The King against The Steward, Foreman, Treasurer, Book-keeper, and Freemen of The Company of Free Fishermen and Dredgemen of The Manor and Hundred of Faversham, in the County of Kent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 November 1799 |
| Date | 13 November 1799 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 1429
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
1 Eas, 555. 2 M. & S. 53.
8 I.E.382. THE KING V. COMPANY OF FISHERMEN OF FAVERSHAM 1429 [352] the king against the steward, fokeman, treasurer, book-keeper, and freemen of the company op free fishermen and dredgemen of the manor and hundred of faversham, in the county of kent. Wednesday, Nov. 13th, 1799. In a return to a mandamus to a corporation to restore a member who has been removed it should appear that the body removing had proved the charge for which the member was removed.-It is not sufficient to state merely that he was present when the charge was made, and did not deny it.-A bye-law, made by a eompany carrying on trade in partnership, to prevent any one of the members carrying on a separate trade on his own account, is good; semb. [1 East, 555, 2 M. & S. 53.] To a mandamus, requiring the defendants to restore M. Harman to the office of one of the freemen of this company, the defendants made a return; stating, that the company are a company by prescription, and from time whereof, &c. have held of the lord of the said manor and hundred certain oyster-grounds within the said manor and hundred, and during all that time have laid and kept oysters upon the said grounds, for the common use and benefit of the said company ; and have carried on a trade in oysters, in partnership together, for the common use and benefit of the freemen of the said company. That from time whereof, &c. certain courts, called water courts, have been holden within the said manor and hundred, at which the .company have been used to make orders for the management of the said trade, and regulating the members of the company with regard thereto, and to nominate twelve freemen to be a jury to impose fines and amercements upon the freemen for neglect of duty, and for other purposes. That from time whereof, .&c. the company have been used to make orders for restraining any of the members of the .company from doing any thing for their own gain, to the prejudice or detriment of the said trade. That from time whereof, &c. every person admitted to the freedom hath, before admission, taken an oath that he would be a true tenant to the lord, for the fishing grounds held of him, do his service, pay his rent, observe the customary laws that were or should be made by the tenants, pay such fines and amercements as the jury should impose upon him, and do in all things as a tenant ought, or as near as he could. That M. Harman, at the time of his admission into the company, took the said oath. That from time whereof, &c. the company have disfranchised, subject to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Hutchinson
...that they are bad in part, they must be both textually and substantially severable. Thus, Lord Kenyon C.J. said in Rex v. Company of Fishermen of Faversham (1799) 8 Term. 352, 356: "With regard to the form of the byelaw indeed, though a byelaw may be good in part and bad in part, yet it can......
-
Mackey v James Henry Monks (Preston) Ltd
...B. 469. (4) [1909] 2 I. R. 379. (5) 2 New Ir. Jur. Rep. 207. (6) [1903] 2 I. R. 163. (7) [1903] 2 I. R. 522. (8) [1904] 1 K. B. 517. (9) 8 T. R. 352. (10) 1 Str. (11) 31 L. J. (M.C.) 157. (12) [1904] 2 K. B. 60. (13) 98 L. T. R. 762. (14) L. R. 1 Q. B. 475, at pp. 485, 487; L. R. 3 Q. B. 67......
- Everton v Walker
-
The Blackpool Local of Health v Kenyon
...extent that, if the good part is independent and unconnected with the bad, the good part would be valid and binding {Rex, v. Faversham (8 T. R. 352).) Our decision does not turn on that point, for the \vhole bye-law is so connected in the prohibition of plying oft' the stands with the part ......