Spieres against Parker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 1786 |
| Date | 08 February 1786 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 1019
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
spieres against parker. Wednesday, Feb. 8th, 1786. The exceptions in the enacting clause of a statute, which creates an offence, and gives a penalty, must be negatived by the plaintiff in his declaration. Not so, where it is by a subsequent proviso. In debt on 19 Geo. 2, c. 30, for the penalty of 501. for impressing a mariner in the West India trade, the declaration must aver that he had not deserted from any of His Majesty's ships of war. Nothing is to be presumed after verdict but what is expressly stated in the declaration, or what is necessarily implied from those facts which are stated. Debt on the statute 19 Geo. 2, c. 30, against the defendant, as captain of the " Diamond " ship of war, to recover nine penalties of 501. each, for impressing so many of the mariners out of the ship " Minerva," at that time lying off the island of Jamaica, employed in the sugar trade. The declaration stated that the mariners, impressed by the defendant, had not before deserted from His Majesty's ship called the " Diamond." After verdict for the plaintiff at Guildhall before Mr. Justice Buller; a motion was made in arrest of judgment, because it was not averred that the mariners had not deserted from any of His Majesty's ships of war, on the first section of the statute, which enacts, " That no mariner or other person who shall serve on board, or be retained to serve on board, any privateer, or trading ship or vessel, that shall be employed in any of the British sugar colonies in the West Indies in America, nor any mariner or other person being on shore in the said British sugar colonies, or any of them, shall be liable to be impressed or taken away, or shall be impressed or taken away, in, or from, any of the said British sugar colonies, or any of them, or any of the ports thereof, or at sea in those parts, by any officer or officers [142] of or belonging to any of His Majesty's ships of war empowered by the Lord High Admiral of Great Britain, or the Lords Commissioners, &c. or any other person whatsoever, unless such mariner shall have before deserted from such ship of war, belonging to His Majesty, &c." Bearcroft and Gibbs, in support of the rule, contended, that though such ship of war, grammatically speaking, be in the singular number, yet, from the general sense and purport of the Act, it cannot be confined to one ship alone, for such necessarily relates to any of His Majesty's ships of war in a former part of the same clause, and means any such ships of war. That therefore this exception, being in the enacting clause, ought to have been specifically negatived by an averment in the declaration. That this is the true construction of those words appears from another part of the same clause, which prohibits any other person whatsoever, as well as officers of the King's ships...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Edwards
...the defendant could show he was qualified; but towards the end of his judgment he referred to lord Mansfield's opinion expressed in Spieres v. Parker (1786) 1 I.E. 141, 99 E.R. 1019, as to the burden of proof resting on the defendant in actions upon the game laws and gave his own which was......
-
Rex v Zondagh
...in the English Courts illustrating the above rules. (Cf. Rex v Jarvis (1 East. 643; 102 E.R. 249, and 97 E.R. 239); Spieres v Parker (99 E.R. 1019); Steel v Smith (1 B. & Ald. 93; 106 E.R. 35); Thibault v Gibson (12 M. & W. 89; 152 E.R. But the English Courts found terms, on one ground and ......
-
The Governor and Company of The Apothecaries Hall, v Calvert
...2 T. R. 581. Rex v. PerrottENR 6 T. R. 559. Regina v. MartinENR 8 Ad. & E. 481. Regina v. Norton 8 C. & p. 196. Spieres v. ParkerENR 1 T. R. 141. Rex v. EarnshawENR 15 East, 456. Rex v. PrattenENR 6 T. R. 559. Rex v. Marriott 1 Stra. 66. Rex v. StoneENR 1 East, 639. Bagnall v. Walker 1 Ir. ......
-
Rex v Zondagh
...in the English Courts illustrating the above rules. (Cf. Rex v Jarvis (1 East. 643; 102 E.R. 249, and 97 E.R. 239); Spieres v Parker (99 E.R. 1019); Steel v Smith (1 B. & Ald. 93; 106 E.R. 35); Thibault v Gibson (12 M. & W. 89; 152 E.R. But the English Courts found terms, on one ground and ......
-
Rethinking the relationship between reverse burdens and the presumption of innocence
...applied with respect to the burden of pleading (JelfsvBallard (1799) 1 B & P 467, 126 E.R. 1014; Spieres vParker (1786) 1 Term Rep. 141, 99 E.R. 1019).Yet, by the early 19th century it seems that the courts sporadically chose to extend these rules regardingthe burden of pleading, to the all......
-
Some Comparisons Between Courts-Martial and Civilian Practice
...5 l a y 1960, eh. 169, 64 Sui 108 [hereafter called the Code and cited as UCMJ]. ZSee, e.g., Umted States Y. Guest, 3 U.S.C.M.A. 141, 11 C.1T.R. 141 source for principles of law Army and Air Parce courts-martial use done compilation: Navy and Marine Corps courts-martial used a different one......