The King against Connop, Forbes, and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 1038
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
the king against connop, forbes, and others. 1836. An indictment for misdemeanor was preferred at the Central Criminal Court; the marginal venue was " Central Criminal Court;" in the body of the indictment the facts were stated to have taken place " at the parish of St. Mary Lambeth, Surrey, within the jurisdiction of the said Court." The indictment was removed by certiorari. Held, that the trial must be at the assizes for Surrey. The indictment in this case, for misdemeanor, was preferred at the Central Criminal Court. The venue in the margin was " Central Criminal Court to wit;" and, in the body of the indictment, the material facts were laid as having occurred in the parish of St. Mary Lambeth, in the county of Surrey, within the jurisdiction of the said Court. The indictment was removed into the Court of King's Bench by certiorari. [943] E. Perry now applied to the Court to order that the trial might take place in Middlesex or elsewhere, within the district comprehended in the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court. The words " Central Criminal Court," in the margin, atid "within the jurisdiction of the said Court," in the body of the indictment, are the substantial parts as to venue; the parish venue is now immaterial, and may be treated as surplusage. It is, in fact, often omitted in indictments in that Court (). [Little-dale J. It ought not to be.] The venue here may be considered as laid in any part of the district to which the Central Criminal Court Act, 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 36, extends. By sect. 3 the whole is to be taken as one county for this purpose. [Lord Denman C.J. That is with respect to cases tried in that Court. Patteson J. If the local venue laid were immaterial, I am afraid the consequence would be that we could not send this case to any county for trial. But I rather think that that venue is not surplusage. Coleridge J. What right would a Middlesex jury have, at Nisi Prius, to try a fact which appeared to have been done in Surrey?] The defendants will be put to great inconvenience, if the case is sent to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v Meaney
...The King v. BrisacENR 4 East, 163. The Queen v. Dowling 3 Cox, C. C. 513. The Queen v. Stowell 5 Q. B. 44. The King v. Connop and others 4 A. & E. 942. The King v. BurdettENRENR 3 B. & Ald. 717; 4 B. & Ald. 95. King v. JohnsonENR 6 East, p. 590. Platt's CaseENR 1 Leach, 151, p. 168. the Que......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Ightham
...master refused to take him as apprentice, unless he would do other work as well: and that the pauper assented to; 1038 THE KING V. CONNOP 4 AD. & E. 942. that is, he assented to work as well aa to be apprentice. It is true that the master would not have agreed unless the pauper had assented......
-
The Queen against Gregory
...the margin describing the jurisdiction." This agrees with the language of the Court in Rex v. Albert (5 Q. B. 37), and Regina v. Oonnop (4 A. & E. 942). Crowder and Peacock, contra. As to the recognizances, Bex v. Carllon (6 C. & P. 651), has not been distinguished : the whole question ther......
-
The Queen against Stowell
...besides, the statutory venue, a venue of the county where the offence (a)1 Bex v. Burridge, 3 P. Wms. 439, 496. (a)2 See Eex v. Connop, 4 A. & E. 942. (c) See the next case. 1164 THE QUEEN V. STOWELL 8 Q. B. . really took place. And, if that has nob been done, it should be made a condition ......