Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

The King against Woodcock

Nominate Series English Reports Cited authorities 2 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date29 January 1926
Date29 January 1926
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 56

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

The King against Woodcock

56 THE KING V. WOODCOCK 7 EAST, 146. [146] the king against wooi cock. Wednesday, Jan. 29th, 1806. Where a penalty is to be sued for before justices of peace within a certain time after the offence committed, upon a conviction for such offence returned by certiorari into B. E. it ought to appear on the face of the evidence stated in such conviction that the prosecution was in time; and if the witness be only stated to have mentioned the month in which the offence was committed, omitting the year, and there be no word of reference to connect it with the true date, the omission cannot be supplied either by reference to the offence charged in the information or by presumption arising from the justices having convicted the defendant. A conviction on the Malt Act, 42 Geo. 3, c. 38, s. 30, stated that on the 29th of May 1805 an information was exhibited before A. B. and C., three justices of the peace in and for the county of Suffolk, by E. P., officer of Excise, who informed the said justices that the defendant was a maltster at H. in the said county, " And so being there such maltster, he, the defendant, within three months now last past, viz. on 22d of May now last past, at H. aforesaid, did wet certain corn of him the defendant then and there making into malt, in a certain stage of operation, (and so set out an offence within that Act) (a), contrary to the form of the statute ; for which the defendant hath forfeited 2001." &c. The conviction then set out the summons to the defendant to appear, the evidence, and other proceedings, and concluded with the adjudication of conviction. But in setting out the evidence of the offence it was only stated that the witness deposed " that the defendant at the time of the committing the offence mentioned in the said information was a maltster at H. &c. That the witness on the 22d of May (not stating in what year) went to the defendant's malt-house at H. aforesaid, where he found a floor of malt then in operation," &e. (and so proceeded to state the fact of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT