The King against The Lords Commissioners of the Treasury
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 1835 |
| Date | 23 November 1835 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 794
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 N. & M. 589; 1 H. & W. 533. 5 L. J. K. B. 20. For Subseqenst proceedings see 4 Ad. & E. 976. Distinguished, R. v. Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, 1836, 4 Ad, & E. 995. Doubted, R. V. Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, 1872, L. R. 7 Q. B. 395. Disapproved, R. V. Inland Revenue Commissioners, 1884, 12 Q. B. D. 461.
[286] the king against the lords commissioners of the treasury. Monday, Nov. 23d, 1835. The Lords of the Treasury agreed to submit a vote to Parliament for granting a retired allowance to a public officer, on certificate of ill-health, according to stat. 3 G. 4, c. 113. The vote passed, but the pension was not specifically mentioned in the Appropriation Act, which, however, directed a gross sum to be applied in discharge of retired allowances. The Lords of the Treasury, on application by the party for payment, informed him that he might receive it from a Treasury officer whom they named. The officer declined paying, inasmuch as he had no authority from the Lords of the Treasury, and they, being again applied to, refused to give such authority except on condition that the party would forego certain legal proceedings, which he refused to do. Held, first, that the party had a legal right to the allowance, the Lords of the Treasury having submitted the grant to Parliament, and having afterwards admitted that the money for paying the allowance was in their hands. Secondly, that a mandamus lay to the Lords of the Treasury to order payment, inasmuch as the claimant bad no other remedy ; and as the writ was demanded, not against the King, but against officers into whose hands money bad been paid under an Act of Parliament for the use of an individual. [S. C. 5 N. & M. 589 ; 1 H. & W. 533. 5 L. J. K. B. 20. For subsequent proceedings see 4 Ad. & E. 976. Distinguished, B. v. Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, 1836, 4 Ad. & E. 995. Doubted, E. v. Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, 1872, L. R, 7 Q. B. 395. Disapproved, B. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, 1884, 12 Q. B. D. 461.] A rule nisi was obtained in this term for a mandamus, calling on the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury forthwith to issue a Treasury minute or authority to the paymaster of civil contingencies, or other proper officer, directing and authorizing him to pay, or cause to be paid, to William Carmichael Smyth, the amount of the arrears of his pension, or retired allowance, of 1661. per annum, from the 5th of April 1826, to the 10th of October last, as voted to him by authority of Parliament. The rule was obtained on an affidavit of Mr. Smyth, which contained the following statements :- In 1826 Mr. Smyth, having served the office of a paymaster of Exchequer bills (c) Lord Deiiman C.J. was absent. (d) See Rex v. Wright, 1 A. & E. 434. (a) The defendant had pleaded a single plea, including several matters, to which the plaintiff had demurred ; and the defendant then made an application to amend the plea, by inserting the pleas mentioned in the present rule, which finally came on as above reported. The Court, in making the present rule absolute, gave the plaintiff the costs of the proceedings on the former pleadings. 4 AD. &E. 887. THE KING V. LORDS COMMISSIONERS OF TREASURY 795 for thirteen years, transmitted to the then Commissioners of the Treasury a medical certificate of his inability to discharge the duties, by reason of bodily infirmity, and solicited a retired allowance. He received in answer the following letter from Mr. Hill, then Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, dated October 11, 1826 :- "Sir,-I have it in command from the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury to acquaint you [287] that, upon a review of all the circumstances which led to your removal from the situation of paymaster of Exchequer bills, and the continued distressing state of your health, my Lords will submit a vote to Parliament for granting to you a retired allowance at the rate of 1661. per annum, to commence from the 5th of April 1826.-I am, Sir," &c. On the 25th of November 1829, he received a letter from Mr. Dawson, one of the then joint Secretaries of the Treasury, of which the following is an extract: " I am further to acquaint you that three years have elapsed since my Lords communicated to you their intention, in consequence of the distressing state of your health, as described in a medical certificate annexed to your application to this board, to grant to you a retired allowance of 1661. per annum, to commence from the 5th of April 1826, and I am to inform you that that allowance, with any arrears which may be due upon it, will, like any other retired allowance, be paid to you on application to the paymasters of Exchequer bills." In May 1835, Mr. Smyth applied to Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baron de Bode v R
...of the Treasury under 59 Geo. 3. c. 31., the following authorities were referred to : Rex v. the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, 4 A. & E. 286, 298 ; In re Baron De Bode, 6 Dowl. P. C. 776 ; 3 Bla. Com. 254, &c. ; 4 and 5 W. 4, c. 15 ; Y. B. Mich. 9 H. 4, fol. 4a, pl. 17 , Y. B. Iii. 4......
-
The Queen against Clayton
...officer admitted having received money subject to the demand of the suppliant, Rex v. The [371] Lords Commissioners of the Treasury (4 A, & E. 286) would apply. [Wilde C.J. It may be asked whether this is a proceeding ad verse to the Crown. The King having ordered that right be done, does t......
-
The Queen against The Commissioners of HM Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works and buildings for the time being. ex parte Budge
...yet been decided that a mandamus would lie against public officers acting for the Crown. Rex v. The Lords Commissioners of the Treasury (4 A, & E. 286), was supposed at first to be a deciaion to that effect: but that [770] impression was corrected in Rex v. Lords of Treasury, In re Hand (4 ......
-
Leen v President of the Executive Council and Others
...evidence or documents which could support even a rule for a mandamus. such as was granted in R. v. Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, 4 A. & E. 286, or an action for money received, as was suggested in In re NathanELR, 12 Q. B. D. 461, founded upon the Appropriation Act, 1924. But held by......