The King against The Hon. Robt. Johnson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 1805 |
| Date | 23 November 1805 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 1412
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
See Mayor of London v. Cox, 1867, L. R. 2 H. L. 260; Companhia de Mocambique v. British South Africa Company [1892], 2 Q. B. 370; [1893], A. C. 602.
the king against the hon. eobt. johnson. Monday, July 1st, 1805. Every plea to the jurisdiction of the Court ought to give some other Court by which the matter may be tried. Therefore it is not sufficient for a native of Ireland, charged with the publication of a libel in Middlesex, to plead to the jurisdiction of B. E. that Ireland before the Union was governed by its own laws, and not by the laws of Great Britain, and that since the Union it is yet governed by its own laws, &c. and that there always have been and now are Courts and jurisdictions in Ireland, distinct from those in G. B., and competent for the trial of all offences committed by the natives resident there; and that the defendant is a native of and was resident in Ireland at the time of the offence alleged, and that the subject-matter of the supposed libel related to things in Ireland: for the objection, if any, going to the total want of jurisdiction in any of the Courts of this part of the kingdom to try the defendant for such an offence, it should either be taken advantage of by a plea in bar or by evidence under the general issue. Besides the common four-day rule on a defendant in misdemeanor to join in demurrer to his plea, there must be a peremptory rule giving him a certain day in the discretion of the Court, without which judgment cannot be signed against him. [See Mayor of London v. Cox, 1867, L. E. 2 H. L. 260; Companhia de Mozambique v. British Smith Africa Company [1892], 2 Q. B. 370; [1893], A. C. 602.] This was an indictment, found by the grand jury of the county of Middlesex,, against the defendant, one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, charging him with having, and having caused to be written, published, and printed, at Westminster in the county of Middlesex, a certain libel, therein set forth ; which publication was alleged, in the prefatory part of the indictment, to have been made with intent to incite the King's subjects to hatred and dislike of His Majesty'^ administration of Government in this kingdom, and to cause [584] it to be believed that the people of that part of the United Kingdom of G. B. and I. called Ireland were oppressed and injured by the King's Government of the said part of the U. K., and to defame and vilify the persons employed by the King in the administration of the Government of the said part of the U. K., and especially the Eight Hon. Philip Earl of Hardwicke, Lieutenant General and Governor General of the said part of the U. K.,. and the Eight Hon. John Lord Eedesdale, the King's Lord Chancellor, &e. of the said part of the U. K. There were other counts charging an intention to defame the same and other public characters in Ireland, in other libels. To this indictment the defendant put in the following plea to the jurisdiction of the Court. And now, the said Eobert Johnson in his own proper person comes, and having heard the indictment aforesaid read, and protesting that he is not guilty of the premises charged in the said indictment, or of any part thereof, for plea, nevertheless, saith, that he ought not to be compelled to answer to the said indictment, because he saith, that the kingdom of Ireland, before and until the time of the Union of the two kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, was regulated and governed by the proper laws and statutes of the kingdom of Ireland, and not by the laws or statutes of the kingdom of Great Britain, or by the laws or statutes of England : and that ever since the Union of the said two kingdoms that part of the said United Kingdom of G. B. and I. called Ireland hath been and yet is governed and regulated by the proper laws 6 EAST, 585. THE KING V. JOHNSON 1413 and statutes of that part of the said U. K. called Ireland, and not by the laws or statutes of that part of the said U. K. called G. B., or by the laws or statutes of England. And the said Eobt. Johnson further saith, that in the said kingdom of Ireland before the said Union, and in that part of the [585] said U". K. called Ireland since the said Union, there always have been and now are Courts and jurisdictions therein being and thereto belonging, distinct from the Courts and jurisdictions of G. B. or of England, or of any part thereof, and competent and sufficient for the trial of all offences committed by the natives or inhabitants of Ireland during the time of their respective residence and commorancy in Ireland. And the said E. Johnson further saith, that he was born within Ireland aforesaid, and out of Great Britain, and before the said Union, (to wit) on the 1st of October 1752, (to wit) at Westminster in the county of Middlesex; and that he the said R. Johnson, on the 1st of Nov. 1802, and thenceforth continually and until at and after the time of presenting the said indictment by the jurors aforesaid in form aforesaid presented, (to wit) until and upon the 31st of May 1805, was resident and commorant within that part of the said U. K. called Ireland, and not elsewhere; and that the writings by the said indictment, called libels, and in the said indictment mentioned, are of and concerning certain matters and things which took place in Ireland after the said 1st of Nov. 1802, (to wit) on the 23d of July 1803, and subsequent thereto; and that the composing, writing, publishing, and printing the said writings by the said indictment called libels, and causing the same to be composed, written, published, and printed in and by the said indictment alleged and mentioned, and the committing of all the supposed offences therein mentioned, took place and were after the said 1st of Nov. 1802, and while he the said E. Johnson was so resident and commorant in Ireland aforesaid, and not elsewhere, (to wit) on the 1st of January 1804, (viz.) at Westminster aforesaid in the county of Middlesex aforesaid ; and this he is ready to verify: to this there was a general demurrer. [586] And on Tuesday the 25th of June the Attorney-General moved the Court for a peremptory rule on the defendant to join in demurrer on the morrow; the usual four-day rule to join in demurrer having expired on Saturday the 22d, and the intervening Monday being a dies non jurid. He stated, that the indictment had been found in Michaelmas term last, and no plea put in until this term, when the above plea to the jurisdiction of the Court was pleaded as of the last term: and that the object of his motion was to have the demurrer argued on Saturday next, the last Crown paper day in the term. That according to the practice on the Civil side (a)1 the plaintiff may enter the joinder in demurrer for the defendant without giving him any rule to join in demurrer : and though by the rule of Court of Trin. 1 Geo. 2 (£), by which that practice is regulated, if there be no joinder in demurrer by the time the rule (c) for pleading is out, the plaintiff may sign judgment, still the practice on the Crown side of the Court has been not to enter up judgment without giving a peremptory rule to join in demurrer within such time as the Court shall direct. This appears from an ancient book in the Crown-Office by Sir Simon Harcourt, formerly master of that office, where is this entry, "Post regulam peremptoriam quatuor dies ad placitandum non de recto sed ex gratis,; curia semper existens interrogata quando dies appunctuatur ut curise placet." And he mentioned as instances of such peremptory rules given, The King [587] v. Williams (of, where the (a)1 2 Tidd's Pract. 649, 2d edit. (J) Eules and Orders of K. B. p. 94, edit, of 1735. (c) By the practice of the Crown-Office there are two four-day,rules given to bring a defendant in to plead, and then a peremptory rule is moved for, giving, in town prosecutions, the morrow; in country prosecutions, ten days, to plead. In subsequent stages of pleading only one four-day rule is given, and then a peremptory rule moved for, which is in general drawn up for four days more: but in vacation it is considered that such peremptory rule is not necessary. (a)2 This was an information for a libel filed in the latter end of the reign of Car. 2, against the defendant, Speaker of the House of Commons, who as such had licensed, by order of the House, the publication of Dangerfield's Narrative, on which account he pleaded to the jurisdiction of the Court, to which plea the Attorney-General demurred ; and on the first opening of the safe judgment of respondeas ouster was given: and finally the defendant was fined 10,0001. E. 2 Jac. 2, Skin. 217. Comb. 18, and 2 Show. 471. 1414 THE KING V.JOHNSON 6 EAST, 588. Attorney-General having demurred to a plea to the jurisdiction pleaded to an information for a libel; and the defendant being in Court, it was insisted that he should join in demurrer instanter (b); but the Court gave two rules for joining in demurrer, and then a peremptory rule; after which, they said, if the defendant did not join in demurrer, they would give judgment. And the general practice in this respect as reported to the Court by the same Master in Layer's case (c); " That in prosecutions for misdemeanors two four-day rules to plead are given, and a peremptory rule moved for; and then if there be a demurrer, one four-day rule to join in demurrer is given, and a peremptory rule moved for : but that in capital cases (as that was) there is no rule given either to plead or join in demurrer, the prisoner being obliged in all eases to answer immediately." He also referred to two other precedents from the Crown-Office, the one Rex v. Ryder, 8 Geo. 2, where, after the common rule was out, a rule was given for the defendant to join in demurrer peremptorily on the morrow : and Rex v. Broughion, Trin. 28 Geo. 2, where a rule was given on the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fingleton v R
...107 Referred to in the reasons of Gleeson CJ at [45]. 108 Relating to attempting to pervert the course of justice. 109 R v Johnson (1805) 7 East 65 [ 103 ER 110 cf reasons of Gleeson CJ at [27]–[29]. 111 The terms of s 119B of the Code are set out in the reasons of Gleeson CJ at [19]. 112 S......
-
The Earl of Manchester and Others against Vale
...v. Lassels. (2) So in Norton v. Harvey, cited in 2 Saund. 50. Webb v. Martin, 1 Lev. 48.( Z) (a) And is therefore bad on special demurrer. 6 East, 583, The King v. Jolmson. [See ante, p. 14, notes.] (d) [2 B. & C. 220, St. Germain's v. Willan. 3 D. & R. 441. S. C. 1 Bing. N. C. 89, 96, Trem......
-
The Queen v Meaney
...24 St. Tr. 451. The King v. StoneENR 6 T. R. 527. The King v. Brisac 4 Est, 163, 171. The King v. The Honourable Robert JohnsonENR 6 East, 583. The King v. BrisacENR 4 East, 163. The King v. BrisacENR 4 East, 163. The King v. StoneENR 6 T. R. 527. Bulwer's Case 7 Co. 1 a. Sir Francis Burdet......
-
Pooneakhoty Moodeliar, - Appellant; The King, - Respondent
...ether, it may be indicted in either county." But a stronger case is that of libel. In the case to which I before alluded, of Judge Johnson [6 East, 583], the plea was overruled; the trial came on upon the plea of Not Guilty. It was said that he was n t in England at all, but through the med......