The King against Lawrence Kenworthy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1823 |
| Date | 01 January 1823 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 261
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 3 D. & R. 173.
[711] the king against lawrence kenworthy. 1823. Upon a conviction at the Chester Assizes for perjury, the following entry was made upon the record : "It is therefore ordered, that the said L. K. be transported to, &c., for and during the term of seven years." Upon error, held, that the entry was merely an order, and not a judgment; and a procedendo was awarded, commanding the Court below to proceed to give judgment. The prisoner was, in the mean time, admitted to bail. [S. C. 3 D. & E. 173.] The defendant was indicted and tried for perjury, at the Chester Summer Assizes, 1822, and found guilty. After the entry of the verdict, the record proceeded as follows : " Whereupon all and singular the said premises being seen by the said justices here, and fully understood, it is therefore ordered, that he the said Lawrence Ken-worthy be transported to the coast of New South Wales, or some one or other of the islands adjacent, for and during the term of seven years; and that he the said L. Kenworthy be in mercy," &c. The record being removed into this Court by writ of error, various errors were assigned, of which the following were afterwards relied upon in argument: that the judgment was erroneous in form, being " it is ordered," whereas it should have been " it is considered ;" that it was bad in substance, being a judgment of transportation only, whereas the 2 G. 2, c. 25, s. 2, enacts that judgment of transportation may be pronounced, besides the punishment that might before be inflicted ; that the place to which the prisoner was to be transported ought not to have been fixed by the Court, the power of appointing that being given to the King in Council, by 56 G. 3, c. 27; and that at all events the appointment of the place was 262 THE KING V. KEN WORTHY 1 B. & C. 712. bad, being to one or other of various places, and, therefore, uncertain. Joinder in error. D. F. Jones, for the prisoner. The judgment pronounced by the Court below is erroneous, both in form [712] and substance. In 4 Inst. p. 70, there is this passage: "This conclusion followeth, that the King hath committed and distributed all his whole power of judicature to several Courts of Justice, and therefore the judgment must be, " ideo consideratum est per Curiam." That is the term settled and appointed by the law to be used for expressing the judgment of the Court; and if any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell and Another against The Queen
...might or should have done, if the said prisoners or indictments had never been brought into the said King's Bench." (a) Rex v. Kenwarthy, 1 B. & C. 711, 713. K. B. xlv.-22* 682 CAMPBELL V. THE QUEEN 11 Q- B. 820. v. The Queen (7 Q. B. 582), where sentence of transportation had been passed f......
-
The King against Bourne and Others
..."The Court of King's Bench never gives judgment upon a conviction in another Court: " Bex v. Baker (Garth. 6). Rex v. Kenwmihy (1 B. & C. 711), is no authority against the discharge : there the sessions had made an order for transportation, but had not followed it up by judgment, and this C......
-
The Queen against the Inhabitants of Casterton
...which follow the recited order of removal contain no adjudication. The strictness necessary in this respect appears from Rex v. Kenwmihy (1 B. & C. 711), where a judgment in the words "it is ordered," instead of "it is considered," was held insufficient. In Rex v. Maulden(a) [511] the words......
-
King and Another against The Queen
...that they need not in their judgments say, " Ideo consideratum est," Other authorities on the subject are collected in Bex v. Kemvorfhy (1 B. & C. 711), where the entry, "it is therefore ordered," on the record of a trial at the assizes was held to be no entry of a judgment. There is nothin......