The Inhabitants of the West Riding of the County of York v The King, on the Prosecution of Robert Buckley. in Error
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 November 1813 |
| Date | 03 November 1813 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 699
IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
S. C. 2 Dow. 1; 3 E. R. 767 (with note to which add Hertfordshire County Council v. New River Company, [1904] 2 Ch. 519; Hertfordshire County Council v. Great Eastern Railway, [1909] 1 K. B. 376; [1909] 2 K. 15. 403).
is TAUNT. 281. WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE V. THE KING 699 to indict on them I Therefore the Defendant, with very ill grace, complains of that witness, when he does not shew that he gave him a full, clear, and sufficient statement of the facts on which he asked his opinion as to this indictment : we cannot, therefore, think that this is a case in which we are to introduce the new practice of granting a new trial, because a witness has given evidence contrary to the expectation of the party who calls him ; and therefore the rule must be discharged. Muni J. I am of the same opinion. There are two grounds upon which this motion is made, the ground of surprise, and the ground of excess of damages. As to the evidence of the barrister, if it clearly appeared to my satisfaction that the witness was surprised, and gave evidence contrary to the expectation he bad raised, I would send it to a new trial, but no such a thing appears, His evidence, I have no doubt, was substantially true; for I am persuaded, as well as my Lord, that personal conferences must have taken place, in which the case must have been strongly stated to him. It would, however, be a most pernicious practice, if we were to introduce the principle that a man, by obtaining an opinion of a counsel, by applying to a week man, or an ignorant man, may shelter his malice in bringing an unfounded prosecution. CHANBRE J. With regard to the opinion, I lay that out of the case, agreeing that it would: be very dangerous to admit such sort of evidence to shelter persons from the effects of their malice. This was a most malicious proceeding ; there was no probable muse, and though the damages are large, and I should have been better satisfied if they bad been smaller, I entirely agree [284] that the Court ought not in this case to interfere with the province of a jury ; although there are cases in which the Court may properly do that, but this is not one of them. It is unnecessary for me to go into the circumstances and grounds of the action, because they have been so fully gone into ; but I entirely concur with what has been stated, and that the rule must be Discharged. (IN THE HOUSE or LORDS.) THE INHABITANTS OF THE WEST RIDING OF TELE COUNTY OF YORK v. THE KING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF BOBEEtT BUCKLEY. In Error. Nov. 3, 1813. [S. C. 2 Dow. 1 ; 3 E. R. 767 (with note to which add Hertfordshire County Council v. New River Company, [1904] 2 Ch. 519 ; Hertfordshire County Council v. Great Eastern Railway, [1909] 1 K. B. 376; [1909] 2 K. B. 403).] The county is liable to repair the highways for 300 feet in length next adjoining to the end of any bridge which the county is bound to repair. This was a writ of error in parliament, brought upon a judgment given iu the Court of King's Bench, 7 East, 588, for the Defendant in error, upon an indictment for a nusance, which stated that "from time immemorial there had been, and yet was, a certain common and ancient king's highway leading from the market town of Huddersfield, in the West Riding of the county of York, towards and unto the market town of Manchester, in the county palatine of Lancaster, in, through, and over the township of Quick, in the said West Riding, used for all the liege subjects of the king and his predecessors, for themselves, and with their horses, coaches, carts, and carriages, to go, return, pass, ride, and labour, at their will and pleasure, and that a certain part of the same king's common highway, at the said township of Quick, to Wit, a certain part thereof lying next adjoining the West end of a certain public bridge there, called Tame Water Bridge, and within the distance of 300 feet [285] thereof, beginning at the West end of that public bridge, and extending: from thence Westwards, in length 45 feet, and in breadth seven yards, and a certain other part thereof, lying next adjoining to the East end of that bridge, and within the distance of 300 feet thereof, beginning at the East eud of that bridge, and extending from thence Eastwards, containing in length 150 feet, and in breadth seven yards, on the 2d of March, in the 42d year of the reign of his present majesty, and continually afterwards until the day of the taking of that inquisition, at the said township of Quick, had been, and yet was, very ruinous, miry, deep, broken, and in decay, &o., to the great damage and common nuisance of all the liege subjects, &c., against the peace, &c. and against the form of the statute ; and that the inhabitants of the West Riding of that county, the said common highway, so as aforesaid being in decay, of right ought to repair and amend when and so often as it shall be necessary." To this indictment the Plaintiffs in error having pleaded, not guilty, and issue being joined thereon, the same came on to be tried before the Court of General Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, holden in and for the county of York, on the 23d July 1803, when the jury returned. 'a special verdict, the facts whereof are as follow. That from time immemorial there had been, and yet was, a certain common and ancient king's highway, leading from Huddersfield towards and unto Manchester, in, through, and over the township of Quick, in the West Riding of the county of York, and across the river Tame there flowing, and being used for all the liege subjects of the king and his predecessors, for themselves, and with their cattle, coaches, carts, and carriages, to go, return, pass, ride, and labour, at their will and pleasure, and that from the same time, until within the time of the memory of persons now living, there was 110 bridge, except a certain foot-bridge across or over the said river [286] Tame, at the township of Quick aforesaid, for the use of persons going, returning, passing or repassing in or along the said common king's highway, at the township of Quick, by themselves, or with their cattle, coaches, carts, or carriages; all persons having occasion to go, return, pass or repass in and along the said highway, with their cattle, coaches, carts, or carriages across the said river at the township aforesaid, went, returned, passed, and repasaed, during all the time aforesaid, until the time last mentioned, with their cattle, coaches, carts, and carriages, in and along the said highway, across the said river, at the township aforesaid, in, through, and across a certain ford there ; and all persons having occasion to go, return, pass or repass, in and along the said highway, on foot, across the said river, at the township aforesaid, went, returned, passed and repassed, before, and until, and at the time last mentioned, on foot, upon, along, and over the said foot-bridge, erected and being at the township aforesaid, over and across the said river there, a little higher up the said river than the said ford ; and that before the year 1756, a certain stone-bridge, called Tame Water Bridge, was erected by voluntary subscriptions at the township aforesaid, across and over the river there, about five or six yards higher up that river than that ford, for the purpose that persons having occasion to return, pass or repass, in and along the highway, across or over the river, at the said township, with their cattle, coaches, carts, and carriages, might arid should go, return, pass and repass, upon, along, arid over the said stone-bridge; and the same continued so there erected and being, until the same, afterwards, and about the year 1756, was swept away by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Stoughton
...township has from time immemorial repaired a highway at the end of a county bridge, (otherwise repairable by the county at large; see 5 Taunt. 284, W. Riding of Yorkshire v. Rex: [8 A. & E. 65, Reg. v. Mayor of Lincoln. 3 N. & P. 273, S. C. but see 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 50, s. 26, as to bridges he......
-
The Queen against The Cambridge Gas Light Company
...The West Biding of Yorkshire, 7 East, 588. (b) The West Riding of Yorkshire v. Rex, 5 Taunt. 284. (c) 7 East, 588; affirmed in Dom. Proc. 5 Taunt. 284. 764 THE QUEEN V. THE CAMBRIDGE GAS LIGHT COMPANY 8 AD. ft B. 74. properly assessed upon the sum which a tenant would pay yearly for the app......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Derbyshire
...v. The West Biding of Yorkshire, 2 East, 352. (p) 1 East, 588. Affirmed on error in Dora. Proc., The West Biding of Yorkshire v. The King, 5 Taunt. 284. (r) Note (a) to Bex v. Inhabitants of Kent, 2 M. & S. 520. 294 THE QUEEN V. DERBYSHIRE Q. B.7M. be a, county bridge, independently of thei......
-
Inhabitants of West Biding of Yorkshire, - Plaintiffs (in Error); The King (on Prosecution of e. Buckley), - Defendant (in Error)
...of West Biding of Yorkshire,-Plaintiffs (in Error) The King (on Prosecution of e. Buckley),-Defendant (in Error) Mews' Dig. xv. 186. S.C. 5 Taun. 284; 7 East, 588. Considered in Reg. v. Lincoln (Mayor of). 1839, 8 A. & E. 65, 70, 72. See also R. v. Bucks, 1810,12 East, 192; Nottingham Count......