The King against Shelley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 February 1789 |
| Date | 12 February 1789 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 498
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[141] the king against shelley. Thursday, Feb. 12th, 1789. Leave to inspect the court rolls, &c. of a manor will be granted of course on the application of a tenant of the manor who has been refused that permission by the lord. [7 T. E. 746.] Erskine, having before obtained a rule to shew cause why an information in the nature of quo warranto should not be filed against the defendant to shew by what authority he claimed to be a burgess of the borough of Horaham, afterwards moved (a) 22 & 23 Car. 2, c. 9. (b) Lord Kenyon was indisposed on this day, (c) Vid. Barnard v. Moss, 1 H. Bl. Eep. 107. 3T. R. 141. THE KING V. SHELLEY 499 for another rule on behalf of the three relators, who were burgage tenants of the manor, and entitled to be summoned to the court leet and court baron, [and which was also a sort of corporate court,] to inspect the court rolls and books of the manor, (leave having been refused by the lord,) alleging that burgage tenures gave title, and that evidence relating to these would be found by such an inspection ; and cited Wood, v. Whitcmnb, E. 6 Anne, C. B. 12 Vin. 146, where it was considered as a matter of course to grant an inspection of the court rolls in a question between two tenants. Bond, Serjt.(a)1 opposed the application, on behalf of the lord, offering to shew every thing relating to the defendant's title ; but saying that an unqualified inspection would enable the relators to sift into the titles of all the rest as well as of the defendant. The ground which was sufficient for a rule nisi may hereafter prove to be insufficient for making it absolute ; and yet the relators will in the mean time have got an opportunity of disturbing the whole borough. Unless they had come prepared at first with sufficient evidence, which they could at least have pointed out, they ought not to have made the application originally. And he observed that this was not like an application for the inspection of corporation books, which are somewhat of a public nature. Buller, J.(i)1 said, that he remembered before he came to the Bar, that it was the constant practice to grant these motions as of course ; and soon after he came upon the Bench, there were one or two cages of this sort wherein he thought that it would be going too far to grant an inspection, but the rest of the Court over-ruled him ; and there the matter had rested ever since. That the three...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rolls and Registration
...Flesher et al, 1673) s 57. 11 Ibid s 45. 12 [1903] 1 Ch 906. 13 Warrick v Queen’s College, Oxford (1866–67) LR 3 Eq 683. 14 R v Shelley (1789) 3 TR 141, 100 ER 498. 15 (1822) 5 B and A 902, 106 ER 1421. manor of Chelsea, was liable to repair a river wall and the banks of the Thames. The pro......
-
Table of Cases
...564, CA 27.5 R v Polwart (1841) 1 QB 818, 113 ER 1345 16.3 R v Salisbury (Marquess of) (1838) 8 Ad & E 716, 112 ER 1009 15.2 R v Shelley (1789) 3 TR 141, 100 ER 498 25.4 R v Solihull Borough Council ex p Berkswell Parish Council (1999) 77 P & CR 312, QBD 7.13 R v Stafferton (1610) 1 Bulst 5......