The King against the Benchers of Gray's Inn, on the Prosecution of William Hart
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1780 |
| Year | 1780 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 227
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Referred to, Neate v. Denman, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 136; Manisty v. Kenealy, 1876, 24 W. R. 920.
the king against the benchers of gray's inn, on the prosecution of william hart. Friday, 21st April, 1780. A mandamus will not lie to compel admission to the degree of barrister.-The only mode of relief is by appeal to the 12 Judges. [Referred to, Neate v. Dmman, 1874, L. E. 18 Eq. 136 ; Manisty v. Kenealy, 1876, 24 W. E. 920.] This was an application for a mandamus to be directed to the Benchers of Gray's Inn, to compel them to call the prosecutor to the degree of a barrister at law. In the last term (s), Dunning had moved for a rule to shew cause, on an affidavit, stating that the ground upon which the readers and benchers had rejected him was, his having been discharged under an Insolvent Debtor's Act; but that he had complied with all the usual requisites, such as paying the dues, and performing exercises, and that the two societies of the Inner and Middle Temple, upon their being consulted by that of Gray's Inn, had been of opinion that the ground of rejection [354] was not sufficient. The affidavit also mentioned two late instances, one of a bankrupt, another of a person who had been discharged as an insolvent debtor; who had been called to the Bar. It appeared that the Society of Lincoln's Inn had been of opinion, when consulted, that the cause was sufficient. In behalf of the application, it was urged, that it would be highly inconvenient to permit such a body as the Benchers of an Inn of Courb to exercise a jurisdiction in such matters, uncontrolable by a Court of Law, and that in the present instance, there had been manifest injustice in permitting the prosecutor to lose his time, and put himself to expence, in order to qualify himself for the Bar, if he was thought to be a person incapable of being called. Lord Mansfield said, he had a recollection of some cases, where it had been held that the Court could not interpose, but that the recourse must be to the twelve Judges, who have a domestic jurisdiction over the Inns of Courts.-Willes, Justice, mentioned Booreman's case (t),-and Buller, Justice, that of Rakestraw and Brewer ()- as confirming what fell from his Lordship. Some passages in Dugdale's Origines were-also referred to by the Court. The Court took time to consider whether they should grant a rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lincoln v Daniels
...in the performance of their duties in the administration of the lav; in all its many phases. 26 In ( R. v. Benchers, of Gray's Inn 1730 1 Pouglas's Reports, 353) where a mandamus was sought to direct the Benchers to call to the lar one William Hart, a student of the Inn, Lord Mansfield said......
-
New Zealand Law Society v Deliu
...at Antigua (1830) 1 Knapp 267 at 268, 12 ER 321 at 321 (PC); R v Visitors to the Inns of Court, above n 1, at 13-14. 5 R v Gray's Inn (1780) 1 Doug 353, 99 ER 227 (KB); R v Benchers of Lincoln's Inn 4 B & C 855, 107 ER 1277 (KB); R v Visitors to the Inns of Court, above n 1, at 6 For furthe......
-
Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. 1401057 Alberta Ltd. et al., 2013 ABQB 748
...162 E.R. 1160, refd to. [para. 18]. Brounsall, Ex parte (1778), 98 E.R. 1385 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 5]. R. v. Gray's Inn (1780), 99 E.R. 227 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote Hudson v. Slade (1862), 176 E.R. 174 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 5]. Arrowsmith, Ex parte ......
-
Gomez v Klonaris et Al
...on the validity of legislation enacted by Parliament. 53 The first case to which j wish to refer is R. v. Gray's Inn (1780) 1 Douglas 353, 99 E.R. 227 where there was an application for mandamus to be directed to the Benchers of Gray's Inn, to compel them to call one William Hart to the Bar......