Webbs Case
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1721 |
| Date | 01 January 1721 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 81 E.R. 967
King's Bench Division
[39] webbs case. Debt per Roy sur stat. 25 Eliz. vers Sir John Webb et sa feme pur 2401. accord al stat. 28 Eliz. que chescun recusant pajera 201. per le moys, & que sa feme fuit recusant encounter ceo statute; le defendant pleade, que auter foits convict pur mesme absence per inditement al suite le Roy; & le doubt consist sur le proclamation, que fuit fait sur cest inditement; car statute dit, que sur le proclamation fait, que tiel recusant luy render al viscount devant procheine assiss ; et le proclamation fuit, que il rendra luy al prochein assis. Et sur ceo deux poynts asaurge in ceo case. 1. Si ceo soit bon proclamation solonque le stat', & issint ceo soit bone & loyal conviction. 2. Si soyt loyal conviction, si per ceo le Roy serra conclude, issint que il ne poit ceo wave, & resorte a son action de debt. Geo. Crooke: pur le defendant argue, que ceo fuit loyal conviction per que le partie & le Roy serront conclude; quia coment que le proclamation ne soit solonque 968 MICH. 17 JAC. B. B. PJUJttBR. 40. le strict forme del stat. uncore le intent fuit, que le recusant aerra apparance al procheine aagis, & esteant error in le proces ou in le proclamation pur non apparance, le atat. dit, que aur non apparance recorded, le recusant aerra convict come per verdict, & que le defendant ne appeare, & aur non apparance fuit record ; et Roy poit aver execution sur ceo; & si ne soit error, uncore le Roy & le partie aerront estoppe pur alleager ceo error, quia eat pur son advantage, que recusant aoit convict; come in Faux case 4 Report. 45. ne poit reverse son inditement & 19 E. 3. Corone 444. 20 E. 4. 6. & 26 E. 3. Error 82. 8 H. 5. 2. N. B. 21. 5 Rep. 39. b. touts sont, que eat al benefit del partie, ne serra aaaigne pur error; & ceo est pur son advantage, que ne est teigne de appearer tanque le assis; aliter si in point de judgment, quia ne serront estoppe pur alleadger error, que vitiat le record. [40] 8 Rep. 59. & il fortment relye sur 1'estatute de 3 Jac. cap. 4. que dit, que tiel inditement serra bon nieut obstant fault de forme in proclamation, utlarie, ou auter chescun defect. 2. Poynt le quel le Roy poit wavier loyal conviction in ceo case, & porter debt; et il teigne, que non ; quia conviction est in nature d'un judgment; & per atat. sea biena & deux parts de ses terres son forfeit; & seisie, & le original eat determine, & auter foits convict est bon plea in ceo case 11 Rep. 65. 5...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T E Fellows v B.L.I.S.S Residential Care Ltd: 1401203/2021
...the part of the adviser is attributed to the employee 5 (Dedman). 38. 5. The test of reasonable practicability is one of fact and not law (Palmer). 39. The question I have considered is firstly, what constitutes effective filing of a claim with an employment tribunal, second, what the effec......
-
Some Original and Peculiar Features in the Nebraska Constitution
...958.4 C. B & C. R. Co. v. Headrick, 49 Neb. 286; Moise v. Powell, 40 Neb. 671. 5 Shawang v. Love, I5 Neb. 142; overruled in Hurlburt v. Palmer, 39 Neb. adoption it was a unique plan and was welcomed as a step towardspopular election of senators. But in practice it has amounted to little.Twi......