The King against Henry Hunt and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 February 1820 |
| Date | 12 February 1820 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 725
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
the king against henry hunt and others. Saturday, February 12th, 1820. The Court will permit a suggestion to be entered on the record, for the purpose of carrying the trial of a misdemeanour into an adjoining county, where there appears a reasonable ground on the affidavits for believing that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where the venue is laid; and the suggestion need not state the facts from whence such inference is to be drawn. The defendant, Hunt, a few days before the end of term, had obtained a rule nisi for a certiorari to remove the indictment found against himself and others at the last Lancaster Assizes, for a conspiracy, in order that a suggestion might be entered on the record' for [445] the purpose of carrying the trial into such other county as the Court should direct. The affidavits, which were several, stated, that the indictment arose out of a supposed conspiracy, connected with the proceeding of a numerous meeting, held at Manchester on the 16th of August last, 1819, and that that meeting had been dispersed by an attack of the military, directed by a body of the Lancashire magistrates; that among the military who attacked them were the Manchester and Salford, and Cheshire Yeomanry, the privates of whom consisted chiefly, and the officers entirely, of opulent manufacturers, and landed proprietors, in Lancashire and Cheshire, and that a very great and general prejudice existed throughout the county of Lancaster, and amongst the persons who were likely to serve upon juries, as to the nature and object of the meeting in question, and as to the share which the defendants had taken in it; and, therefore, that they could not have a fair and impartial trial in the county of Lancaster. At the time of obtaining the rule, it did not appear, upon affidavit, that the other defendants (who were not present) had assented to the application. But, on this day, when cause was shewn, that defect was supplied by a messenger having been sent down and having returned from Manchester, where they resided, with their consent in writing. 726 THE KING -V. HUNT 3 B. &ALD. 446. The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General shewed cause. They produced the freeholders' book for the county of Lancaster, verified by affidavit, which appeared to contain the names of about 8700 freeholders. And they referred to the case of Rex v. Harris (3...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v Hornsby
...of contemporaneous history." The ground of the decision in The King v. Harris (3 Burr. 1330) compared with that in The King v. Hunt (3 B. & Ald. 444). Monorr, on behalf of the Defendant, founded on notice dated 22nd January, 1873, to change the venue from Galway to Dublin, on the ground tha......
-
Brown v Esmonde and Others
...S. 474. Rex v. WoolerENR 1 B. & Ald. 193. Fairman v. Ives 1 Chitty, 85, n. Attorney-General v. GoodmandENR 8 Price, 320. Rex v. HuntENR 3 B. & Ald. 444. Rex v. Chancellor of CambridgeENR 3 Ld. Raym. 1344. Enohin v. WylieENR 10 H. L. C. 1. Penn v. BibbyELR L. R. 2 Ch. 129. Dutch v. PowerUNKI......
-
The King against Holden and Another
...usual practice, Rex v. Fawle (2 Ld. Eay. 1452), Rex v. The Duchess of Kingston (Cowp. 283), Rex v. Thomas (4 M. & S. 442), Rex v. Hunt (3 B. & A. 444), Hawk. P. C. book ii., c. 27, s. 27. But it is not desired to quash the certiorari, or discharge the present rule, if the defendants be put ......
-
The Queen v The Rev. Peter Conway
...Rex v. LewisENR 1 Str. 704. Rex v. ThomasENR 4 M. & S. 442, and cases in note, 444. Proctor v. PhilipsENR Hard. 311. Rex v. HuntENR 3 B. & Ald. 444. Regina v. SimpsonUNK 5 Jur. 462. Lucan v. Cavendish 10 Ir. Law Rep. 536. Rex v. MeadHRC 3 D. & R. 301. Rex v. PenpraseENR 4 B. & Ad. 573; S. C......