The Queen against the Inhabitants of Ripon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 1845 |
| Date | 03 May 1845 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 115 E.R. 472
QUEEN'S BENCH
472 THE QUEEN V. RIPON 7 Q. B. 228. [22B] the queen against the inhabitants of eipon. Saturday, May 3d, 1845. A statement of grounds of appeal against an order of removal, alleging a settlement acquired by paying parochial rates for a tenement consisting of houses since the passing of stat. 6 G. 4, c. 57, must aver that the tenement was "separate and distinct." On appeal against an order of justices, removing William Leaf from the township of Hunslet in the borough of Leeds to the township of Eipon in Yorkshire, the of Quean's Bench by motion or writ of error. The writ of error was accordingly brought, as stated in the text. The cases cited in the House of Lords will be found in the report of The Wharton Peerage, 12 Clark & Fin. 295; from which, and from the [221] printed papers used before the committee, this statement is taken. Among the authoritie8 collected in the above mentioned papers, and not cited before the committee, were the following. To shew that the heir might bring a writ of error to reverse outlawry at this distance of time; Breaker's case, Godb. 376, and Ninian Menvile's case, 3 Inst. 215. And to shew that the granting of a writ of error for this purpose in cases of treason and felony is not merely of grace and at the King's pleasure (as would appear from Cruise on Dignities, 166 (ed. 2), c. 4, s. 91, 1 Gude's Crown Pract. 263, Regina v. Paty, 2 Salk. 503, 4, and the judgment of Lord Mansfield in Bex v. Wilkes, 4 Burr. 2527, 2551), but that the writ was grantable in such cases ex debito justitise; 3 Inst. 31, Sir T. Armstrong's case, Comb. 298, S. C. 4 Mod. 366, 10 How. St. T. 106, 119, and the following MS. note of Mr. Hargrave in the margin of a copy of Burrow now in the British Museum, at p. 2550, where the opinion of ten Judges in Paty's case is cited : "This is the account of Salkeld in bis report (2 Salk. 504), but the House of Lords resolved, after bearing the Judges in The Aylesbwry case, that a writ of error is not a writ of grace, but of right, without distinguishing treason and felony from misdemeanors." The note then cites the words of the resolution from 17 Lords'Journals, 678, 27 February, 3 Ann. 1704-1705. (See also the resolution agreed toby the House of Commons, 19th November 1689, in Sir Thomas Armstrong's case, 10 How. St. Tr. 117 ; sad the notes there.) The material parts of the record of judgment of outlawry in the present case were as follows. Trinitatis secundo Georgii secundi Regis Rex. De termino Sanctas Trinitatis. "Middlesex scilicet pro judicio istius termini.-Memorandum quod die Martis proximo post quindenam Sanctse Trinitatis, anno regni Domini nostri Georgii secundi, none regis Magnaa Britannise, &c., secundo, coram dicto Domino rege apud West-monasterium, per sacramentum Thomas Cross, baronetti," &c. (naming the grand jurors), proborum et legalium hominum comitatus prsedicti, adtutic et ibidem impanel-latorum, juratorum et oneratorum ad inquirendum pro dicto Domino Rege pro corpore comitatus prffldicti, prsesentatum existit quod primo die Maii, anno," &c. (13 G. 1), "etdiu antea et postea, Philippus Rex Hispanice belltira gerebat contra illustrissimum et excellentissimum principem dictum dominum Georgium prinium nuper Regem," &c., "durante quo tempore praadietus Philippus Rex Hispanioe fuit hostis et inimicus publicus dicti Domini nuper Regis; et qu6d, durantebello prsedicto, Philippus dux de Wharton nuper de Westmonasterio in comitatu Middlesex, existens subditus dicti domini nuper Regis, prasmissa satis sciens, timorem Dei in corde suo non babens," &c., "utfalsus proditor [222] contra dictum dominum nuper Regem, supremum, verum, naturalem et indubitatum dominura suum, cordialem amoretn et debitam obedientiam, fidelitatem et ligeanciam quas veri etfideles subditi dicti domini nuper Regis erga dictum dominum nuper Regem de jure gerere tenebantur penitiis aubtrahens, eodem primo die Maii," &c,, " et diversis aliis diebus et vicibus tarn antea quam postea, in partibus exteris et transmarinis extra hoc regnum Magnes Britanriite, scilicet in regno Hispaniee, vi et armis, &c., fals6, malitiose, scienter, diabolice at proditorie eidem Philippo Regi Higpanise et diversis subditis ejus, adtunc hostibus et inimicis publicis dicti domini nuper Regis existentibus, contra dictum dominum nuper Regem adhserens, auxilians et assistens fuit, et evidem Philippo Ragi Hispanise et diversie subditis ejus, hostibus et inimicis publicis dicit domini ntiper Regis adtunc 7*8. MS. THE QUEEN V. BIPON 473 sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on a case, which, so far as regards the...
To continue reading
Request your trial