swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
Administrative - From: 1800 To: 1849
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
ÂCraufurd And Others v The Attorney-General And Others [1819] EngR 784; (1817-1819) 7 Price 1; (1819) 146 ER 884
22 Dec 1819
Administrative
[ Commonlii ]
Â
Williams v Lord Bagot (2) (1824) 4 Dow & Ry KB 315
1824
Abbott CJ
Administrative
Abbott CJ: "If an inferior court . . send up an incomplete record, we may order them to complete it . . If we are not to order, or allowthe officers of the court below to make a perfect record, which unquestionably they are at liberty to do, it will be in their power, by making an imperfect record, to defeat a writ of error whenever it shall be brought. The power of doing that lies in their hands, unless we prevent it."
1 Citers
Â
Rex v Warnford (1825) 5 Dow & Ry KB 489
1825
Administrative
The courts have power to order an inferior court to complete or correct an imperfect record.
1 Citers
Â
Doe d. Bishop of Rochester v Bridges (1831) 1 B & Ad 847; [1831] EngR 57; (1831) 109 ER 1001
1831
Lord Tenterden CJKB
Administrative
Where a new obligation is created by statute which at the same time provides a special means of enforcing it, that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner.
Lord Tenterden said: "where an Act creates an obligation and enforces the performance in a specified manner, we take it to be a general rule that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner."
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Â
General Michael Angelique Joseph Wall v The Award of The Commissioners For Liquidating British Claims On France [1834] EngR 887; (1834) 3 Knapp 13; (1834) 12 ER 551
27 Jun 1834
Administrative
The son of a British father who had entered into the service of France, and taken the oath of a Knight of the Order of St. Louis, is entitled to the character of a British subject, although he himself was born in France of a French mother, and had served in the French army.
[ Commonlii ]
Â
Frewin v Lewis [1838] EngR 398; (1838) 4 My & Cr 249; (1838) 41 ER 98
27 Jan 1838
Administrative
Principles of the Court’s jurisdiction over public functionaries.
[ Commonlii ]
Â
Regina v The Vestrymen and Churchwardens or St Pancras Middlesex (1839) 11 Ad and E 15; [1839] EngR 1019; (1839) 11 Ad & E 15; (1839) 113 ER 317
1839
Lord Denman CJ
Administrative, Ecclesiastical
The applicant sought an order of mandamus requiring the Vestrymen and Churchwardens to hold a meeting of the parishioners for the election of Vestrymen and auditors for the Parish on the grounds that a meeting previously held for that purpose had been conducted unfairly, in that on a vote to nominate four inspectors for the election of Vestrymen, two lists of four were prepared by the two parties, that is the Churchwardens on the one hand and the Meeting on the other. On a show of hands, the Churchwardens expressed their decision in favour of their list. This was disputed; and those in favour of the list demanded a division of the voters present in order that the numbers on each side might be counted. The Churchwardens refused to take this course and declared the election carried by the show of hands. Lord Denman CJ, giving the judgment of the court said: "…. The show of hands ought to be fairly taken. Was it so taken? A strong doubt was expressed at the time whether the Churchwardens had not made an erroneous report of the numbers on each side: it is even now sworn, by several who were present, that the majority was the other way; nothing could be more reasonable than the demand that the numbers should be divide and be counted. If this had been done with closed doors, certainty would have been obtained in a few minutes. But the Churchwardens took upon themselves to declare the respective numbers in favour of that party to which they avowedly belong at the very moment when they refused to ascertain the truth. The affidavits now produced by them and many others of their belief in respect of this doubtful matter, do not meet the just complaint that they might have spoken with perfect knowledge; and that belief is, indeed, founded on the remarks and reasonings which are detailed and are very far from being conclusive. These considerations have brought us to the opinion that the mandamus ought to be issued"
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Â
Rex v Cheltenham Commissioners (1841) 3 QBD 467; [1841] EngR 582; (1841) 1 QB 466; (1841) 113 ER 1211
1841
QBD
Lord Denman CJ
Administrative, Constitutional
A statute provided that any decision of the Quarter Sessions as to the levying of certain rates was to be "final, binding, and conclusive to all intents and purposes whatsoever", and that no order made in that connection "shall . . be removed or removable by certiorari, or any other writ or process whatsoever, . . ; any law or statute to the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding". An application was made on the basis that one member of the tribunal was disqualified. Held: Certiorari did lie. Lord Denman CJ said: "the clause which takes away the certiorari does not preclude our exercising a superintendence over the proceedings, so far as to see that what is done shall be in pursuance of the statute. The statute cannot affect our right and duty to see justice executed; and, here, I am clearly of opinion that justice has not been executed."
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Â
Chuck v Cremer (1846) Cooper temp Cottenham 205; [1846] EngR 924 (A); (1846) 1 Coop T Cott 205
24 Jul 1846
Lord Cottenham LC
Administrative
'A party who knows of an order, whether null and void, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it . . It would be most dangerous to hold that the suitors, or their solicitors, could themselves judge whether an order was null and void - whether it was regular or irregular. That they should come to the court and not take upon themselves to determine such a question: that the course of a party knowing of an order, which was null and irregular and who might be affected by it was plain. He should apply to the court that it might be discharged. As long as it existed it must not be disobeyed.'
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Â
