The Queen against Machen and Brickdale, Esqs

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1849
Date01 January 1849
CourtCourt of the Queen's Bench

English Reports Citation: 117 E.R. 29


The Queen against Machen and Brickdale

S. C. 3 New Sess. Cas. 629; 18 L. J. M. C. 213. Discussed, R. v. Gaunt, 1867, L. R. 2 Q. B. 469; R. v. Glynne, 1871, L. R. 7 Q. B. 22; Williams v. Davies, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 76.

the queen against machen and briokdale, esqs. 1849. Under stat. 7 & 8 Viet. c. 101, s. 2, a refusal by justices to make an order for maintenance of a bastard, though on the merits, is no bar to a second application. And, if justices refuse to entertain such second application on the mere ground of the first refusal, the Court will order them by mandamus to hear. The justices, on a second bearing, may nevertheless take into consideration, with a view to forming their decision, the fact and circumstances of the former hearing. [S. C. 3 New Seas. Gas. 629 ; 18 L. J. M. C. 213. Discussed, R. v. Gaunt, 1867, L. R. 2 Q. B. 469; E. v. Glynne, 1871, L. R. 7 Q. B. 22; Williams v. Davies, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 76.] Montague Smith, in last Easter term, obtained a rule calling on Edward Machen and John Fortescue Brickdale, Esquires, justices of the peace for Gloucestershire, acting for the Petty Sessions division of Coleford in that county, and on William White, to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding the justices to hear and adjudicate upon the application made to them, at the Petty Sessions held on 27th February last, on behalf of Hannah Jones, single woman, for an order upon White, the putative father of a bastard child, for maintenance of the said child, and to enter adjournments, &c. From the affidavits in support of the rule it appeared that Hannah Jones had been delivered of a bastard on 29th November 1848; that she took out a summons against White ; which was heard, before the two justices named in the rule, on 30th January 1849 ; and they then dismissed the case, considering her evidence not sufficiently corroborated. That she afterwards discovered material evidence in corroboration, and obtained a fresh summons, which was attended by herself and White's attorney on 27th February 1849, before the [75] same justices. That White's attorney objected that the case had been already heard and dismissed; and the justices, after argument, 30 THE QUERN V. MACHEN 14 Q. B. 76. refused to hear the again. In answer, ib was sworn, by one of the justices and the clerk to the justices, that the first application had been dismissed on the merits, and that this was proved before the magistrates at the attendance on 27th February. In last Easter term (a), Keating shewed cause. The question is, whether, when an application for an order of maintenance in bastardy has been made under stat...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • R Ats. Thorpe v Molyneaux
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 31 January 1979
    ...the mother could apply again, and that dismissals did not create an estoppel per res judicata. That was the case of R v. Machen [1849] 14 Q.B. 74; 117 E.R. 29. In this case the first application of the mother for an affiliation order was dismissed by the justices in Petty Sessions on the gr......
  • First Active Plc v Cunningham
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 22 February 2018
    ...the matters in dispute, but merely got rid of the pending action, leaving the plaintiff at liberty to begin de novo'. R. v. Machen [1849] 14 Q.B. 74 and McGregor v. Telford [1915] 3 K.B. 237 are said to be to the same effect. By contrast, where a matter has been dismissed it cannot be bro......
  • H v O
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Division
    • 27 June 1991
    ...It had long been held that res judicata did not operate in affiliation proceedings even after a dismissal on the merits: see R v Machen (1849) 14 QB 74; (1849) 13 JP 535; R v Sunderland Justices, ex parte Hodgkinson [1945] 1 KB 501; (1945) 109 JP 201; and Robinson v Williams [1965] 1 QB 89;......
  • Moorview Developments Ltd and Others v First Active Plc and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 5 February 2010
    ...CLARKE 6.3.2009 2009 IEHC 214 OUTHWAITE v HUDSON 1852 7 EXCH 380 155 ER 995 POYSER v MINORS 1880-81 7 QBD 329 R v MACHEN & BRICKDALE 1849 14 QB 74 117 ER 29 CLACK v ARTHURS ENGINEERING LTD 1959 2 QB 211 1959 2 WLR 916 1959 2 AER 503 MAY, IN RE 1885 28 CH D 516 SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AC......
  • 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