The King against the Inhabitants of the Hamlet of Parcel of Penderryn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 May 1788 |
| Date | 26 May 1788 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 277
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
the king against the inhabitants of the hamlet or parcel of penderryn. Monday, May 26th, 1788. A presentment under 13 Geo. 3, c. 78, s. 24, against a smaller district than a parish, must state expressly how they are liable to the repair of roads. A presentment had been made of a road by a justice of peace upon his own view under 13 Geo. 3, c. 78, s. 24, which after stating that from time whereof, &c. there had been, and yet was a common and ancient King's highway leading from the town of Swansea, in Glamorganshire, to the town of Llandilofowr in Carmarthenshire, and that certain parts of it lying in the parish of Langevelack in Glamorganshire, [514] were out of repair, &c., stated that the inhabitants of the parcel or hamlet of Penderryn, in the said parish of Langevelack, the said common highway, so in decay, ought to repair and amend, when, and so often as should be necessary. This presentment was removed into this Court by certiorari (a)2 ; and after verdict, it was moved in arrest of judgment, that it was not stated that the inhabitants of this district were bound to repair the road by any custom or usage. R. Morris shewed cause against the rule, saying that the form of the presentment pointed out in the schedule to the Act No. 32, had been exactly followed in this case, and that by the sixty-ninth section of the Act it was provided that no objection should be made or advantage taken for want of form in any of the proceedings. That besides it was stated that the road had existed immemorially, and the Court may refer the liability of this district to repair, which was expressly stated, to the same period of time before-mentioned. Bevan, in support of the rule, argued that none but the parish at large were bound of common right to the repair of high roads; and therefore if it be attempted to charge smaller districts with that burthen, it must be shewn expressly how they are liable. This point has been expressly decided in this Court, in the case of The King v. The Inhabitants of Linkfield Street, in Rygate, Mich. 26 Geo. 3. That was a presentment in the very same form as the present, charging that the inhabitants of the borough of Linkfield Street, in the parish of Rygate, in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Stoughton
...s. 24, against a smaller district than a parish, must state expressly flow the inhabitants thereof are liable to the repair of the roads. 2 T. R. 513, Rex v. Penderryn. S. P. Styles, 163. Audi1. 276, Rex v. Marion. Where lands bound to the repair of a bridge, or highway, rations tenures, ar......
-
Grahame v Grahame
...669. Dowden v. LevisUNK 14 L. R. Ir. 313. Holme v. BrunskillELR 3 Q. B. D. 495. Cross v. SpriggENR 2 Mac. & G. 113. Kearslake v. MorganENR 2 T. R. 513. Stedman v. GoochENR 1 Esp. 3. Belshaw v. BushENR 11 C. B. 191, 201. Mockett v. AmesUNK 23 L. T. (N. S.) 729. Samuell v. HowarthENR 3 Mer. 2......
-
R v Scott
...English Reports Citation: 92 E.R. 115 COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS Regina and ers. Scott regina vers. scott. R. ace. 2 T. R. 513. Semb. ace. ante, 792, 804. The defendant was indicted for not repairing the pavement before his house in Old-Street, ad commune nocumentura, &c. And o......