The King against The Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. Re Smyth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1836 |
| Date | 07 May 1836 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 1050
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 6 N. & M. 565.
[976] the king against the lords commissioners of the treasury. in re SMYTH. Saturday, May 7th, 1836. A party to whom a superannuation allowance has been granted in pursuance of a Treasury minute, according to stat. 50 G. 3, c. 117, in respect of an office held during pleasure, has no vested interest in such allowance ; but the minute may be revoked at will by the Lords of the Treasury. Although such party contributed to the superannuation fund under stat. 3 G. 4, c. 113, while the clauses as to such contribution were in force. Where a Treasury minute had been revoked under the above circumstances, this Court refused a. mandamus calling on the Lords of the Treasury to restore such minute to their books, and to submit an application to Parliament, in the estimates for the current year, for a grant on account of the allowance sanctioned by such minute. [S. C. 6 N. & M. 565.] The Court having, in Michaelmas term last, made a rule absolute for a mandamus to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to issue a minute, directing payment to W. C. Smyth of his arrears of pension from April 5th 1826 to October 10th 1835 (a):1, a copy of the rule was served on the Solicitor of the Treasury, and the Lords Commissioners paid the arrears, and continued paying the pension down to the 5th of April 1836. On the 9th of April, the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury wrote to Mr. Smyth as follows :- "Sir,-The Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury having had before them the minute of this board, of 6th Ootober 1826, in which their Lordships expressed their opinion that, under the circumstances therein stated, a vote should be submitted to Parliament for granting to you a retired allowance of 1661. per annum, and having also fully considered your whole case and conduct with reference to your proceedings (a)1 6 B. & C. 629. See Macarthur v. Campbell, 5 B. & Ad. 518, 2 A. & E. 52; Allenby v. Proudlodc, 4 Dowl. P. C. 54. (a)2 Patteson and Coleridge Js. had left the Court. (a)3 Sex v. The Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, p. 286, ante. 4AD.&E. 977. THE KING V. LORDS OF TREASURY 1051 against the paymasters of Exchequer bills and this board, I am commanded by their Lordships to acquaint you that, being of opinion that the directions of that [977] minute should be revoked, and that no application should be submitted to Parliament for a grant on this account in the estimates for the present year, their Lordships have directed those estimates to be prepared accordingly, omitting therefrom the sum heretofore included on account of that allowance.-I am, Sir," &c. In this term, April 26th, J. Jervis obtained a rule nisi for a mandamus to the Lords Commissioners to restore to its place in the minute book of the Treasury the minute made therein on or about the 6th day of October 1826, in which the then Lords...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Commissioners of HM Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works and buildings for the time being. ex parte Budge
...we decided against him, and were right.] It was not, at all events, decided on the record. In Bex v. Lords of Treasury, Inre Smyth (4 A. & E. 976), a second application on behalf of that gentleman was refused. In Rex v. The Commissioners of Customs (5 A. & E. 380), where a rule for a mandam......
-
The Queen against Savile
...The [704] Court does, in effect, decide that, by granting a side Bar rule as has been (c) See Regina v. Lords of Treasury, In re Smyth, 4 A. & E. 976, Regina v. Same, In re Hand, 4 A. & E. 984. Regina v. Commissioners of Woods and Forests, 15 Q. B. 761, 772. K. B. xlvii.-9* 266 THE QUEEN V.......