The King against Weir and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1823 |
| Date | 01 January 1823 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 108
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[288] the king against weie and others(cs). 1823. Where a warrant was directed " To A. B., to the constables of W., and to all other His Majesty's officers :" Held, that the constables of W. (their names not being inserted in the warrant) could not execute it out of that district. The defendants were indicted for having, at the parish of Deptford, in the county of Kent, assaulted James Ritchie, one of the constables of the parish of Woolwich,, then and there being in the due execution of [289] his said office. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Richards C. B., at the last Summer Assizes for the county of Kent, it was proved, that in 1821, at the time of the assault, James Ritchie was a constable of the parish of Woolwich, and that defendant, Weir, was engineer to the Kent Water-Works Company, and the other defendants were in the employ of the company. On the 27th of April, 1821, a warrant was issued by the magistrates of Woolwich, directed, "To Charles Serjeant, one of the collectors of the parish of Woolwich, the constables of the said parish, and all others His Majesty's officers whom these may concern;" commanding them to distrain upon the goods of the Kent Water-Works Company for 8031. for the parish of Woolwich. On the 18th of June, Ritchie, in order to execute that warrant, entered upon some premises belonging to the company, in the parish of Deptford. Weir requested him to go out, and Ritchie refusing, he-was forced out, by Weir and the other defendants, which was the assault complained of. No other Woolwich constable was present, nor was any Deptford constable with Ritchie. The jury having returned a verdict of guilty, a rule was obtained in last Michaelmas term, to enter a verdict for the defendants, against which Taddy Serjt. and Claridge now shewed cause. The whole question for the con- (a) The King's warrant was issued in pursuance of the 3 G. 4, c. 102, ten days before the end of this term, directing any two or more of the Judges of this Court to-sit for the despatch of business until the first day of March ; and Bayley, Holroyd, and Best Js. sat daily after the term in the Guildhall, Westminster, in the room adjoining the Court, and this and the following cases were argued and determined _ The Lord Chief Justice sat at Nisi Prius. IB. & C. 290. THE KING V. WEIR 109 sideration of the Court is, the extent of the authority delegated to the constables of -Woolwich by the warrant in question. The case of Blatcher v. Kemp (1 H. Bl. 15, n.), relied upon for the defendants, does not by any means decide the question in their [290] favour. The decision there turned upon the general words, " all other officers of the peace in the county of Kent." It may be conceded, that the general words in this warrant would not enable any officer to act out of his own peculiar district. But, besides those words, it contains a special direction to the constables of Woolwich. In the latter words there is a sufficient designatio personarum, and the officers intended are distinctly pointed out; they might, therefore, execute the warrant any where within the jurisdiction of the magistrates who granted it. No case has decided that an individual constable may not be as well described by his official...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CRH Plc, Irish Cement Ltd v Competition and Consumer Protection Commission
...as well as those who are the subject of same, need plain guidance and clear boundaries; see the remarks of Best J in R v Weir (1823) 107 ER 108 at 117. This principle is echoed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-37/13P in Nexans SA v Commission [2014] 5C......
-
Jaimee v Minister for Justice and Equality & IHREC
...“bound to take care that the law relating to the duty of constables shall rest upon broad, plain, intelligible principles”; R v Weir (1823) 107 ER 108 at 111. Consciousness of that same duty should rest on judges in areas of law where the administration of legislation is cast upon officials......
-
R (Redding) v Swifte
...2 I. R. 160. (1) [1907] 2 I. R. 160. (1) [1907] 2 I. R. 160. (1) 10 App. Cas. 45, 54. (2) [1907] 2 I. R. 160. (1) [1907] 2 I. R. 160. (1) 1 B. & C. 288. (1) [1907] 2 I. R. ...
-
Creagh v Gamble
...3 B. & Ald. 330. Cook v. NethercoteENR 6 C. & P. 741. Rex v. WhalleyENR 7 C. & P. 245. Rex v. Patience Ibid. 775. Rex v. WeirENR 1 B. & C. 288. Hoye v. Bush 2 Scott's N. R. 86. Peppercorn v. HofmanENR 9 M. & W. 618-628. Abrath v. The North-Eastern Railway Co.ELR 11 App. Cas. 247. The Mersey......