Ryalls against The Queen
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 1849 |
| Date | 07 February 1849 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 672
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
IN THE EXCHEQUEH CHAMBER. (EBEOR FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH.) eyalls against the queen. [Wednesday, February 7th, 1849.] For note, see Eyalls v. The Queen, ante, p. 781. Error was brought in the Exchequer Chamber upon the judgment in the preceding case. The errors specially assigned were the same with those assigned on error in the Queen's Bench. (d) Reported by H. Merivale, Esq. JIQ, . 79& RYALLS V. THE QUEEN 673 [796] Pasbley, for the plaintiff in error. The objection to the concluding form of the count* is not insisted on. But the record ahould have shewn affirmatively the fulfilment of the conditions on which alone the statutory jurisdiction can be exercised. This principle on which this depends is illustrated in Bex v. The Cliapdwardens of Milmow (8 M. 4 S. 248), and Begina v. Smith (7 Q. B. 543). [Cresswell J. An order to tax, at the instance of the attorney, cannot be made if the party chargeable has applied to tax within one month after delivery of the bill. But has not the Judge jurisdiction to issue his summons for referring the bill to taxation? The objection that the party chargeable has applied, or that the month has not expired, may be ground for, thewing cause. Parke B. Can you go into an enquiry of this kind with reference to a Judge of one of the Superior Courts who has general jurisdiction over the subject matter 1 Trespass will not lie against a Judge for an act done by him judicially at chambers; Taaffe v. Doumes(c).] Still, if he acts under a statute giving authority conditionally, the authority must appear on the face of his proceedings; MusJcetl v. Drummond (10 B. & C. 153). [Parke B. It cannot be a condition precedent to the legality of the summons, that the Judge should ascertain whether there has been a previous application by the party chargeable; that may be ascertained afterwards. If the indictment bad stated merely that the Judge bad issued the summons, it would be enough. " The rule for jurisdiction is, that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a Superior [797] Court, but that which specially appears to be so;" Peacock v. Bell (1 Saund. 74), relied upon by the Court in Gosset v. Howard (10 Q. B. 411, 453). A Judge haa general jurisdiction, by statute, as to taxation of costs; and ft may ba a question whether he has it not also independently of statute.] In an indictment for perjury, it must be shewn, notwithstanding...
To continue reading
Request your trial