The Queen against John Cridland and Others

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date06 June 1857
Date06 June 1857
CourtCourt of the Queen's Bench

English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 1463

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER

The Queen against John Cridland and Others

S. C. 27 L. J. M. C. 28; 3 Jur. N. S. 1213; 5 W. R. 679. Applied, Birnie v. Marshall, 1876, 35 L. T. 376; Penwarden v. Palmer, 1894, 10 T. L. R. 362, 363.

[853] the queen against john cridland and others. June 3d and 6th, 1857. A couvicbiou under stat. 1 & 2 W. 4, c. 32, s. 30, and stat. 11 & 12 Viet. c. 43, s. 23, against four defendants for trespass in pursuit of game, contained an order that, " if the said several sums " (being the penalty and costs of conviction before awarded to be paid by each defendant) " be not paid on or before the 10th November instant, we adjudge each of them the said " (names of the defendants) " to be imprisoned " " for the space of one month, unless the said several suras and the costs and charges of conveying each of them, the said " (names of the defendants), " so making default, to the said common gaol, shall be sooner paid." -By stat. 1 & 2 W. 4, c. 32, s. 30, it is provided " that any person charged with any such trespass shall be at liberty to prove, by way of defence, any matter which would have been a defence to an action at law for such trespass."-At the hearing before the justices, a bona h'da claim of title to the land was set;up on behalf of the defendants; but no evidence was offered of the actual existence of any dispute, or of any title in the person under whom the defendants claimed. -Held, that the conviction was bad; for that it adjudicated each defendant to be imprisoned for one month, unless the costs and charges of conveying all to gaol should be sooner paid, aud it was not in the form authorized by stat. 11 & 12 Viet. c. 43, s. 17, or to the like effect.-Semble: that the jurisdiction to convict summarily was ousted; that the general rule is that, in case of summary convictions, justices have jurisdiction to determine whether the claim to title to real property is set up bona fida; but, if it is bona fide set up, they have no jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter: that the proviso in stat. 1 & 2 W. 4, c. 32, s. 30, does not give justices jurisdiction, upon a charge of trespass in pursuit of game, to determine a claim of title to land against the wish of the defendants. [S. C. 27 L. J. M. C. 28; 3 Jur. N. S. 1213; 5 W. R. 679. Applied, Birnie v-Marshall, 1876, 35 L. T. 376; Penwarden v. Palmer, 1894, 10 T. L. K. 362, 363.] Pashley, in last Easter Term, obtained a rule calling upon the prosecutors aud the (a) .Reported by W. B. Brett Esq. 1464 THE QUEEN V. CKIDLAND 7 EL. & Si. 8M. convicting justices to shew cause why the conviction, which had been brought up by certiorari, should not be quashed, on the grounds that the conviction was bad on the face of it, for not disclosing any offence, or shewing any jurisdiction either to convict or to order any such imprisonment as is ordered by the conviction, and that the justices had refused to hear evidence that the defendants were licenced by the real owner of the land to kill game on the land in the conviction mentioned. In the affidavits filed in support of the rule it was alleged that the defendant and four others were shooting game, on the 13th of October 1856, on the Swinfen estates, by invitation of Thomas Bacon: that the defendant, on the llth of November, was served with a summons, for that he, in company with four others, within three months then last [854] past, did unlawfully commit a trespass, by entering and being in the day time upon laud in the possession of Patience Swinfen in search of game, without the licence or consent of the owner &c.: that the defendant attended the summons on the 5th of November before two justices: that the attorney of the defendant at the hearing proposed to the justices to put in evidence an authority in writing from Frederick Hay Swinfen to the said Thomas Bacou, whereby the said F. H. Swinfen authorized the said Thomas Bacon, or any of his friends, to shoot over his (F. H. Swinfen's) estate of Swiufen, and to prove that the land was not in the possession of Patience Swinfen, and that the defendants were not guilty of trespass; but that the justices refused to receive the evidence, and said that they should decide the case without any reference to the title; that they sat there to adjust the penalties ; and that they could not hear any objection as to questions of title : and that the justices convicted the defendant Cridland and three others, the charge against a fifth defendant being abandoned. The affidavits then set out the conviction as follows : " County of Stafford to wit. Be it remembered that, on the 3d day of November, A.D. L856, at the Gruild-hall, in the city of Litchfield, John Cridland, John Bannister, William Whilton and Jonathan Sanders are convicted before the undersigned, two of the justices" &c., "for that they, the said" J. C. &o., "on the 13th day of October last, at the parish" &c., "did unlawfully commit a certain trespass by entering and being, in the day time of the same day, upon a certain piece of land, called Swinfen Wood, in the possession and occupatiou of Patience Swinfen, there in search and pursuit of game, there without the licence or consent of the owner of the land so trespassed upon, or of any person having the [855] right of killing the game upon such land, or of any other person having any right to authorize the said John Cridland," &c. " to enter or be upon the said land for the purpose aforesaid, contrary to the statute" &e.: "And we adjudge each of them, the said John Cridlaud, John Bannister, William Whilton and Jonathan Sanders, for their said offence, to forfeit and pay the sum of 21. each, to be paid and applied according to law, and also to pay the prosecutor, namely Robert Lester" &o., " the sum of four shillings and one penny halfpenny, each, for his costs in this behalf; and, if the said several sums be not paid on or before the 10th day of November instant, we adjudge each of them, the said J. C., J. B., W. W. and J. S., so making default, to be imprisoned in the common gaol of Stafford " &c. " for the space of one month, unless the said several sums and the costs and charges of conveying each of them, the said J. C.," &C., so making default, to the said common gaol, shall be sooner paid. Given under our hands " &c. The affidavits further alleged that, upon a similar summons against another person, named Meanley, as being a party to the same alleged trespass of the 13th of October, and which was heard before the same justices on the 12th of November, the attorney for the defendant produced an office copy of a rule of Court in an action of Patience Swinfen v. Frederick Hay Swinfen, by which, after reciting that a cause was pending, it was ordered, by the consent of the parties, that the jury should be discharged, upon the terms, among others, chat the Swinfen estates should be conveyed by the plaintiff to the defendant as from the 29th of September 1855, and a writing, proved to be by Frederick Hay Swinfen, in the following terms: " September 29th, 1856. I authorize Mr. Bacon, or any of his friends, to shoot [8561 over my estate at Swinfen until I make further arrangements relative to the shooting ;" and that the defendant has been invited by Bacon to shoot by virtue of the said authority ; whereupon the justices dismissed the information, on the ground that, as the title to the Swinfen estate was bona fide in dispute, they hail no jurisdiction. The affidavits then stated that the above order had been made by the consent of counsel at the trial of the cause, but that Patience Swinfen afterwards and still contested its validity ; and 7 BL. ft BL. 8B7. THE QUEEN V. CRTDLAND 1465 that the declarants believed that Frederick Hay Swinfen was legally entitled to the Swinfeu estates, and that the prosecution in question was really instituted by Patience Swinfen. The affidavits in answer stated that, on the hearing of the summons on the 5th of November, the attorney for the defendants applied for au adjournment in order to enable him to communicate with the London...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Putland v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 12 Febrero 2004
    ...74(1), Sched 5. 39 By s 11. 40Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st ed, vol 9, ‘Criminal Law and Procedure’ at 329. 41 11 & 12 Vict c 43. 42 See R v Cridland (1857) 7 E & B 853 at 870 [ 119 ER 1463 at 43 This states: ‘Every information shall be for one offence only, and not for two or more offen......
  • R (Moore) v O'Hanrahan
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court (Irish Free State)
    • 28 Febrero 1927
    ...of the legal effect of the Landed Estates Court conveyance, entitled to find that a question of title was involved. Reg. v, CridlandENR, 7 E. & B. 853; Reg. v. StimpsonENR. 4 B. & S. 301; Cornwall v. SandersENR, 3 B. & S. 206; and Hudson v. M'Rae, 33 L. J. (M.C.) 65, applied. In re Tottenha......
  • Pease and Others against Henry Chaytor, Esquire, and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • 21 Febrero 1863
    ...in determining that [632} the rate was not bona 238 PEASE I'. CHAVTOR 3 B. * S. 633. fide disputed, was not raised. In Eeg. v. Cridland (7 E. & B. 853), where parties had been convicted of a trespass in pursuit of game, under stat. 1 & 2 W. 4, c. 32, s. 30, notwithstanding they set up a cla......
  • Radley en 'n Ander v Stopforth en 'n Ander
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...om sekere euwels te bekamp moet ons aanvaar dat daardie euwels bestaan (sien bv. Hleka v. Johannesburg City Council, 1949 (1) SA 842 (AA) op bl. 853). Ek stem saam met wat STEYN, R., in Ex parte Nel gesê 'In coming to this conclusion I have not overlooked the G tendency by our Courts to uph......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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