The King v Wagstaffe, and others: 1685

The jurors being severally fined, and imprisoned till payment, as it appeared by the retorn of the habeas corpus made by the Mayor, andc. of London, or till they were otherways discharged by due course of law : the defendants offered to bring the mony into Court, and so prayed time till the next term : and there can be inconvenience, for the persons are committed but till the fines paid, and they do thus pay it under a rule : but by Twisden, this payment must be actual, and not conditional ; nor was this ever done on an execution, unless on the civil side, which Keeling agreed ; and though the Kings Counsel should consent, they could not do it ; but the retorn being filed, it was excepted, that it was said in issues joyned in indictment of trespass in contemptum domini Regis, and not Curia ; sed non allocatur. 2. They are said, committed for going against direction of the Court on issues in several trespasses, andc. not saying perpetrat’ and commissis, but only whereof the then prisoners were indicted ; sed non allocatur, this being the question then to be tried. 3. The jury (per Curiam on Yelvert. 23, Whartons case, and in Noy 48, Bendlows Rep. Norris’s case, which was Henego Pierce’s case) are not judges of fact, so as to go clearly against it. every Inferiour Cour t mig

Citations:

[1685] EngR 3558, (1685) 1 Keb 938, (1685) 83 ER 1331 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.400333