Wickham v Hobart
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1815 |
| Date | 01 January 1815 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 95 E.R. 225
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, AT WESTMINSTER
WlCKHAM versus hobart. An attorney, although steward to a peer, has no privilege of Parliament. 2 Stra. 1065. 4 Bac. Abr. title Privilege, (C) 2, [S. C.]. It was moved, that the sheriff should return his writ of ca. sa. and without shewing cause to that rule, the sheriff moved that it might be discharged upon an affidavit that he did take the defendant in execution, but has since discharged him upon receiving a letter from Lord Say and Seale, testifying that the defendant is his Lordship's menial servant, and therefore privileged by him. Strange for plaintiff. This ought not to be allowed upon motion, but the sheriff ought to make a return upon record, that we may be able to litigate either the matter of fact or law, upon record. But, however, as to the excuse that is made, he insists that the defendant is not entitled to privilege. And for that purpose he produced an order of the House of Lords of 24th March, 1696, which says, that no common attorney or solicitor, though employed by any peer or lord of that House shall be allowed privilege of Parliament, which was read. That the present defendant ia an attorney of this Court, admitted 24th December, 1730, and now standing on record as appeared by the Master's certificate. Then he read another order in the House of (1) That the Court had not power to award a venire facias de novo in error, seems very questionable. See the cases where that writ has been awarded in error, one of which, viz. 2 Str, 1151, 1153, was decided in the Trinity term immediately preceding the present case. See 2 Str. 1124. 1 Cook B. L. 166. 1 T. R. 783. 5 T. R. 367. In these cases the writ was directed in Dom. Pro. to be awarded by K. B. In the following cases K. B. awarded the venire facias de novo, upon judgment removed from C. P. to K. B. by writ of error, viz. 1 Gowp. 89, 91. Doug. 722, 730. 3 T. R. 37. See also 1 T. R. 528, n. (b). The principle upon which the venire facias de novo in error, has been denied, does not seem even lately to have been thoroughly recognized, for in one case it was refused on the ground that the proceedings upon which error was brought, originated in an Inferior Court, 1 T. R. 151, but soon after error was brought on an action, originating in the Court of Great Sessions in Wales, and a venire de novo was awarded, 2 T. R. 125. See also 2 H. Bl. 211. 2 New Rep. 328, 9. K. B. xxiv.-8 226 MICHAELMAS...
To continue reading
Request your trial