The Queen against Sewell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 1845 |
| Date | 05 December 1845 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 115 E.R. 836
QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 15 L. J. Q. B. 49; 10 Jur. 48.
[161] the queen against sewell (a)1. Friday, December 5th, 1845. Proceedings of magistrates for restitution of premises under sect. 16 of stat. 11 G. 2, c, 19, are, by sect. 17, to be revised (in England) by the Judges, on Circuit, &c., acting as individual justices. Held, therefore, that the allegation in an indictment, that an order was made by A. and B. the Justices of Assize for Surrey was not supported by a certificate of such an order signed by the deputy clerk of assize in the same way as an order.of Court. Semble, that it is not necessary, on such indictment, to prove the proceedings before the magistrates, preliminary to the restitution; and that it is sufficient to put in the record made up by them, in which, after reciting the complaint and other proceedings, they declare that they put the complainant into possession. Semble, that orders under s. 17 of stat. 11 G. 2, c. 19, should be signed by the Judges who make them. [S. C. 15 L. J. Q. B. 49 ; 10 Jur. 48.] Indictment for disobedience to an order of restitution under stat. 11 G. 2, c. 19, gs. 16, 17. The first count was in substance as follows. That William Sewell appeared before James Traill, Esq., and Henry Westoii, Esq., two of the justices of the county of Surrey, and complained upon his oath that he did demise at rack-rent unto Henry Wilson, of, &c., a messuage, &c., called, &c., situate in the parish of St. Saviour's, in the county of Surrey; and that on the 29th of September, &c., there was in arrear, &c. (averments that half a year's rent was in arrear, the premises deserted, and no sufficient distress to be had). That the said W. Sewell did then request the said justices to go and view the said messuage, &c., and to proceed therein according to the form of the statute in that case, &c. That the said justices did thereupon afterwards, in pursuance of the said request, and in consequence of the said complaint, go, &c. (averment of proceedings by the justices according to s. 16 of the statute, on a first and second view, and that, upon the said view, Wilson did not nor did any person on his behalf appear and pay, &c., and there was not sufficient distress to be had upon the premises, &o.); and thereupon the said justices put the said W. Sewell into possession of the said premises according to the form of the statute in such case, &c. ; and that the said W. Sewell had thenceforth kept possession thereof. That afterwards, to wit on, &c., the justices caused the proceedings [162] to be recorded : (here the record was set out, stating the complaint on oath, its subject matter, view by the magistrates, notice affixed on the premises, &c., second view, default by tenant, &c., and possession given to the complainant, October 18th, 1839). That neither of the said justices had any interest in the premises. That afterwards, to wit, &c., at the assizes (a)2 held at Kingston upon Thames in and (d) See Doe dem. Neale v. Samples, 8 A. & E. 151; Croughton v. Blake, 12 M. & W. 205; Regina v. Kenilworth, 1 Q. B. 642. (a)1 See Begina v. Train, 12 A. & E. 761. (a)1 Stat. 11 G. 2, c. 19, s. 17, provides: "That such proceedings of the said justices shall be exarainable in a summary way by the next Justice or Justices of Assize of the respective counties, in which such lands or premises lie ; and if they lie SQ.B.183. THE QUEEN V. SEWELL 837 for the said county of Surrey...
To continue reading
Request your trial