The Queen against Wilson and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 November 1844 |
| Date | 21 November 1844 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 115 E.R. 233
QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 1 New Sees. Cas. 427; 14 L. J. M. C. 3; 8 Jur. 1069.
[620] the queen against wilson and others. Thursday, November 21st, 1844. An order of Quarter Sessions, brought up by certiorari, appeared to be an order quashing an indictment containing counts for forcible entries, assaults, and a riot. On motion to quash the order: Held, 1. That the sessions, having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the indictment, had jurisdiction to quash it; and, as to this, it made no difference that the defendants had been held to bail more than twenty days before the sessions, and had given the prosecutor notice of their intention to appear there; stat. WG. 3 & 1 G. 4, c. 4, s. 5, not taking away the common law power of a Criminal Court to deal with an indictment properly before them. 2. That this Court therefore would not enquire, on this proceeding, whether the indictment was properly quashed ; but that the proper way of raising such a question was on writ of error. 3. That this Court would not, on such proceeding, allow a discussion as to the motives upon which the Quarter Sessions acted. Eule nisi for quashing the order of sessions discharged. [S. C. 1 New Sess. Cas. 427 ; 14 L. J. M, C. 3; 8 Jur. 1069.] Newton had obtained a rule for quashing an order of the Gloucestershire Quarter Sessions, brought up to this Court by certiorari (a). The order, as returned to the certiorari, was as follows. (a) The rule nisi for a certiorari was obtained by Newton in Hilary terra, 1844. The affidavits stated the preferring of the indictment, and the minute of the clerk of the peace, made thereon, of the order for quashing it; and copies of the indictment and minute were annexed. The affidavits further stated as follows. A true bill was found at the Michaelmas Sessions 1843; and, on 30th October in that year, Mr. Newton, the prosecutor, received notice from the attorney for the defendants that he would not advise a removal by certiorari, and that the defendants would be satisfied to abide by the judgment of the sessions. In November following, all the defendants entered into recognizances to appear and plead at the next sessions, except one defendant who was committed for want of bail, and another who was not arrested. All the defendants gave the prosecutor notice of trial at the next sessions. At those sessions (Epiphany, 1844), a traverse was entered for all the defendants, by their attorney; and all except two appeared at the Bar, and were charged. Mr. Newton, who was a barrister, appeared as prosecutor; when the counsel for the defendants then present objected that he could not address the jury, nor be heard except on oath. The hearing was adjourned until the next day; when the counsel for the defendants moved to quash the indictment, on the ground that in both the first and second counts more than one offence was charged, whereby the defendants were prejudiced in their defence: he admitted, however, that the third count was good. The Court refused to hear the prosecutor in answer to tha objection, and quashed the indictment. In last Easter term (May 2, 1844), Greaves, for the defendants, shewed cause, and H. S. Keating appeared for the justices, to receive the directions of the Court; and Newton was heard in support of the rule. Besides the authorities mentioned in the text, the following were referred to : 4 Hawk. PI. Cr. 148 (7th ed.), book 2, eh. 27, s. 31; Rice v. Begem (Cro. Jac. 404); Long's case (Cro. Eliz. 489); Rex v. Pennegoes and Machynlleth (1 B. & C. 142); Dickin- K. B. xliv.-8* 234 the qtteen v. wilson bq. B.82i. [621] Gloucestershire to wit. Be it remembered that, at the General Quarter Sessions, &c., hold en at, &c., in and for the county of Gloucester, &c., in the first week after the llth day of October, &c., in the seventh year, &c., before Ebenezer Ludlow, Serjeant at Law, &e., justices, &c., upon the oath of William Hill, &c., good and lawful men, &c.; it is presented in manner and form following; that is to say : County of Gloucester to wit. The jurors, &c. present that George Wilson, of, &c., William Holthara, &c. (nine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phelps v The London and North Western Railway Company
... ... This was an action brought by the plaintiff', a solicitor, against the London and North Western Railway Company, to recover damages for the ... carry nothing, or very little, with them when they travel, whilst others consult their convenience by carrying many things. Nor do I mean to say ... ...