The King against the Justices of the County of Carnarvon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 November 1820 |
| Date | 20 November 1820 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 870
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
the king against the justices of the county of carnarvon. Monday, November 20th, 1820. The Court of K. B. has no jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Quarter Sessions, except on a case sent up for their consideration ; and, therefore, where the sessions, having heard the witnesses on one side, had refused to hear those on the other side in an appeal, on the ground that their testimony had been prefaced by observations on the part of the advocate contrary to their usual practice, the Court refused to grant a mandamus to rehear the appeal. D'Oyly Serjt. moved for a rule nisi for a mandamus, to be directed to the justices of Carnarvonshire, commanding them to enter continuances, and re-hear an appeal between two parishes, touching the settlement of a pauper. It appeared from the affidavits, that the appeal came on at the sessions on the 14th of July last, and that the appellants having admitted a primS, facie settlement in this parish, relied upon the proof of a case of a subsequently acquired settlement elsewhere. Having finished their case, the attorney for [87] the respondents proceeded to make observations upon the case proved by the appellants, and then offered to call witnesses to contradict it; but the sessions refused to allow those witnesses to be called, on the ground that he had rested his case on his argument as to the insufficiency of the case proved on the other side; and thereupon they quashed the order of removal. The affidavits further stated, that the course pursued by the attorney for the respondents was the usual and ordinary practice of the sessions. D'Oyly, in support of the motion, contended, that the refusal on the part of the sessions to hear the witnesses was in fact a refusal to hear the appeal altogether, in which case it was every day's practice for this Court to direct the sessions by mandamus to hear and decide the question. Bayley J. There is no instance, I believe, which can be found where this Court have interfered by mandamus to direct the justices to re-hear an appeal which they have once already heard. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart
...Review 40 at 41–42. 33 Volume II: England 1689–1989, (1991) at 101–102. 34 R v Justices of the County of Carnarvon (1820) 4 B & Ald 86 [106 ER 870] 35 The leading counsel appears to have been Jervis KC, father of Sir John Jervis, who was to be chairman of the Common Law Commission which rep......
-
Willis v Gipps
...v. Simpson, 1 Str. 44 ; Rex v. Grundon, Coup. 315 ; Rex v. Benn, 6 T.R. 198 ; harper v. Carr, 7 T.R. 270 ; Rex. v. Justices of Carnarvon, 4 B. & Ald. 86 ; Capel v. Child, 2 C. & J. 558 ; Reg. v. Flintshire, 10 Jur. 475 ; Gill v. Bright, 41 L.J.M.C. 23 ; and see Dickson v. Viscount Combermer......
-
The Queen (Earl of Gosford) v The Irish Land Commission
...v. Cheltenham Commissioners 1 Q. B. 467. Reg. v. Justices of CambridgeshireUNK 1 Dow & Ry. 325. Reg. v. Justices of CarnarvonshireENR 4 B. & Ald. 86. Reg. v. Justices of West Yorkshire 10 A. & E. 685. Reg. v. RandELR L. R. 1 Q. B. 230. The Overseers of the Poor of Walsall v. London and Nort......
-
Pope v Coates. Coates, Plaintiff in Error; Pope, Defendant in Error
...14 Q. B. 185. R. v. AllmanENR 5 Burr. 2086. Johnson v. Hudson 7 Ad. & Ell. 233, note. Rex v. SouthENR 9 Car. & P. 462. R. v. BennettENR 4 B. & Ald. 86, 135. 156 COMMON LAW REPORTS. E. T. 1863. Exchequer. POPE v. COATES.* COATES, plaintiff in Error ; POPE, defendant in Error. THIS was an act......