Wright v Horton

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1817
Date01 January 1817
CourtCourt of Common Pleas

English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 305



S. C. 1 Stark. 400. Subsequent proceedings, 6 M. & S. 50.

HOLT 40. WBIGHT V. HORTQN [458] wright v. hoeton. (1. A person who has qualified for the office of a justice of peace, and acts as such, must have a clear estate of £100 per annum, in law, or in equity, for his own use, in possession 2. In an action against a person for the penalty given by th* statute 18 Geo. II c. 20, for acting as a magistrate without a proper qualification, no notice of action is necessary under the provisions of the 24th Geo. II. c. 44.) [S. C 1 Stark. 400. Subsequent proceedings, 6 M. & S. 50 ] This was an action of debt upon the statute 18 Geo. II. c. 20, brought against the defendant, to recover a penalty of £100 for acting as a justice of peace in the county of York, not being duly qualified by law. The clause in the statute is, " No person shall be capable of being, or acting as, a justice of the peace, for any county, who shall not have, in law or equity, for his own use, in possession, a freehold, copyhold, or customary estate for life, or some greater estate, or an estate for some long trm of years, determmable upon one or more lives, or for a certain term originally created for twenty-one years or more, in lands, tenements, or hereditaments, in England or Wales, of the clear yearly value of £100 above what will discharge all incumbranees affecting the same, and all rents and charges payable out of the same , or who shall not be entitled to the immediate reversion, or remainder of lands^ leased for one, two, or three lives, of for any term of years determmable on. the death of one, two, or three lives, upon reserved rents, of the clear yearly value of £300." It appeared that the defendant had taken the benefit of an Insolvent Act m Jamuaiy 1814, subsequent to which time he had repeatedly acted as [459] a magistrate, without acquiring any new qualification. He had qualified originally in 1802. No notice of this action had been given by the plaintiff to the defendant Richardson and Williams, for the defendant, contended, that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Malayan Tobacco Distributors Ltd, The; The United Kingdom Tobacco (1929) Ltd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1933
  • Forbes v Lloyd
    • Ireland
    • Court of Exchequer Chamber (Ireland)
    • 22 November 1876
    ...v. Lloyd 1 Ir. Jur. (O.S.) 208. Jacklen v. FutcheENR 14 M. & W. 381. Collins v. HungerfordUNK 7 Ir. C. L. R. 581. Wright v. HortonENR 1 Holt, 458. Jones v. Simpson 1 Cr. & Jer. 74. Harding v. PollockENR 6 Bing. 25. King v. PattesonENR 4 B. & Ad. 9. Martins v. Upcher 3 Q. B. 662. Leary v. Pa......
  • Joule and Others v Taylor
    • United Kingdom
    • Exchequer
    • 24 November 1851
    ...to notice, between such a case and an action for money had and received, 01 an action foi a penalty [Platt, B In Wright v fforlon (Holt, N P 458), Wood, B, ruled that, in an action foi a penalty under the ^8 Geo 2, a 20, for acting as a magistrate without a proper qualification, no notice o......
  • France and Hill v Joseph White, William Robinson, and Hannah, his Wife, and five Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Common Pleas
    • 27 June 1840
    ...inscribed. (b) 3 B. & Aid. 685. And see Avery v. Hook, Cowp. 825; 2 Dougl. 683, n. Wright, gui tarn v. Hmton, 1 Stark. N. P. C. 400; Holt, N. P. 458; 6 M. & S. 50; 2 Chitt. Rep. 25; Bradley v. Milnes, 1 New Cases, 644; 1 Scott, 626; 1 Hodges, 158. English Reports Citation: 133 E.R. 526 IN ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT