The King v Eccles
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1783 |
| Date | 01 January 1783 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 168 E.R. 240
THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C 3 Doug K B 337; 13 East, 230 n. Applied, R v. Gill, 1815, 2 B & Ald 204 Referred to, R v. Turner, 1811, 13 East, 228. R. v. kennch, 1843, 5 Q B 49, O'Connell v R. 1844, 11 Cl & Fin. 155: Mogul S S Co v. M'Gregor Gow, 1885, 15 Q B. D 476, 1889, 23 Q B D 598, 23 Q B D 598; Quinn v Leatham, [1901] A C 495, Ware & De Frreoitle, Ltd. V. Motor Trade Association, [1921] 3 K B 50
246 THE KING V. ECOLBS 1 I^ACH 255. case CXXXVI. the king v eccles (An indictment for a conspiracy to impoverish i man by pre\entmg him from working at his trade, need not state the overt acts used to effect the intended tnisehief ) [S. C 3 Doug K B 337; 13 East, 230 n. Applied, fl v. Gill, 1818, 2 B & Aid 204 Referred to, R v. Turner, 1811, 13 East, 228 , ft. v. Kennel, 1843, 5 Q B 49 , WConneUv R, 1844, 11 d & Kin. 155 ; Mogul S8 Co v. M'Grego? Gow, 1885, 15 Q B,D 476, 1889, 23 Q B D 598; Qmnn v Leatham, [1901] A C 495, Ware & De FrewUe, Ltd. v. Motor Trade Association, [1921] 3 K B 50 ] The defendant and six other persons were convicted at the Summer Assizes for Lancaster in the year 1783, on an indictment, containing two counts, for conspiring to impoverish one H. Booth a taylor, and to prevent him, by indirect means, from carrying on his trade. The indictment had been found at the Quarter Session for the town of Lancaster, and removed by ce-rtiorari into the King's Bench The Fust Count stated, " that the defendant together with divers other persons to the Jurors unknown, being persons oi ill name and fame, and of dishonest conversation, and wickedly devising and intending unjustly, unlawfully an$ by indirect means to impoverish one H Booth, and to deprive and hinder him from using and exercising the trade and business of a taylor, which he used and ex-[275]-ercised, on the 28th day of November in the 23d year, &c at Liverpool, within the jurisdiction of tie Court of Quarter Sessions there, fraudulently, maliciously and unlawfully did confederate, conspire, combine, and agree among themselves, by wfiongful, and indirect means to impoverish the said H Booth, and to deprive and hinder him from following and exercising his aforesaid business of a taylor in Liverpool aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction aforesaid , and that the said defendants, together with the said other persons to tie Jurors unknown, in pursuance of and according to tLe unlawful conspiracy, combination, and agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company v Veitch
...concerned, it was at one time held criminal to agree not to sell under fixed prices or not to work under certain prices (see R. v. Eccles, 1 Leach 274), but the doctrine is not one to which, apart from statutory prohibition, any court to-day is likely to subscribe. 112 There may, however, b......
-
Robbins against Fennell, Child and Kelly
...on the warrant of attorney, to be indorsed, for the principal money secured and interest, 1571. 5s., besides, &c. as usual. The (e)1 1 Leach, C. C. 274, 4th ed.; S. C. note (d) to Rex v. Turner, 13 East, 230. (a)2 Reported by H. Davison, Esq. 11Q. B. 249. ROBBINS V. FENNKLL 469 letter added......
-
R v Edmonds and Others
...4 C.P.D. 125. (5) 8 B. and Ald. 503. (c) See R. v. Kinneraley, 1 Stra. 198 ; R. v. Watson, 2 Stark. 132; 32 St. Tr. 87 ; Eccless case, 1 Leach, C.C. 274 ; Reg. v. Daffy, 4 Cox, C.C. 294; Reg. v. Aspinall, 2 Q.B.D. 48. such a proceeding as this, I beg to object to it. Denman : I do not quite......
-
The Queen against Thomas Henrick The Elder and Thomas Kenrick the Younger
...Eegina v. Wickham, 10 A. & E. 34. (a)2 Note (d) to Bex v. Turner, 13 East, 230. S. C. note (a) to Winsmore v. Green-bank, Willes, 583; 1 Leach, C. L. 274 (4th ed.), more fully. See 13 East, 231. (e)3 The following is from Mr. Robinson's note. " Sittings in Middlesex, after Michaelmas, 3 Vie......