The King against Jeyes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 May 1835 |
| Date | 28 May 1835 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 471
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 N. & M. 101; 1 H. & W. 325.
the king against jeyes. Thursday, May 28th, 1835. The Court will not grant a mandamus to compel the treasurer of a district to pay the expenses of a prosecution for misdemeanor, in obedience to the order of the Court of Assize, under stat. 7 G. 4, c. 64, s. 23; the proper remedy is to indict the treasurer, if he refuse to pay. Where a prosecutor is not bound over to prosecute at the assizes, quaere, whether the Court of Assize has power to grant his expenses under the above section 1 But, in such a case, if the witnesses be subpoenaed, the Court of Assize may grant their expenses under the same section. Per Lord Denman C.J., and Littledale J. [S. C. 5 N. & M. 101 ; 1 H. & W. 325.] Waddington obtained a rule in last Hilary term, calling upon Theophilus Jeyes Esq., town clerk and town treasurer of Northampton, to shew cause why a mandamus 472 THE KING V. JEYES 3 AD. to B. 417. should not issue, commanding him to pay to Henry Becke, the attorney of John Grimshaw, the two several sums of 491. 6s. and 531. 12s., for loss of time, and expenses of witnesses, in prosecuting an indictment for riot, tried at the then last assizes for the said town, and for the charges and expenses attending the said prosecutions, pursuant to the two several orders of Court made at the said assizes for that purpose. It appeared that John Grimshaw was bound in his own recognizance, on 30th December 1832, before three justices of the town of Northampton, to prosecute Samuel Smith for a misdemeanor at the next General Sessions for the said town ; that, at those sessions, the recogni-[417]-zance was respited to the Spring Sessions 1823; when it was again respited to the Summer Sessions 1833, at which sessions it was discharged by consent: and Grimshaw had preferred no indictment against Smith at any General Sessions for the town. At the Northampton Spring Assizes 1833, Grimshaw indicted Smith and eleven others for a riot (being the misdemeanor before mentioned), and the trial took place at the Northampton Summer Assizes 1834, when Smith and seven others were convicted, and the other four acquitted. No person was bound over to prosecute at these assizes, but the witnesses were subpoenaed to appear both at the Summer Assizes 1833, at the Spring and Summer Aasizes 1834. The prosecutor applied to the Judge at the trial (Park J.) for the costs and expenses of witnesses, which his Lordship at first refused, not thinking the case within the statute 7 G. 4, c. 64, s. 23 (a), but [418] afterwards granted ; and two orders were accordingly made upon the town treasurer of Northampton for the payment of the sums of 491. 6s. and 531. 12s. to Becke, the attorney of Grimshaw ; the first for the witnesses, for their loss of time, trouble, and expenses ; the second for the prosecutor, (a) Stat. 7 G. 4, c. 64, s. 22, enacts, " That the Court before which any person shall be prosecuted or tried for any felony is hereby authorized and empowered, at the request of the prosecutor or of any other person, who shall appear on recognizance or subpcena to prosecute or give evidence against any person accused of any felony, to order payment under the prosecutor of the costs and expenses which such prosecutor shall incur in preferring the indictment, and also payment to the prosecutor and witnesses for the prosecution, of such sums of money as to the Court shall seem reasonable and sufficient to reimburse such prosecutor and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King against Payn
...and a principal " who pays over in his public capacity." Here the case is stronger : the party applied against is, as in Rex v. Jeyes (3 A. & E. 416), a county treasurer ; but there he was called on to perform a duty, not to the magistrates, but to a third party, under the order of the Judg......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Fordham
...of the level, enforce the doing of the repairs, and, therefore, that they had the remedy in their own hands." See Rex v. Jeyes, 3 A. & E. 416 ; Rex v. The Commissioners of the Thames and his Navigation, 5 A. & E. 804, and p. 811, note (b); Rex v. Payn, 6 A. & E. 392 ; Regina v. The Eastern ......
-
Minister of Finance v Barberton Municipal Council
...(L.R., 6 A.C. 619). The only remedy is to ask the Crown to make him do his duty: Halsbury (vol. 10, p. 94, sec. 187); The King v Jeyes (3 A and E. 416): Kinloch v Sec. of State for India (L.R., 7 A.C. 619); Reg. v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (L.R., 12 Q.B.D. This money is in respect of ......
-
Routledge against Abbott, Nixon, and Hope
...Lord Denman C.J., Littledale, Patteson, and Williams Js. (d) Cited in Rex v. Johnson, 1 Mo. C. C. 175. (g) As to this, see Rex v, Jeyes, 3 A, & E. 416. 8 AD. * B. 893. ROUTLEDGE V. ABBOTT 963 for the purpose of an apportionment of costs according to Reg. Gran. Hi). 2 W. 4, I. 74. Trespass f......