The Aston Union

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date06 May 1837
Date06 May 1837
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 301

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH

In the Matter of the Aston Union

in the matter of the aston union. Saturday, May 6th, 1837. An information in the nature of a quo warranto does not lie for exercising the office of guardian of the poor for an union under stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76. Chilton moved for a rule to shew cause why informations in the nature of a quo warranto should not be exhibited against parties, to shew by what authority they respectively exercised the office of guardian of the poor1, in the Aston Union, for the parish of Aston in Warwickshire. The affidavits shewed that there had been a formal election of the parties, under stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, but stated facts to impeach the validity of the election, on the ground of persons having been admitted to vote who had no title to do so, under sect. 40. It appeared that Aston was a large and popu-[785]-lous parish. Chilton urged that there was no other method of trying the validity of the election, and that this was a new public office of great importance. He cited Com. Dig. Quo Warranto (A), Rex v. Nicholson(l Str. 299), Rex v. Boyles (2 Str. 836. 2 Ld. Eaym. 1559), Rex v. Beedle (3 A. & E. 467). [Lord Denman C.J. Rex v. Beedle (3 A. & E. 467), was decided upon the authority of an earlier case on an Act (stat. 28 G-. 3, c. 76), which certainly related to guardians of the poor. But there is a later case the other way, Rex v. Ramsden (3 A. & E. 456).] In Rex v. Ramsden (3 A. & E. 456), Lord Denman C.J. expressed much doubt: the case appears to have been decided entirely on the authority of Rex v. Hanky (3 A. & E. 463, note (b)); and in this last case Parke...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • The Queen against Mousley, Clerk
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • 1 Enero 1846
    ...case, which was argued, in the absence of my Lord, before my brothers Coleridge, (d) 3 A. & E. 456. See In the Matter of the Aston Union, 6. A. & E, 784. () Le Roy v. Cusaclce, 2 Roll. Rep. 113, 115. 8 Q. B. 958. THE QUEEN V. PKLHAM 1135 Wightman and myself, stood over in consequence of the......
  • The Queen against The Guardians of the Poor of St. Martin's in the Fields
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • 29 Mayo 1851
    ...guardian of the poor; and in the principal ease that authority was acted upon. It was over-ruled in the subsequent case, Be Aston Union (6 A. & E. 784), but must be considered aa re-established by Darky v. The Queen (12 Cl. & Fin. 520). [Coleridge J. If quo warranto does not lie for the off......
  • The Queen against The Guardians of the Dolgelly Union
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • 1 Enero 1838
    ...if you examined (a)1 May 8th. Before Lord Denman C.J., Littledale, Patteson, and Coleridge Js. (a)2 In the Matter of the Aston Union, 6 A. & E. 784. Bex v. Ramsden, 3 A. & E. 456, was relied upon. 952 RAPHAEL V. GOODMAN 8AD.teZ.W3. the title of the electors you might examine that of the per......
  • The Queen against Hampton, Brough, Wright and Hipkins
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • 23 Noviembre 1865
    ...the Board of Guardians.] But it has been held that quo (a) 2 Str. 1196; S. C. nom. Bex v. Daubney, 1 Bott. P. L. 347, pi. 358, 6th ed. () 6 A. & E. 784. In Rex v. Beedle, 3 A. & E. 467, 476, Lord Deuman mentioned a case ex relatiooe Dealtry, Master of the Crown Office, in which a qua warran......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT