The Queen against Dayman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 1857 |
| Date | 08 May 1857 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 1395
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 26 L. J. M. C. 128; 3 Jur. N. S. 744; 5 W. R. 578. Applied, Ex parte Vaughan, 1866, L. R. 2 Q. B. 117. Referred to, Buccleuch v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 1870-72, L. R. 5 Ex. 232; L. R. 5 H. L. 418. Applied, Maude v. Baildon Local Board, 1883, 10 Q. B. D. 397; R. v. Sheil, 1884, 50 L. T. 590. Referred to, Portsmouth Corporation v. Smith, 1883-85, 13 Q. B. D. 196, 10 App. Cas. 364.
the queen against dayman. Friday, May 8th, 1857. A Metropolitan Police Magistrate, on a summons for an order, under the Metropolis Local Management Act (18 & 19 Viet. c. 120, ss. 105, 226), upon the proprietor of houses in D., alleged to be a " new street" within the Metropolis, for his share of the expences of paving it, after hearing the parties and their evidence, dismissed the summons on the ground that D. was not a " new street " within the meaning of the enactment, because it was an old highway. A rule, under stat. 11 & 12 Viet. c. 44, s. 5, calling on him to hear and adjudicate on the complaint^ was obtained, with a view of obtaining the decision of this Court, that D. might be a " new street" within stat. 18 & 19 Viet. c. 120, s. 105, though it was an old highway.-Held, by Lord Campbell C.J., Wightman and Crompton Js., that this Court could not inquire whether the magistrate came to a right conclusion or not, but only whether he had adjudicated ; and, they being of opinion that he had done so, the rule was discharged without any expression of opinion as to whether he was right or wrong in his construction of the Act.-Erie J. dissentiente, and holding that, as the magistrate could not safely proceed unless D. was a new street, his decision, that it was not, was such as to give this Court jurisdiction under stat. 11 & 12 Viet. c. 44, s. 5, to determine whether he was right or wrong in that decision. [S. C. 26 L. J. M. C. 128 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 744 ; 5 W. R. 578. Applied, Ex parts Vaughan, 1866, L. E. 2 Q. B. 117. Referred to, Bucdeuch v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 1870-72, L. R. 5 Ex. 232; L. R. 5 H. L. 418. Applied, Maude v. Baildon Local Board, 1883, 10 Q. B. D. 397; E. v. SMI, 1884, 50 L. T. 590. Referred to, Portsmouth Corporation v. Smith, 1883-85, 13 Q. B. D. 196, 10 App. Gas. 364.] Prentice, in last Term, obtained a rule Nisi calling on Mr. Dayman, one of the Metropolitan Police Magistrates, " to hear and adjudicate" on a [673] complaint against William Carpmael: that he, being the owner of eight houses in a street called Dawson Place in Kensington, neglected to pay to the Kensington vestry his share of the expences of paving that street. From the affidavits on both sides, it appeared that a summons was taken out of the Hammersmith Police Court, addressed to Mr. Carpmael, reciting a complaint made before Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Greenaway) v Justices of Armagh
...(4) 14 L. R. I. 443. (5) [1894] 1 I. R. 81. (6) 27 I. L. T. R. 35. (7) [1898] 2 I. R. 248. (1) 4 N. I. J. 22. (2) 44 I. L. T. R. 231. (3) 7 E. & B. 672. (4) [1923] 1 K. B. 415. (5) [1908] 1 K. B. 365. (6) [1908] 2 I. R. 285. (7) 14 L. R. Ir. 443. (8) [1894] 2 I. R. 81. (9) 27 I. L. T. R. 35......
-
The King (Darcy) v The Justices of County Carlow
...the question of fact that the field was not an orchard, there was no jurisdiction to review his determination. The Queen v. Dayman, 7 E. & B. 672, applied and followed. To justify the making of an order to enter land under a. 162 of the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836, the applicant must sat......
-
Van Aswegen v Fourie
...nie. Ofskoon die duidelikste en bevredigendste bewys (Netherlands Bank of South Africa v Stern, N. O. and Another, 1955 (1) SA 667 (W) op bl. 672) of duidelike en oortuigende bewys (Meyer se saak, supra op bl. 253, en vergelyk Bardopoulos & Macrides v Miltiadous, 1947 (4) SA 860 (W) op bl. ......
-
Van Aswegen v Fourie
...nie. Ofskoon die duidelikste en bevredigendste bewys (Netherlands Bank of South Africa v Stern, N. O. and Another, 1955 (1) SA 667 (W) op bl. 672) of duidelike en oortuigende bewys (Meyer se saak, supra op bl. 253, en vergelyk Bardopoulos & Macrides v Miltiadous, 1947 (4) SA 860 (W) op bl. ......