The King against Wright
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 1834 |
| Date | 08 May 1834 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 1273
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. (ERROR FROM THE KING'S BENCH.)
START [434] cases argued and determined in the court of king's bench, and upon writs of error from that court to the exchequer chamber, in trinity term, in the fourth year of the reign of william IV. (a). in the exchequer chamber. (error from the king's bench.) the king against wright (6). Saturday, May 10th, 1834. The statute 11 G. 4, & 1 W. 4, c. 70, s. 8, for the return before ten Judges in the Exchequer Chamber (a) Patteson J. sat in the Bail Court during this term. (6) This and the following case were decided in vacation. 1274 THE KING V. WRIGHT 1AD.&E. 435. of writs of error upon judgments given in the King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, extends to a judgment given against a defendant on an indictment in the King's Bench. An indictment charged that defendant, at the township of W., on a highway there, leading from a highway, leading from the village of W. towards C.-, to another highway, leading from the village of W. towards L., by a wall there, extending into the said highway, by him erected, had encroached, &c.: Held, that the indictment was not uncertain, and that " there " and " said " could be referred only to the highway first mentioned. [S. C. 3 N. & M. 892; 3 L. J. Ex. 370.] The defendant was indicted at the Lancashire Sessions, April 1831. The first count stated, that Eobert Wright, of the township of Wavertree in the county of [435] Lancaster, on, &c. with force and arms, at the township of Wavertree aforesaid in the county aforesaid, in and upon a common highway there leading from a certain public road or common highway in the said township and county leading from the village of Wavertree towards the parish church of Childwall, towards and unto a certain other public road or common highway in the said township and county, leading from the said village of Wavertree towards and unto the township of Little Woolton in the said county, by a certain wall there, containing in length 330 yards, and extending into the said highway, at the north end thereof, seven yards, and at the south end thereof five yards, by him the said Robert Wright erected and built, hath unlawfully and unjustly encroached and yet doth encroach ; and the said wall, so as aforesaid erected and built by him the said Robert Wright, from the said first day, &c. unto the day of exhibiting this information, at the township of Wavertree aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, with force, &e. unlawfully hath continued and doth continue, by reason whereof the common highway aforesaid hath become and is greatly straitened, so that the liege subjects of our lord the King, upon and through the same common highway aforesaid, with their horses, carts, and carriages, cannot go, pass, &c. to the great and common nuisance, &e. There were two other counts. The indictment was removed by certiorari into the Court of King's Bench; and the cause was tried at the Lancaster Summer Assizes 1831, when the defendant was found guilty on the first count, and not guilty on the second and third counts. Judgment was entered up, in the Court of King's Bench, against the defendant, in Michaelmas term 1832; upon which [436] judgment the defendant brought error in the Exchequer Chamber. The case was called on in Hilary term last; when Tindal C.J. expressed a doubt whether the Statute, entitled " An Act for the More Effectual Administration of Justice in England and Wales," 11 G. 4, & 1 W. 4, c. 70, s. 8 (a), by which the present jurisdiction of the Exchequer Chamber in error was created, applied to judgments upon indictments ; and it was directed that the argument should be deferred, in order that counsel might be prepared to discuss this question, as well as the validity of the judgment itself. The case was afterwards argued, on the 22d of April, before Tindal C.J., Lord Lyndhurst C.B., Parke, Gaselee, and Alderson, Js., and Vaughan, Bolland, and Williams, Bs. Crompton for the plaintiff in error. As to the question of jurisdiction. First, the rule which has sometimes been laid down, that the King is not bound by an Act of Parliament in which he is not named, applies only where the property or peculiar (a) Which enacts, "That writs of error upon any judgment given by any of the said Courts [King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer,] shall hereafter be made returnable only before the Judges, or Judges and Barons, as the case may be, of the other two Courts in the Exchequer Chamber, any law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding; that a transcript of the record only shall be annexed to the return of the writ; and the Court of Error, after errors are duly assigned and issue in error joined, shall, at such time as the Judges shall appoint, either in term or vacation, review the proceedings, and give judgment as they shall be advised thereon; and such proceedings and judgment, as altered or affirmed, shall be entered on the original record, and such further proceeding as may be necessary thereon shall be awarded by the Court in which the original record remains, from which judgment in error no writ of error shall lie or be had, except the same be made returnable in the High Court of Parliament." 1AD.&E. 437. THE KING V. WEIGHT 1275 privileges [437] of the Crown is affected. In Com. Dig Parliament, E, 8, it is said, " Generally, the King shall not be restrained of a liberty or a right which he had before, by the general words of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaques v Caesar
...in the High Court of Parliament."-This statute extends to a judgment given against a defendant on an indictment in the Queen's Bench; 1 A. & E. 434, Rex v. Wright. 3 N. & M. 892, S. C.; and also to a judgment given in that Court upon error from the Common Pleas at Lancaster; for the statute......
-
The Queen against Clayton
...may be held to include the Crown, though not named, on the grounds, relied upon by [370] the Court of Exchequer Chamber in Rex v. Wright (1 A. & E. 434) (where error was held to be maintainable under the statute on an indictment in B. R.), that the enactment is for the advancement of justic......
-
South African Railways and Harbours v Smith's Coasters (Prop) Ltd
...by the Statutes of Westm. 2, de Donis Conditionalibus, although not named as it was an Act to suppress wrongs. In the King v Wright (1 A and E. 434; 110 E.R. 1273), it was laid down that the Statute II G. IV and I W. 4, C. 70, sec. 8, "an Act for the more effectual administration of justice......
-
Nesbit against Rishton
...and these are large enough to comprehend the case now before the Court. The effect of the section was discussed in Rex v. Wright (1 A. & E. 434). The question there was whether, the Crown not being named in the statute, this Court had cognisance, in error, of indictments; and it was held th......
-
Democracy, Liberty and the Prerogative: The Displacement of Inherent Executive Power by Statute
...ed, 1900) 57–8. 61 Théberge v Laud ry (1876) 2 App Cas 102, 106–7; Gould v Stuart [1896] AC 575, 578; R v Wright (1834) 1 A&E 436, 446–7; 110 ER 1273, 1278; Jamieson v Downie [1923] 1 AC 691, 694. 62 Bropho v Western Australia (1990) 171 CLR 1. 63 H Street, 'The Effect of Statutes upon the ......