The King against Garside and Mosley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 November 1834 |
| Date | 20 November 1834 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 103
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 4 N. & M. 33; 4 L. J. M. C. 1.
the king against garside and mosley. Thursday, Nov. 20th, 1834. On the application of the Attorney-General, the Court of King's Bench will, as of course, grant a habeas corpus to bring up prisoners convicted and sentenced to death at the assizes, and a certiorari to remove into this Court the record of the conviction and judgment. The prisoners were under sentence for murder. On their being brought before the Court under the writ of habeas corpus, and being asked what they had to say why execution should not be awarded against them, one of them pleaded, ore tenus, that the King, by proclamation iu the Gazette, had promised pardon to any person, except the actual murderer, who should give information, whereby such murderer should be apprehended and convicted ; and that he, not being the actual murderer, had given such information, and thereby entitled himself to the pardon : Held, on demurrer ore tenus by the Attorney-General, no sufficient plea. The prisoners were convicted and sentenced at the assizes for the county of Chester. The Court awarded execution to be done upon them by the marshal of the Marshalsea, assisted by the Sheriff of Surrey. The Court refused to hear an application from a sheriff, into whose custody the prisoners bad been removed, praying that the order to do execution might not be made upon him. [S. C. 4 N. & M. 33; 4 L. J. M. C. 1.] On a former day in this term (November 6th) Sir John Campbell moved, as Attorney-General, for a certiorari (directed to the Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery in and for the county of Chester), to remove into this Court the record of the conviction of James Garside and Joseph Mosley, at the last assizes for the county of Chester, and of the judgment against them on an indictment for the murder of Thomas Ashton ; also for a habeas corpus to the constable and keeper of the gaol of Chester to bring up the prisoners, in order that execution might be awarded by the Court. The Attorney-General, in making the motion, said that he considered himself entitled to the writs as of [267] right; but, from respect to the Court, and for his 104 THE KING V. GARSIDE AND MOSLBY 2 AD. ft E. 268. own justification in the coarse adopted, he stated the grounds of bis application, as follows:-The prisoners were convicted on the 6th of last August, before Parke B. at Chester, and were sentenced to be executed on the following Friday; but a question arose whether, since the statute 11 G. 4, and 1 W. 4, c. 70, ss. 13, 14, 15, the sheriffs of the city or the sheriffs of the county were bound to execute such sentence (a); and both parties refusing to do it, the prisoners have been from time to time respited. The last respite expires on the 18th instant. Indictments were preferred at the County Sessions against the sheriff of the county and sheriffs of the city : the former bill has been thrown out, and the latter returned a true bill. An ex-ofh'cio information has since been filed against the sheriff of the county, but some time must elapse before these proceedings can be brought to a decision; and a motion for a mandamus would be attended with similar delay, as there are facts in dispute between the parties. The present application, therefore, is made to this Court, to which it belongs, in the exercise of its superior functions, to see the sentences of Courts carried into effect, and which will make such order here as the case requires. It is unnecessary for that purpose to decide the question in dispute between the sheriffs; this Court may direct execution to be done by the Sheriff of the county of Chester, by those of the city, by the Sheriff of Middlesex, or by the marshal of the King's Bench. Among the authorities upon this subject, before the Revolution, are [268] Thomas Middklon's case (Popb. 131), Sir Walter Raleigh's ease (6), R. C.'s case(c), Le Roy v. Corbet, Okey, et Barkstead (1 Sid. 72), The King v. William Dale (2 Show. 511), and the precedents there cited. In 2 Kale's P. C. pp. 4, 5, the doctrine as to this power of the Court in capital cases is clearly laid down. Among the precedents after the Revolution, are those in the cases of Eex v. Ratdiffe (Fost. Crown Cases, 40. S. C. 1 Wils. 150), Rex v. Athoe (\ Stra. 553), and Bex v. Royce (4 Burr. 2073. 5 Burr. 2797). In Rex v. Taylor (5 Burr. 2793), the prisoner was brought before the Court on a habeas corpus to the Sheriff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 3095
...related to the English law principle that: "the King could do no wrong." See The King v. Garside and Mosley (1834), 2 A.D. & E. 266; 111 E.R. 103 (K.B.) at p. 107: "We are not to presume that any promise made by the King even to the meanest and most criminal of his subjects will not be ......
-
The King against Bourne and Others
...at a session subsequent to the trial as at a subsequent assize. As to the power of this Court to dispose of the case, Rex v. Oarside (2 A. & E. 266), and Sex v, Athoe (1 Stra. 553), shew that the Court may award execution on a record brought before it by certiorari: and it must have the sam......
-
Scott et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 BCSC 1651
...It was also referenced in England in the context of a criminal prosecution: The King v. Garside and Mosley (1834) 2 A.D. & E. 266, 111 E.R. 103 (K.B.) at p. 107: "We are not to presume that any promise made by the King even to the meanest and most criminal of his subjects will not be sa......