The King against The Inhabitants of Upper Papworth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1802 |
| Date | 21 June 1802 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 426
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[413] the king against the inhabitants of upper papworth. Monday, June 21st, 1802. Under the stat. 13 Geo. 3, c. 84, s. 33, this Court may apportion the fine for non-repair of a road between the parish and the trustees of a turnpike, though the indictment were originally preferred at the assizes and afterwards removed hither by certiorari. The defendants, the inhabitants of a parish in Cambridgeshire, were convicted on an indictment preferred at the assizes for the non-repair of a turnpike road which led through their parish; which indictment having been removed by certiorari at th&_ instance of the prosecutor into this Court, a rule was obtained, calling on the defendants to shew cause why a fine of 12001. should not be imposed on them; and calling on the trustees of the turnpike to shew cause why the fine and charges should "not be apportioned between themselves and the parish. Garrow and Wilson on behalf, of the trustees first took an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to apportion the fine at all; because the stat. 13 Geo. 3, c. 84, s. 33, (a)1 E. v. Stokes, Cowp. 136. (b)1 E. v. Myers, 1 Term Eep. 265. (of Vide also B. v. Pickerill, 4 Term Eep. 809. (5)2 Cited in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Pembridge
...sect. 65. See note (w) to 1 Chit. Stat. 456. (e) Regina v. Preston, 2 Moo. & Rob. 137. 756 THE QUEEN V. PEMBRIDGE J Q. B. 804. Pay/worth (2 East, 413), was not exactly a question between the parties to the suit: all that was there done was to apportion a fine between the inhabitants and the......
-
The Queen v Charleton
...v. PorterENR 1 Salk. 149; S. C. 2 Lord Ray. 937. King v. BakerENR 13 East, 414, noe. Rex v. Garside 4 New. & M. 33. Upper PapworthENR 2 East, 413. Rex v. HartleyENR Russ. & Ry. 139. Rex v. Boyce 1 Jebb & S. 214. Rex v. BourneENR 7 Ad. & El. 58. Rex v. EllisENR 5 B. & C. 395. Rex v. Little R......
-
R v The Inhabitants of Preston
...moved into the King's Bench by certioran, it was held that the Court of King's Bench might apportion the fine. R. v. Upper Papworth, 2 East, 413. ?. webb's case 1127 question is not, ' What was the motive of the prosecution, but whether the resistance to it is reasonable and well founded.' ......
-
R v Caspar and Others
...the costs was made absolute; Mr. Justice Williams being of opinion, on the authority of the case of Rex v. Inhabitants of Upper Papworth (2 East, 413), that " the Court before whom such indictment shall be [288] preferred," meant the Court of Queen's Bench, when the indictment was removed b......