The King against Stone
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 1801 |
| Date | 20 June 1801 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 247
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
See R. v. Hughes, 1879, 4 Q. B. D. 627. For R. v. Jarvis, 1 East, 643, n., see R. v. Audley [1907], 1 K. B. 385.
the king against stone. Saturday, June 20th, 1801. If a conviction before a justice of peace on the game-laws state that the defendant was present at the time when the information was read and the witnesses.examined ; and that when called on for his defence he produced no evidence, and did not require any further time; that is sufficient, without stating that he was previously summoned to answer, &c. Qu. whether it be necessary for the prosecutor to negative by evidence as well as in the information the qualifications of the defendant to kill game ? and qu. whether the negative of such qualifications must be repeated in the adjudicatory part of the conviction, or whether it be not sufficient to convict the defendant of the offence aforesaid, referring to the previous part of the conviction which sets forth the information in which such qualifications were specifically negatived. [See E. v. Hughes, 1879, 4 Q. B. D. 627. For B. v. Jams, 1 East, 643, n., see B. v. Audley [1907], 1 K. B. 385.] The following conviction on the game laws was removed into this Court by certiorari. Bedfordshire, to wit. " Be it remembered that on the 6th of January in the 41 Geo. 3, at, &c. T. French, of, &c. cometh before me, J. Webster clerk, one of the justices, &c. and then and there giveth me the said justice to understand and be informed that T. Stone of A. in the county of B. gentleman, within three months then last past, that is, on Saturday the 3d of January in the 41st year, &e. at M. &c. he the said T. S. being a .person not then having lands or tenements or any other estate of inheritance in his own right or his wife's right of the clear yearly value of 1001. per ann. &c. (and so negativing all the other qualifications of the Stat. 22 & 23 Car. 2), nor then being in any other manner qualified or entitled in his own right to keep or use any engine to kill and destroy the game of this kingdom, did keep and use a certain engina [640] to kill and destroy game called -a gun^ against the form of the statute, &c.: of which said information, and of the offence therein charged upon him (a) Vide Ratdiffe v,, Eden, Cowp. 485. Hyde v, Cogan, Dougl. 699, and Beid v. Clarice, 1 Term Eep. 496, and Burrows v,, Wright, ante, 615. 248 ' THE KING 'V. STONE 1 EAST, 611. as aforesaid, be the said,T. S. on the said 6tb of January, &e, at M. &c. had notice. Whereupon the said T. S. appeareth, and is then and there on the said 6tb of January, &c. at M. &c. present before me the said justice to answer and make his defence to the said information and the offence therein, charged upon him as aforesaid; and he the said T. S. having heard the same is asked by me the said justice if he can say any thing for himself, why he the said T. S. should not be convicted of the premises above charged upon him in form aforesaid? and the said Thomas Stone pleadeth that he is not guilty of the said offence. Nevertheless on the said 6th of January, &c. at M. &c. two credible witnesses, to wit, J. C. of, &c. and J. W. of, &c. come before me the said justice in their own proper persons, and before me the said justice, in the presence of the said T. S. they the said J. C. and J. W. being respectively then and there on the same day and year aforesaid at M. &c. duly sworn, &c. and depose, &c. (The conviction then set forth the evidence of the witnesses as to the fact of the defendant's having killed a pheasant on Saturday the 3d of January 1801, in the parish of M. &c. but not stating any evidence of the disqualification of the defendant.) And thereupon the said T. S. being asked by me the said justice if he had any thing to say, or can produce any evidence in answer to the several matters deposed to by the said J. C. and J. W. as aforesaid, he the said T. S. pretends and represents to me the said justice that he the said T. S. on the said 3d of January, &c. was qualified both in his own right and in right of his wife to kill game, but doth not produce any evidence thereof; [641] nor that he the said T. .S. on the said 3d of January, &c. had any lands or tenements or any otber estate of inheritance in his own right or his wife's right of the clear yearly value of 1001. per ann., or for term of life, or any lease or leases for 99 years, or for any longer term, of the clear yearly value of 1501.; nor that he the said T. S. was the son and heir apparent of an esquire, or of other person of higher degree; nor that he was the.owner or keeper of any forest, park, chase, or warren, or game-keeper to any lord or lady of or for any manor or manors; nor in any other manner qualified in his own right to keep or use any engine to kill and destroy the game of this kingdom ; nor doth he produce any sufficient evidence thereof in answer to the several matters deposed to by the said J. C. and J. W. as aforesaid; nor doth the said T. S. require any further time for that purpose. And thereupon it manifestly appears to me the said justice that the said T. S. is guilty of the offence above charged upon him in and by the said information. Wherefore I the said justice on the said 6th of January, &e. at M. &c. on the oaths of two credible witnesses so taken before me as aforesaid, do adjudge him the said T. S. to be guilty of the offence aforesaid ; and do thereupon convict him of the same; and do declare and adjudge that he the said T. S. hath forfeited the sum of five pounds for the same offence, to be distributed as the statute in that ease made and provided doth direct." M'Intosh, on the part of the defendant, objected, 1st, that the conviction does not state that he was duly summoned; and that this was not cured by alleging that the defendant was present; for if a man be not apprised beforehand when he shall be called upon to answer a charge, be cannot be prepared for his defence or have his witnesses [642] ready. In Sex v. Eeber(a), an information was granted against a magistrate for convicting one without summoning him, he happening to be present when another person was" convicted for the same offence, who had been previously summoned. It was there said to be a most known rule of common justice that no man should be convicted of an offence till he had previous notice given him of the charge. To be sure, in Bex v. Johnson (b) it was holden, that appearance cured all defects in the summons; but there the* objection went only to the shortness of the summons, it having been issued on the same day on which the defendant was required to appear. In E. v. Venables(c) it was ruled that a summons was necessary; but there no appearance was stated. (The Court expressing their opinion, that the appearance of the party, especially as he did not ask for further time, dispensed with the summons, this objection was abandoned.) 2dly, neither the evidence nor the adjudication negatives the qualifications required by the Stat. 22 & 23 Car. 2; the (a) 2 Barnard. 34, 77, 101 (when this book was cited Lord Kenyon observed, that Barnardiston was a. bad reporter; and that -probably, if the conviction itself were looked into, it would appear either that the party was not called upon for his defence, or had not proper time.given to him upon request). Vid. 2 Stra. 914, S. C. (b) 1 Stra...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanders's Case, by Conviction of Easter Term
...sides. 3 B. & A. 341, Hunt v. Andrews. (e) But the same rule does not hold in actions on the same statute. 2 Com. 522, Bluett v. Needs. 1 East, 639, Rex v. Stone. lWMftSATOD.10. THIN. 22 CAB. II. REGIS 313 had and kept a certain hand-gun, or instrument called a hand-gun, and then and the pu......
-
R v Edwards
...there was no need either to plead or disprove provisoes. In R. v. Jarvis (Hil. term 30 Geo. 2 and referred to in a note to the report of R. v. Stone (1801) 1 East, 640 at page 644) Lord Mansfield stated the rule as follows: "For it is a known distinction that what comes by way of proviso in......
-
Tse Wan Yuen And Another v The Queen
...that he did not habitually use the vehicle for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward. 12 MAY 1969 (1) 1964 H.K.L.R. 530 (2) 1 East 639 (3) 1935 A.C. 462 (4) (1843) 4 St. Tr. (N.S.) 847 (5) (1816) 5 M. & S. 206 (6) (1961) Ir. L.T. 41. (7) (1934) 151 L.T. 154 (8) (1907) 2 I.R. 5 (9) 1......
- Lee Chin Hock v PP