Williams v Rougheedge
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 February 1759 |
| Date | 05 February 1759 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 97 E.R. 546
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Vide post, 799, 901. Barnes, 394.
williams versus eougheedge, (a Prisoner in Execution). Monday, 5th Feb. 1759. Construction put on certain Insolvent Acts. [Vide post, 799, 901. Barnes, 394.] The question was " whether the prisoner, in execution under process out of this Court, was within time to lodge a petition for his being brought up to the assizes for the County Palatine of Lancaster." The case was this-A prisoner in execution under process issuing out of this Court, had (for want of rightly understanding the proper jurisdiction to which he ought to have applied) totally omitted to petition this Court within due time, " that he might be brought up to the assizes, &c. in order to hia being discharged upon the Insolvent Debtors Acts;" although he had presented a petition to another (improper) jurisdiction, within time; viz. to the Judges of Assize for the County Palatine. The doubt was " whether he was now precluded from making his application to this Court: and whether the explanatory Acts of 3 G. 2, c. 27, and 8 G. 2, c. 24, and 14 G. 2, c. 34, and 21 G. 2, c. 33, are revived by 29 G. 2, c. 28 :'' or " whether the Act of 2 G. 2, c. 22, be alone revived : and the explanatory ones, of that very Act, remain unexpired." The Court (having looked into all these several Acts of Parliament,) declared that all these Acts explaining and amending that of 2 G. 2 are revived by [748] 29 G. 2, as well as the Act of 2 G. 2 itself; and particularly, that that of 8 G. 2, c. 24 (upon which the present question depends,) is now in force : consequently, that in order to give this Court jurisdiction, the prisoner must come and apply to this Court by petition, before the end of the next term after hia being charged in execution : otherwise, this Court has no jurisdiction vested or attached in it: as was determined in a case (remembered by Mr. Just. Denison) of* Smallwoodv. Grant, H. 21 G. 2, B. R. Which case was distinguishable from that of Sir William Pool v. Lane, in Tr. 16 G. 2, B. R. where the petition was lodged in due time, and all was regular, except that twenty-eight days notice only had been given itistead of thirty days. There indeed the defendant was suffered to give a new notice; but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The case of R v Chadwick was as follows
...are revived for the purpose, strictly, of explanation and reference, and no farther: this is the whole effect of Williams v. Rwgheedge (2 Burr. 747). It might be expected from the variety of legislation on this subject that there would be confusion and inconsistency in the decisions. The fi......
-
The King against The Bailiffs of Ipswich
...it was only intended to refer [88] to prisoners charged in execution by process out of the Superior Courts, or who were removed (a) Vide 2 Burr. 747, 799, and 901. 7 EAST, 89. THE KING V. THE BAILIFFS OP IPSWICH 35 into the prisons of such Courts by habeas corpus: and by comparing it with t......