The King v Patrick and Pepper
| 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. 229
THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C 2 East, P C. 1059
case CXXVII the kinu r patrick and pepper. (A corporation must prosecute in their corporate name : and the addition of such name as a description of the persons of which the corporation is composed, is not sufficient in an indictment) [S. C 2 East, P C. 1059 ] At the Old Bailey m February Session 1783, Aaron Patrick and John Pepper were mdicted: before Mr Justice Bulter, present Mr. Baron Perryn, on the statute of 6 Geo III. c. 48t for cutting down in the night-lame trees growing in Enfield Chase The first count in the indictment laid the property as " belonging to Joseph Brown, George Ceok, and Wdliam Sedcole, then being the churchwardens of Enfield aforesaid, &c. they the said Joseph Brown, Gteorge Cook, and William Sedcole, then being the owmers of the said trees," &c The second count laid the property to belong to the same persons by name, " they the said Joseph Brown, George Cook, and William Sedcole, then being the churchwardens of the parish church of Enfield, in the county f Middlesex." By the statmte 17 Geo. Ill c 17, for dividing Enfield Chase, a certain allotment of the land is vested in the churchwardens of Enfield for the time being, and their successors for ever, in trust for the owners and proprietors of freehold and copyhold messuages, lands, and tenements^ within the parish, who were intitled to a right of (6) At the Old Bailey in October Session 1664, a prisoner was indicted for stealing a quantity of silk, the property of his master, who was a Silk-Throwster It appeared in evidence that the Silk-Throwster had men come to work in his own house , that the prisoner was one of them , that he delivered silk to him to work, and that he stole part of the silk so delivered to him , and Hyde, Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Kelynge and Mr. Justice Wilde, agreed that this was felony, notwithstanding the delivery of the silk to the party , for it was delivered to him only to work, and so the entire property remained then only in the owner ; like the case of a Butler who has plate delivered to hinij or a Shepherd who has sheep delivered, and they steal any of them, that is felony at common law Kely. Rep. 35, And so says the same author, page 82 If one deliver goods to a porter in London to carry to a certain place, and he taketh them and carrieth them away to another place, and there openeth and disposeth of them, it is felony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Darcy v Burke
...Pleas. DARCY and BURKE. Case of Suttonƒ€™s HospitalUNK 10 Rep. 29, b. The King v. Patrick and PepperENR 1 Leach, C. C. 253. Eton College caseENR 2 Dyer, 150, a, pl. 85. The Queen v. The Registrar of Joint Stock Companies 10 Ad. & El. N. S. 839. May v. Hodges 5 Ir. Law Rep. 584. Fletche......
-
The Guardians of The Poor of The Carrick-on-Shannon Union v The Guarantee Society
...SOCIETY. The Guardians of Waterford Union v. Walsh 1 Ir. Law Rep. 373. Dance v. Girdler 1 Bos. & P., N. R., 34. Rex v. PatrickENR 1 Leach, C. C., 253. Ayrey's caseUNK 11 Rep. 20, b. Pitts v. JamesENR Hob. 124. Marriott and Pascal's caseENR 1 Leon. 161. Sydney College v. Davenport 1 Wils. 85......
-
In the Irish Courts
...to bethepropertyofthecorporation, intheircorporate name,andnotinthenames oftheindividuals whocomprise it : R. v. Patrick (3 East P.C.,1°59;1Leach, 253) ;andacorporation created'withinlivingmemory'mustpleadandbe impleaded bythename by which it was incor-porated.Onsuchan indictment, it is cle......