The King against Harrison
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 88 E.R. 103
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
case 90. the king against harrison. Information in nature of a quo warranto against a steward of a leet for impanelling a jury not duly summoned. An information in nature of a quo warranto was moved for against the steward of a court-leet, and against the bailiff and the constables, for impanelling a jury not duly summoned, the bailiff being the proper officer to summon them, who should be all freeholders, for they only have a right to be jurymen ; but there were none summoned, and six other persons who had no right being present in court were sworn of the jury, and six freeholders being likewise in court refused to be sworn, because they were not summoned, neither would they serve with those who had no right to be of the jury, whereupon the steward swore six more ; and the jury thus constituted by the steward of twelve persons who had no right to be jurymen, chose the bailiff and constables. A rule was made for the defendant to shew cause why an information should nob go against him. He shewed for cause, that the six freeholders who appeared in court were duly summoned, but that they refused to be sworn of the jury; whereupon the steward swore a jury out of such persons who were present in court, which he insisted was a good election, which jury chose the two constables and one bailiff of the manor, and that this was the constant course of chusing such officers ; and that it would be dangerous to make a precedent of trying the right of chusing such men by a quo ivarranto. The Court. Here is no room for any complaint against the constables or the bailiff; but if any, it is against the steward. And therefore a rule was made for the steward to attend, and to shew cause why an attachment should not go ; and the rule for the rest was in the mean time enlarged.
English Reports Citation: 88 E.R. 104
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Referred to, Drummond v. Drummond, 1866, L. R. 2 Ch. 44.
104 TRINITY TEEM, 9 GEO. 1. IN B. R. 8 MOD. 136. case 91. the king against athos, Father and Son. [Referred to, Drummond v. Dntmmond, 1866, L. R. 2 Ch. 44.] An indictment for murder found at the Grand Sessions in Wales may be removed by certiorari into the next English county to that in which the fact was committed; and therefore a murder committed in Pembrokeshire may be tried in the county of Hereford; for by the statutes 26 Hen. 8, c. 4, the 26 Hen. 8, c. 6, and 34 & 35 Hen. 8, c. 26, the Justices of Assize in the next English county have a concurrent jurisdiction throughout all Wales with the Grand Session.-8. C. 1 Stra. 553. This cause began in Hilary term, in the ninth year of George the First (a). The Attorney-General moved, in Easter term last, for an habeas corpora directed to the gaoler of the common gaol in the county of (b) Pembroke, to remove the bodies of Thomas [136] Atho the father and Thomas Atho the son from the gaol in Pembroke to the keeper of the gaol in the county of Hereford, that being the next English county to Pembroke, and likewise for a certiorari to be directed to the proper officer to remove the indictment found against them in Wales (c), and to the coroner of Pembrokeshire to remove the inquisition taken by him upon the view of the body of George Martin, who was murdered by the father and son in a barbarous manner, and for which an indictment was found against them in Wales. On motion to set aside the former rule it was said, that Mr. Attorney founded his motion upon the statute 26 Hen. 8, c. 6, s. 6, by which it is enacted, " that justices of peace and of gaol-delivery in the countries next adjoining to Wales, where the King's writ runneth, may hear and determine all felonies, and their accessaries, committed in Wales, or the marchers thereof;" but this clause extends only to lordships marchers, and not to any of the ancient counties in Wales. Besides, the aforesaid statute was altered about eight years after it was made; for by the statute 34 & 35 Hen. 8, c. 26, by which Wales is divided into twelve counties, and Judges appointed to keep their sessions in the said counties, it was enacted, " that those Judges might hold pleas of the Crown in as large a manner as the Judges in Westminster-Hall, and that they shall enquire, hear, and determine, all criminal offences whatsoever committed within their several limits, and administer common justice to all the King's subjects there, according to the laws of England." So that by this subsequent statute the defendants shall not be put to their trial elsewhere, but only where the fact is supposed to be committed, which in this case was in Pembrokeshire ; if it should be otherwiae, then all criminal cases which the Judges in Wales have power to hear and determine by the statute last-mentioned would be removed to England, where he who is poorest, either the prosecutor or the criminal, must suffer, for want of money to bring and support his witnesses in an English county. It might be for this reason that a criminal indicted in Wales ought to be tried there. The Court took time to consider these statutes, and declared, that if it was in their power they would grant the motion made by Mr. Attorney, because it was very difficult to have justice done in Wales by a jury of Welshmen, for they are all related to one another, and therefore would rather [137] acquit a criminal than have the scandal that one of their name or relations should be hanged; and that to try a man in Wales for murder was like trying a man in Scotland for high treason, those being crimes not much regarded in thoae respective places. The Court, at another day, declared, that it would be better only to grant the (a) The first motion was in Hil. 9 Geo. The reason given was, in order that they may receive their trial in the county of Salop, the next English county, according to the statute of 26 Hen. 8, c. 6, s. 6, Lev. 118. Mod. Rep. 64. The county of Pem broke was formerly one of the ancient Welsh counties.-Cur. By virtue of that statute we may grant such certiorari; and we are also warranted by former precedents on Mr. Harcourt's search; as Rex v. David Dames, 3 Car. 1. (b) There was no rule in com. Pembroke in Easter term, but only in com. Hereford. (c) See Lev. 118. Mod. Rep. 147. 8 MOD. 13*. TRINITY TERM, 9 GEO. 1. IN B. R. 105 habeas corpora without the certiorari; for if both should be granted it would delay the prosecution, because if the indictment and inquisition should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial