The King against The Justices of Surrey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 November 1794 |
| Date | 22 November 1794 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 445
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
6T.K.77. THE KING V. THE JUSTICES OP SURREY 445 the king against the justices of surrey. Saturday Nov. 22d, 1794. If an insolvent debtor, brought up to the sessions under the last Insolvent Act be remanded on a charge against him of having obtained money by false pretences under sect. 37, and he gave notice that he will disprove the charge at a subsequent adjournment of the sessions, he is entitled to be brought up to the adjourned sessions for that purpose. The facts on which this case arose were disclosed to the Court upon an application for a mandamus, as follows; William Smith, a prisoner for debt in the custody of the marshal of the King's Bench prison, was brought up at the adjourned General Quarter Sessions for the county of Surrey on [77] the 31st July, 1794, in order to take the benefit of the Insolvent Act of the last session of Parliament, 34 Geo. 3, c. 69. His discharge was opposed by several of his creditors on the ground of his having obtained money on false pretences (a), which was then denied by him, but not having before had notice that any such objection was intended to be made, he was not then prepared with any evidence to contradict the facts alleged against him in support of the charge; whereupon the Court made an order, in which after stating that it appeared to them that the said William Smith had obtained money, goods, &c. by false pretences, it was ordered that he should be remanded back into the custody of the marshal, &c.; and he was remanded accordingly. Smith afterwards gave due notice to these creditors of his intention to apply to the next sessions to get rid of this objection, which he accordingly did in October last, when he tendered witnesses to the Court to controvert the facts before alleged against him: but the Court refused to enter into the examination, being of opinion, as stated in their order, that they had not power to go into evidence after their former decision; and therefore Smith was remanded back into custody. On behalf of whom Shepherd, on a former day, obtained a rule to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue to the defendants, commanding them to order W. Smith to be brought before them, and to admit him to take the benefit of the last Insolvent Act, &c. But upon shewing cause, it was admitted, that the mandamus should have been to the justices to hear and determine the premises, &e.; and in...
To continue reading
Request your trial