The King against R Price
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 1795 |
| Date | 29 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 481
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
the king against E. price. Thursday, Jan. 29th, 1795, If a person be bound by a recognizance by one magistrate under 6 Geo. 2, e. 31, to appear at the next sessions and perform such order as shall there be made on him under the 18 Eliz. c. 3, respecting bastards, the sessions can only make an order of bastardy on him, but cannot order him also to give security for the performance of that order. The Court of Quarter Sessions for the county of Worcester made an order on the defendant, in substance as follows; it recited that M. Griffin had been lately delivered of a female bastard child, and that she charged the defendant with being the father; that the defendant was then present in Court, in pursuance of a certain recognizance taken before B. Johnson, one of the justices, &c. (on a prior day) and entered into by the defendant and one J. Price as surety for the defendant, with a cpndition thereunder written, that if the defendant should appear at the then next General Quarter Sessions, &c. and should perform such order as should be made in pursuance of the stat. 18 Eliz. c. 3, then the recognizance was to tie void; and that the Court of Quarter Sessions had heard the complaint, &c. on oath; the order then stated that that Court adjudged the defendant to be the father of the said child and ordered him to pay 20s. for the expences of the lying-in and for the maintenance of the child till that time, and the further sum of Is. 6d. weekly from that time so long as the child should continue chargeable. The order [148] further stated that the Court of Quarter Sessions also ordered the defendant to find sufficient sureties for the performance of that order, and that on the defendant's alleging that he was not compellable to find (a) Vide Gockshott v. Bennett, ante, 2 vol. 763. Jackson v. DuAaire, ante, 3 vol. 55L Jackson v. Lamas, ante, 4 vol. 166, and Sumner v. Brady, 1 H. Blac. 647. K. B. xxx.-16 482 THE KING. Vs.;PRICE 6T.E.M9. such sureties, they committed him to the house of correction until he should find sufficient sureties; and that the Court also directed that the recognizance of the defendant and J. Price for the defendant's appearance and conformity at those sessions should be discharged. The above order having been removed here by certiorari, a rule was obtained calling on the prosecutors to shew cause why that part of it, by which the defendant was committed for want of sureties...
To continue reading
Request your trial