Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

FOR

THE YEAR 1873:

CASES RELATING TO

THE POOR LAW, THE CRIMINAL LAW,

AND OTHER SUBJECTS

CHIEFLY CONNECTED WITH

The Duties and Difíce of magistrates,

DECIDED IN THE

COURTS OF QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, AND EXCHEQUER

AND IN THE

COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED,

MICHAELMAS TERM, 1872, TO MICHAELMAS TERM, 1873.

REPORTED

In the Court of Queen's Bench,
By ROBERT SAWYER, Esq., AND

ARTHUR PAUL STONE, Esq.,
BARRISTERS-AT-LAW.

In the Court of Common Pleas,
By WILLIAM PATERSON, Esq., AND GILMORE EVANS, Esq.,

BARRISTERS-AT-Law.

In the Court of Erchequer,
By HUGH COWIE, Esq., AND JAMES M. MOORSOM,

Esq., BARRISTERS-AT-LAW.

In the Court for Crown Cases Reserved,
By THOMAS SIRRELL PRITCHARD, Esq., BARRISTER-AT-LAW.

MAGISTRATES' CASES.
NEW SERIES, VOL. XLII.

LONDON:
PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE.
PUBLISHED BY EDWARD BRET INCE, 5, QUALITY COURT, CHANCERY LANE.

MDCCCLXXIII.

REPORTS OF CASES

CHIEFLY CONNECTED WITH

THE DUTIES AND OFFICE OF MAGISTRATES,

AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE POOR LAW

AND THE CRIMINAL LAW.

VOL. XLII. (NEW SERIES), COMMENCING WITH

MICHAELMAS TERM, 36 VICTORIÆ.

Nov. 26.}

[IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.] This was a rule calling upon Jane

Flower to shew cause why an order of THE QUEEN V. TOMLINSON. affiliation, bearing date the 25th of April,

1871, adjudging the defendant, Thomas Amendment-Order of Justices - Certi- Tomlinson, to be the putative father of a orari–12 | 13 Vict. c. 45. s. 7Bas- certain bastard child born of the body of tardy.

the said Jane Flower, on the 27th of May,

1870, should not be quashed. A bastard child having been born on the It appeared from the affidavits, that on 27th of May, 1870, the mother applied on the 11th of August, 1870, the said Jane the 11th of August to M., a justice, who Flower applied for and obtained a sumissued a summons against T., the alleged mons against the defendant from William father. Several successive summonses were Masefield, Esq., one of the justices for the issued, and in March, 1871, T. was served division of Stone, in the county of Stafwith a summons to appear before the justices ford. The defendant contrived to evade on the 11th of April. The mother and T. service of this summons, and several sucattended, but the mother withdrew the sum- cessive summonses were issued upon the mons and on the same day applied to B., same complaint, but the defendant could another justice, who issued a summons re- not be served until the month of March, quiring T. to appear on the 25th of April. 1871. The summons came on to be heard On that day an order was made, which re- on the 11th of April. Jane Flower and cited the application to M., adjudged T. to the defendant appeared, but the attorney be the father of the child, and ordered him for Jane Flower was unable to attend, to pay 2s.6d. per week, commencing from and as the defendant refused to consent the 11th of August, 1870, the day on which to an adjournment, except upon payment the mother applied to M. :-Held, that the of costs of the day, she withdrew the 7th section of 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45 gave

the summons, and intimated an intention of Court no power to amend this invalid order, taking out another. The same day she by alleging the application to B. instead of went before Moreton Edward Buller, Esq., the application to M., or by making the pay. another justice attending the same petty ments to begin from the 11th of April

, 1871, sessions, and made application for a suminstead of from the 11th of August, 1870. mons, which was granted, returnable on NEW SERIES, 42.-Mag. CAş.

B

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

the 25th of April, on which day the de- take had existed." There is no doubt that fendant and Jane Flower appeared, and sufficient grounds were in proof before an order was made reciting the applica- the justices to have authorised the drawtion to the said William Masefield, ad- ing up of the present order free from judging the defendant to be the father omission or mistake, and it will be good of the child, and ordering him to pay and sufficient if this Court will amend it 2s. 6d. a week from the 11th of August, by alleging the application to Moreton 1870, “being the day upon which such Edward Buller instead of the application application was made to the said justice to William Masefield, and by making the as aforesaid.” The justices, in making this weekly payments begin to run from the order, acted under the mistaken notion 11th of April, 1871, instead of from the that as a series of summonses had been 11th of August, 1870. Upon the 25th of issued, they were entitled to consider the April, when the order was made, the jussummons signed by the said Moreton tices were, in fact, hearing the complaint Edward Buller as a summons issued upon of Jane Flower, made on the 11th of April, the original information.

1871, and they have simply made a misP. NI'Mahon shewed cause against the take in drawing up the order. In The rule.-It must be admitted that the order Queen v. Higham (1), the Court made an is bad, inasmuch as by it the defendant is amendment under the above section. ordered to pay the money for the main- Kemplay, in support of the rule, was tonance of the child from the 11th of not heard. August, 1870, when the first application was made to William Masefield, which Cockburn, C.J.-I am sorry that this application is recited. But the Court will amendment cannot be made. The mistake amend the order, so as to make it a which the justices have made is in making valid order. Power to make such an the order operate from the 11th of August, amendment is conferred upon the Court 1870, instead of from the 11th of April

, by 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45. s. 7, which, after 1871. This is a mistake in substance in reciting that, “in many cases where the making of the order, not a mistake justices of the peace are by law empowered in form in drawing up the order. The to make orders or to give judgments,

7th section of 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45 progreat expense and frequent failures of vides for the amendment of a mistake in justice have been occasioned by reason form in the drawing up of the order, but that such orders and judgments have, if we acceded to the present application we

on removal by certiorari into the should be making an amendment in the Court of Queen's Bench, been quashed or very judgment of the justices, which would set aside upon exceptions or objections to clearly be beyond the scope of the provithe form of the order or judgment, irre- sion in the 7th section. spective of the truth and merits of the BLACKBURN, J., and QUAIN, J., conmatters in question," proceeds to enact curred. that, “if, upon the return to any writ of Rule absolute to quash the order. certiorari, any objection shall be made on account of any omission or mistake in the drawing up of such order or judg. ment, and it shall be shewn to the satisfaction of the Court that sufficient

Attorneys-Henry Tyrrell, agent for E. A. Ten

nant, Hanley, for prosecution; F. W. Blake, grounds were in proof before the justice

agent for B. H. Smallwood, Newport, Salop, for or justices making such order or giving defendant. such judgment, to have authorised the drawing up thereof free from the said omission or mistake, it shall be lawful for the Court, upon such terms as to payment of costs as it shall think fit, to amend such order or judgment, and to adjudicate (1) 7 E. & B. 557; s. c. 26 Law J. Rer. (n.s.) thereupon as if no such omission or mis- M.C. 116.

April 23. }

(IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.] an officer of the said railway company,

the information was dismissed. (In the Second Division of the Court.)

2. The section of the statute referred 1872. FOULGER (appellant) v. STEAD

to is as followsMAN (respondent).

“16. And be it enacted that if any per

son shall wilfully obstruct or impede any Railway Station - Premises connected

officer or agent of any railway company therewith-Wilful Trespass-3 f. 4 Vict.

in the execution of his duty upon any c. 97. 8. 16- Cabstand.

railway, or upon or in any of the stations A railway company allowed a portion of or other works or premises connected the premises connected with their railway therewith, or if any person shall wilfully station to be occupied as a cab-stand by cabs, trespass upon any railway, or any of the the drivers of which paid a weekly sum for

stations or other works or premises conthe privilege. S., a cab-driver, placed his nected therewith, and shall refuse to quit cab upon the stand and refused to move, the same upon request to him made by although he was requested to do so by the any officer or agent of the said company, officer of the company. He did not pay the every such person so offending, and all weekly sum charged by the company, and by others aiding or assisting therein, shall occupying a place upon the stand he de- and may be seized and detained by any prived another cab-driver, who had paid the such officer or agent, or any person whom said weekly sum, from occupying a place he may call to his assistance, until such upon the stand.

offender or offenders can be conveniently By 3 &• 4 Vict. c. 97. s. 17, if any per

taken before some justice of the peace for son shall wilfully trespass upon any railway, the county or place wherein such offence or any of the stations or other works or shall be committed, and when convicted premises connected therewith, and shall re- before such justice as aforesaid (who is fuse to quit the same upon request to him hereby authorised and required upon commade by any officer, 8c., he shall forfeit;plaint to him upon oath to take cognizance 8c. :

thereof, and to act summarily in the preHeld, that if S. intentionally and pur- mises) shall, in the discretion of such posely kept his cab upon the stand after justice, forfeit,” &c. being requested to move off, he did so wil. 3. It was proved by a constable em. fully, and was liable to the penalty imposed ployed by the railway company, that tho by the above section, although he honestly respondent, on the lst day of March instant, belicved that he was entitled to keep it there drove a cab into Railway Place, the sides without making any payment to the com- of which next to the kerb of the footways pany.

the railway company allow to be occupied

as cab-stands by cabs, the drivers of which Case stated by one of the Aldermen of paid to the witness, for the company,

four the City of London, under statute 20 & 21 shillings per week for that privilege. Vict. c. 43.

4. That about forty cab-drivers pay that 1. Upon the hearing of an information sum, and that there is room for fifteen preferred by the appellant, the Inspector cabs thereon at one time. of the Police of the Great Eastern Rail. 5. That the respondent is not one of way, against the respondent, a cab-driver, such cab-drivers; that he refused to move under the Act for regulating railways, the therefrom when requested by the witness; 3 & 4 Vict. c. 97. s. 16, for that the said and that by occupying a place on the respondent “on the 1st day of March stand he was depriving another cab-driver instant, in Railway Place, Fenchurch who had paid for the privilege from the Street, in the city of London, unlawfully advantage of being upon the stand. and wilfully did trespass upon certain 6. I find as facts that the place occupremises there, connected with the Fen- pied by the respondent's cab was not in church Street Station of the said railway, or opposite the railway station, but oppo. and did refuse to quit the same upon a site some refreshment and other shops, request to him for that purpose made by and between them and certain other

« PředchozíPokračovat »