The King against Henry Salomons
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 1786 |
| Date | 24 May 1786 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 1077
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
the king against henry salomons. Wednesday, May 24th, 1786. A conviction for the said offence, where there are two distinct offences charged in the information, is bad. Qu. Whether a person can be convicted of two distinct penalties in the same information 1 This was a conviction on the Lottery Act of 22 Geo. 3, c. 47, Middlesex and Westminster, to wit; Be it remembered that on the 29th December in the 26th year, &c. at the public-office in Bow Street, in the parish of St. Paul, Covent Garden, in the City and liberty of Westminster, and county of Middlesex, Nathaniel Barret of West Smithfield, in the City of London, shoemaker, who prosecutes as well, &c. in this behalf, in his proper person cometh before us Sir S. Wright, Knight, and William Addington, Esquire, two of the justices of our lord the King assigned to keep the peace of our said lord the King in and for the said city, liberty, and county, &c. and giveth us the said justices to understand and be informed that after the 25th July 1782, to wit, on the 27th of December 1785, one Henry Salomons, of Coventry Street, in the parish of St. James, in the said city, liberty, and county, gentleman, not regarding the statutes of our lord the King, nor fearing the penalties therein contained, did in the parish aforesaid, in [250] the city, liberty, and county aforesaid, on the 27th December aforesaid, keep an office for dealing in shares of lottery tickets in a lottery then authorized and established by an Act of Parliament made in the Parliament of (a)1 Burr. Sett. Cas. 560. (a)2 In the case of The King and Gold Ashton, Burr. Sett. Cas. 450, which was not mentioned upon this occasion, Lord Mansfield's opinion upon the construction of the Certificate Act is very strong; " An estate of a man's own, from which he cannot be removed, has been, by construction, (and a very reasonable one too,) holden to be within the 9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 11, for it would be a very hard thing to remove a man from his own estate. And the rule holds as well in the case of a certificate-person, as in any other case, ' That no man ought to be removed from his own property and estate.'" Vid. R. v. Ufton, post, 3 vol. 251. 1078 THE KING V. SALOMONS 1 T. E. 251. our said lord the King, at a session thereof holden at Westminster in the twenty-fifth year of his reign, entitled " An Act for Granting to His Majesty a Certain Sum of Money to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Tucker
...D.C. (7) Lawrence v. Same, [1968] 1 All E.R. 1191; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 1002; [1968] 2 Q.B. 93, D.C. (8) R. v. Salomon (1786), 1 Term Rep. 249; 99 E.R. 1077. (9) R. v. Chandler (1811), 14 East, 267; 104 E.R. 603. (10) R. v. Dunmow JJ., Ea parte Anderson, [1964] 2 All E.R. 943; [1964] 1 W.L.R. 10......
-
Ryalls against The Queen
...The authority of Bex v. Powell (2 B. & Ad. 75), seems to be much shaken by O'Connell v. The Queen (11 Cl. & F. 155). In Bex v, Salomons (1 T. R. 249), the word " offence " was not taken to be nomen collectivum. [Parke B. Rex v, Powell (2 B. & Ad. 75), is not touched by O'Connell v. The Quee......
-
R v Tucker
...two or more offences to be charged in the same information and tried together. Such was the case in R. v. Salomons (1786) 1 Term R. 249; 99 E.R. 1077. The conviction was held bad in that case as it was a conviction for “the said offence”, hence it did not appear of what offence the defendan......
-
The Queen v Rowan M'Naghten
...Bench. THE QUEEN and ROWAN M'NAGHTEN. Rex v. SalomonsENR 1 T. R. 249. Newman v. Metcalf 10 A. & E. 11. Lee v. ClarkeENR 2 East, 233. Regina v. Houston 3 Ir. Law Rep. 445. ex parte RansleyUNK 3 D. & Ry. 572. The King v. KillettENR 4 Burr. 2063. CASES AT LAW. 93 M. T. 1845. Queen'sBench. THE ......
-
THE DISTRICT COURT’S SENTENCING JURISDICTION
...c 12, 5 Edw 6 c 14, 33 Hen 8 c 6). 15 See the series of Acts known as Jervis’s Acts (11 & 12 Vict cc 42, 43, 44). 16 See R v Salomons(1786) 1 TR 249; Whitehead v The Queen(1845) 7 QB 582. 17 R v Salomons, supra n 16; Ex p Addis(1822) 1 B & C 90; Goff’scase(1814) 3 M & S 203; R v Catherall(1......