elapsed before the application to tax. And semble, also, that it was not necessary to allege that the calendar month had elapsed, as the Judge had general jurisdiction over the subject matter, and his jurisdiction in the particular case was to be presumed. [Affirmed, 11 Q. B. 795; 3 Cox, C. C. 254; 18 L. J. M. C. 69 ; 13 Jur. 259. Eeferred to, B. v. Paul, 1890, 25 Q. B. D. 209.] Error from the Special Session of Gaol Delivery and Oyer and Terminer holden in and for the county of York, on Saturday, 6th December, 9 Viet. [782] The record (a) Assumpait, iv. 7, 2, vol. i. p. 155 (llth ed.). (b) Willes, 264, note (a), where Tegetmeyer v. Lumley, and Kilvingttm v. Stevenson are given. 668 BYALLS V. THE QUEEN 11Q. B. 788. set forth an indictment against the plaintiff in error, the material parts of which were as follows. First count: that one William Unwin, gentleman, after the passing of a certain Act, &c. (6 & 7 Viet. c. 73), " for consolidating and amending several of the laws relating to attorneys," &c., and before and at the time of the committing the offence after mentioned, was an attorney practising in England, and was duly admitted, &o., and practising in Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer, &c., and had done and transacted business as such attorney, in her said Court, for and on behalf of Joseph Naylor Ryallg, late of, &c., farmer, and of James Ironsides, and on the retainer and at the request of the said J. N. Eyalls; and the said J. N. Ryalls and the said J. Ironsides then and there became and were indebted iti a large sum of money to the said W. Unwin for fees, charges and disbursements foe the business so done," &c. for the said J, N. R. and the said J. I. by the said W. Unwin as aforesaid ; and the said W. Unwiu after-warda, and before the committing of the said offence after mentioned, to wit on 7th August, A.D. 1844, at, &c., so being such attorney as aforesaid, did deliver to the said J. N. R. and the said J, I., they the said J. N. R. and J. I. then and there being the parties to be charged therewith, a bill for the fees, charges, &c., for the said business so done, &c., by the said W. U. as such attorney as aforesaid ; which said bill was then and there subscribed, &c.: and that no application was made to the said Court of Exchequer, so being the Court in which the said business was so done, &c. as aforesaid, or to any Judge thereof, or to any Court or Judge whatever, by the said J. N. H. and J. L, so being the parties chargeable, &c. or either of them, within one [783] month after the said delivery of the said bill; nor did the said Court of Exchequer, or any Judge thereof, or any other Court or Judge, within one month next after the said delivery, &c., refer the said bill, and the demand of the said W. Unwin as...
To continue reading
Request your trial