The King against Bingham, Clerk

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of the King's Bench
Judgment Date20 May 1802
Date20 May 1802

English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 386


The King against Bingham

the king against bingham, Clerk. Thursday, May 20th, 1802. Information in nature of quo warranto lies for the office of bailiff of a court leet, being a prescriptive officer, having power to summon and select the jury. A rule was obtained, calling on the defendant to shew cause why an information in nature of quo warranto should not be exhibited against him to shew by what authority he claimed to be bailiff of the manor and borough of Gosport in the county of Southampton. This rule was obtained an affidavits stating, that the Bishop of Winchester was lord of the manor and borough, and that from time immemorial a court leet and court baron had been holden every year about October by the bishop or his steward, within and for the same; and that a jury and homage assembled at such courts have immemoriably from time to time exercised the privilege of choosing the bailiff of the said manor and borough, and also the constables, overseers of the ferry, ale-conners, coal-meters, and cryer, by the custom of the manor, &c. to act for (a) Regula Generalis, H. 2 G. 2, 1729.-It is ordered, that.where any defendant shall be arrested by virtue of any process issuing out of this Court, in which the cause of action shall be specially specified and expressed; or a copy of such, process shall be delivered to any defendant, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided; and the plaintiff thereupon /shall declare; the defendant in such'case shall not have liberty of imparling, without leave of the Court in that behalf first to be granted; but shall plead thereunto within the time allowed by the course of the Court to defendants sued by original writ; and for want thereof judgment maybe entered against such defendants by default (b). Notice fixed in the K. B. 0. Ac etiams. All clerks and attornies that intend to proceed according to the above rule, are to take notice, that in suing out such writ they do not insert in the ac etiam the whole declaration at length, but only describe the cause of action shortly, according to the specimen hereunder set forth, varying the same as the nature of the action shall require. . Of a plea of trespass; and also of a bill of the said Q. against the aforesaid D. for fifty pounds for divers goods, wares, and merchandises sold and delivered to the . said D. by the aforesaid Q. according to the custom, &e. (b) This rule is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Henry Farran Darley, Plaintiff in Error; v The Queen At The Relation of Robert Kinahan
    • Ireland
    • House of Lords (Ireland)
    • July 1, 1846
    ...Rex v. StaceyENR 3 T. R. 2. Rex v. TrevenonENR 2 B. & Al. 339, 479. Anonymous 1 Barn. 279. Rex v. GoudgeENR 2 Str. 1213. Rex v. BinghamENR 2 East. 308. Rex v. HighmoreENR 1 Dow. & Ry. 438; S. C. 5 B. & Al. 771. Rex v. FranchardENR 2 Str. 1169. Rex v. HaltonENR 1 Str. 621. Rex v. Hall 1 B. &......

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