The Queen against The Manchester and Leeds Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 May 1838 |
| Date | 31 May 1838 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 895
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 3 N. & P. 439; 1 W. W. & H. 458; 8 L. J. Q. B. 66; 2 Jur. 857.
8.AD. tc E. 413. THE QUEEN V. MANCBESTER AND LEEDS ELY. CO. 895 [413] the queen against the manchester and leeds eailway company. Thursday, May 31st, 1838. A certiorari will not be granted to bring up the inquisition of a compensation jury, unless defects in the inquisition be positively sworn to. Thus, where a statute (6 & 7 W. 4, c. cxi.) directed that a railway company should not take lands, unless set out in a schedule to the Act, or certified by justices to have been omitted by mistake, it was held not sufficient to shew that lands which were the subject of the inquisition were not in the schedule, without negativing the fact of the certificate. Nor to assert generally, in addition to such statement, that the Act did not authorise taking the lands. Nor to allege further that certain objections were made in a protest delivered before the taking of the inquisition, which were now in general terms sworn to be true. If the objection be to the form of the inquisition, a copy should be set out, or it should be sworn that the deponent could not procure a copy; and he should in the latter ease swear positively on information and belief. It is not enough to swear that he "objects" that the inquisition does not contain certain requisites pointed out. The granting a certiorari is matter of discretion, though there are fatal defects on the face of the proceedings which it is sought to bring up. It is an almost invariable rule that, where a party applying for a certiorari fails from incompleteness in his affidavits, he will not have a certiorari granted to him upon fresh affidavits supplying the defect; as in the case of the defects above mentioned. Especially if he appears to have suffered no injury; or to have assented to the proceeding below. Semble, per Lord Denman C.J., that the rule requiring that, in proceedings by an inferior jurisdiction, the facts giving the jurisdiction should appear on the face of such proceedings, is not confined to facts necessarily within the knowledge of the party exercising the jurisdiction. [S. C. 3 N. & P. 439 IW.W.&H. 458; 8 L. J. Q. B. 66; 2 Jur. 857.] Sir F. Pollock obtained a rule, in Easter term last, calling upon the Manchester and Leeds Railway Company to shew cause why a certiorari should not issue to remove an inquisition taken for the purpose of inquiring, assessing, and giving a verdict for the money to be paid to Henry Taylor and others for the purchase of certain lands, &c., taken by the company under stat. 6 & 7 W. 4, c. cxi. (local and personal, public (" An Act for making a Railway from Manchester to Leeds.")) and all proceedings had thereon. The Act empowered the company to make a railway, &c., over the lands delineated on the plans, and described in books of reference, deposited, &c. (sect. 3); and over lands delineated on the maps and plans, " although such lauds or any of them, or the situation thereof respectively, or the name of the owners or of the oceu-[414]-piers thereof respectively, may happen to be omitted, mis-stated, or erroneously described in this Act or in the schedule thereto, or in the said books of reference, if it shall appear to any two or more justices of the peace" of Lancashire, the West Riding of Yorkshire, or the borough of Leeds, (in case of dispute), " and be certified by writing under their hands, that such omission, mis-statement, or erroneous description proceeded from mistake " (sect. 5); and that they should not take, &o., any house or other building erected on or before 30th November 1835, or any garden, orchard, &c., other than and except such as were specified in the schedule to the Act, without the consent in writing of the owners and occupiers, unless the omission in the schedule should have proceeded from mistake and should be so certified as before provided (sect. 7). Owners and occupiers might agree to receive satisfaction and recompense for their lands; and, if they should not agree with the company, the amount was to be settled by a jury (sect. 137). Sect. 138 enacted that, if any person, &c., interested or entitled should not agree with the company as to the amount of purchase-money or compensation or should refuse the purchase-money, &c. offered by them, arid should give notice as in that section was specified, and request that the dispute should be determined by a jury ; or should, for twenty-one days after notice given to such person, &c., neglect or refuse to treat; and in other cases (some of which were specified) where agreement for compensation could not be made; the company should issue a warrant to the sheriff, &c., to summon a jury, who should inquire of, and assess and give a verdict for, the sum. to be paid for purchase or compensation, "and the said 896 THE QUEEN V. MANCHESTER AND LEEDS ELY. CO. 8 AD. & B. 416. sheriff," &c., [415] " shall accordingly give judgment for such purchase-money, satisfaction, recompence, or compensation as shall be assessed by such jury; which said verdict and the judgment thereon to be pronounced as aforesaid shall be binding and conclusire to all intents and purposes upon all persons and corporations whatsoever :" provided that seven days' notice of the time and place at which the jury were to be returned should be given by the company to the party. Sect. 140 enacted, " That the said verdicts and judgments, being first signed by the said sheriff,"&e., "presiding at the taking of such verdict and pronouncing such judgment respectively, shall be kept by the clerk of the peace for the county or riding in which the matter in dispute shall have arisen among the records of the Quarter Sessions of such county or riding, and shall be deemed records to all intents and purposes; and the same or true copies thereof shall be allowed to be good evidence in all Courts whatsoever ; and all persons shall have liberty to inspect the same, paying for such inspection," &c. The affidavits in support of the rule stated that the company claimed to take part of Taylor's land, and issued their warrant to the sheriff; that a jury was summoned to assess the value, and that the company gave notice accordingly to Taylor; that he served them, and the sheriff, with a notice or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baldwin & Francis Ltd v Patents Appeal Tribunal
...This was distinctly stated by the Court of King's Bench in 1793 in The King v. Bass 5 T.R. 251, and again in 1838 in The Queen v. Manchester & Leeds Railway Company, 8 Ad. & El. 413, 428. Since that time a subsidiary rule has been laid down to the effect that where the applicant is a party......
-
Baldwin & Francis Ltd v Patents Appeal Tribunal
...This was distinctly stated by the Court of King's Bench in 1793 in The King v. Bass 5 T.R. 251, and again in 1838 in The Queen v. Manchester & Leeds Railway Company, 8 Ad. & El. 413, 428. Since that time a subsidiary rule has been laid down to the effect that where the applicant is a party......
-
Taylor against Clemson and Vaughan
...was suggested when the present inquisition was before the Court of Queen's Bench in Regina v. The Manchester and Leeds Railway Company (8 A. & E. 413, 422, 423). But at any rate the inquisition ought to shew what ground of jurisdiction the inferior tribunal assumes to exist. [Lord Abinger C......
-
Leggo v Young and Another
...amend the order, (a) See Russell v. Hartley, 7 Ad. & E. 522, n., 5 N. & M. 415 - The Queen v. The Manchester and Leeds Railway Company, 8 Ad. ,& E. 413, 1 P. & D. 164; The King v. Orde, 8 Ad. & E. 420; Sherry v. Oke,, 3 Dowl. P. C. 349 ; The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Barton, 9 Dowl. P. C.......