The King against T. Cooper
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1796 |
| Date | 1796 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 674
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
12 East, 67.
the king against T. cooper. Monday, Jan. 25th, 1796. A commitment in execution by a magistrate must state that the party has been convicted : setting forth that he was charged on oath with the offence is insufficient. [12 East, 67.] The defendant having been committed to prison by the following warrant signed by a magistrate, "Receive into your custody .the body of T. Cooper, brought before me W. H., &c. charged before me the said justice on the oath of W. Benson maltster for running away before the expiration of the season for which he was hired, contrary to his contract as [510] well as against the statute (a)2 in that ease, made and provided ; and him safely keep in your custody for one month, &c.," was on a former day brought into Court by virtue of a habeas corpus. And Erskine and Gibbs moved that he might be discharged out of custody because the warrant of commitment merely stated that he was charged with the offence, without adding that he bad also been convicted. And they relied on the case of B. v. F. Rhodes (b), where a commitment in execution under the Vagrant Act(c) was held to be bad on a similar objection. Dampier, contra, attempted to distinguish this case from that of B. v. F. Rhodes, because here the magistrate had no alternative; he was bound to commit the defendant in execution if the charge were substantiated by evidence, whereas there the justice had an option under the Vagrant Act either to commit the defendant to the next sessions for safe custody only, or to commit in execution for a limited time, and it was uncertain on the face of that warrant whether the magistrate had convicted the defendant or had only committed him to prison till the next sessions. He then contended that it was not necessary to state in precise and technical terms in a commitment in execution that the party had been convicted of the offence ; that it was sufficient if that were to be collected from,the warrant; and that in this ease the justice could not have granted a warrant of commitment unless the defendant had been convicted. And he referred to B, v. Hawkins (d), where Parker, Ch. J. said "There is a difference iti the return of a habeas corpus, when it is before a conviction and when after one; for where it is after a conviction, you need not be so particular." Cur. adv. vult. Lord Kenyon Ch.J. now said,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J. Hodgens v H. H. Poe
...& S. 223. Rex v. Bartlett 12 Law Jour., M. C. 127. Money v. LeachUNK 1 Wm. Bl. 561. Shaddock v. ClipsonENR 8 East, 328. Rex v. CooperENR 6 T. R. 509. In re Tordoft B. & S. 17. Vanderburgh v. Spooner 1 L. R., Exch. 316. Hoye v. BushUNK 1 M. & G. 775. Howson v. BarrosENR 6 T. R. 122. Boyd v. ......
-
The King against Gourlay
...state that the party has been convicted. Merely setting forth that he was charged on oath with the offence is insufficient, Eex v. Cooper (6 T. R. 509). So a commitment in execution of a rogue and vagabond under the statute 23 G. 3, c. 38, should state that the defendant was apprehended wit......
-
Stephen Mash's Case
...state that the party was convicted: setting forth that he was charged on oath is not sufficient; R. v. Rhodes, 4 T. R. 220; R. v. Cooper, 6 T. R. 509. (x) 2 Inst. 52, 592. (y) C. 16, s. 18. (2) S. C. Salk. 351. (a) Sect. III. The case in Burn's J. (ed. 1788) is that of the commitment of ove......
-
Massey against Johnson
... ... English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 27 IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH Massey against Johnson massey against johnson. Wednesday, June 14th, 1809. The stat. 43 G-. 3, c. 141, does ... The warrant of eommit-[78]-ment was not of itself a conviction ; it did not profess to be so; and in Bex v. Rhodes (a), confirmed in Bex v. Cooper (b), such a warrant was held to be illegal for want of a previous conviction. The warrant of commitment ought, as it was there said, to include a ... ...