The King against The Justices of Kent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 1811 |
| Date | 02 July 1811 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 653
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[395] the king against the justices of kent. Tuesday, July 2d, 1811. The - stat. 16 Car. 1, c. 4, s. 2, having continued the stat. 1 Jac. 1, e. 6, the 2d and 3d sections of which last mentioned statute, in extension of the stat. 5 Eliz. c. 4, authorizes the justices in sessions (with the sheriff, if he conveniently may,) to rate the wages of any labourers, &c, or workmen whatsoever, &c.; this Court granted a mandamus to the justices, &c. of Kent to hear an application of the 654 THE KING V. THE JUSTICES OF KENT 14 EAST, 396. journeymen millers of that county, praying them to make such a rate; which application the justices had refused to hear upon the merits; considering that they had no jurisdiction over other than the wages of servants in husbandry. A petition was presented to the justices of Kent at their General Quarter-Sessions in January last, from certain persons stating themselves to be millers in that county, and " within the description of millers mentioned in the stat. 5 Eliz. e. 4; which petition stated in substance that the wages paid to them for many years past by their respective employers never exceeded and often fell short of one guinea a week: that their day-work was long, and sometimes they were also obliged to work in the night; and that by reason of the great increase which had of late years taken place in the price of the necessaries of life, their wages were become wholly'inadequate to their support and maintenance; and that not less than 4s. 6d. a day, with a proportionate allowance for extra work, would suffice for that purpose: and concluding with a prayer (in the relative terms of the section of the 15th section of the stat. 5 Eliz. c. 4), "That you the said justices or the more part of you, and the said sheriff (if you the said sheriff conveniently may,) will, at the General Sessions first to be holden and kept in and for the said county after Easter now next ensuing, or at some time convenient within six weeks next following the said feast of Easter, assemble yourselves together; and being so assembled, and calling unto you such discreet and grave persons of the said county as you shall think meet; and conferring together respecting the plenty or scarcity of the time, and other circumstances necessarily to be [396] considered (a);, that you will limit unto and appoint the wages of millers in the county aforesaid, according to the form of the statute in that ease made and provided." This application of the journeymen millers was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R (Irish Union of Distributive Workers and Clerks) v Rathmines U.D.C.
-
R (Irish Union of Distributive Workers and Clerks) v Rathmines U.D.C.
...B. 560. (2) [1898] 1 Q. B. 802. (1) 5 Q. B. 466, at p. 472. (2) 4 B. & S., at p. 199. (3) [1911] 1 K. B. 560. (1) 1 Wils. K. B. 138. (2) 14 East, 395. (3) 1 M. & S. (4) 35 Ir. L. T. R. 167. (1) [1901] A. C. 1. (2) 11 Ves. 429. (3) 16 Ves. 321, 325, 329. (1) [1901] A. C. 426. (2) [1912] A. C......
-
The Queen against John Blanshard and Others
...the true criterion is, whether the error of the justices was in thinking their jurisdiction taken away. Bex v. The [322] Justices of Kent (14 East, 395), is quite in point. There the justices had jurisdiction under stat. 5 Eliz. c. 4, s. 15; they thought their jurisdiction inadequate, notwi......
-
The Queen against The Lords Commissioners of HM Treasury. ( Tibbits.)
...: and therefore this Court, when the Lords refuse to hear a case within the statute, will compel the hearing: Rex v. The Justices of Kent (14 East, 395), Rex v. The Justifies of the City of York (1 A. & E. 828), shew the power exercised by this Court in such cases. In this case there has be......