Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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.  














Constitutional - From: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 27 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.


 
 Rex v Lord Rusby; 1800 - (1800) Pea (2) 189
 
Rex v Leefe, Gent One, and Co [1809] EngR 268; (1809) 2 Camp 134; (1809) 170 ER 1106
27 May 1809


Constitutional, Crime
If a count in an indictment for perjury undertake to set out continuously the substance and effect of what the defendant swore when examined as a witness; it is necessary, in support of this count, to prove, that in substance and effect he swore the whole of that which is thus set out as his evidence, although the count contains several distinct assignments of perjury. In an indictment for perjury before a select commttee of the House of Commons, it was averred, that an election was had for a borough "by virtue of a certain precept of the high sheriff of the county by him duly issued to the bailiff of the said borough of NM", Held, that thls was not a description of the precept, aud that although the borough was therein differently denominated the variance was immaterial. But the indictment having stated that "AB and CD were returned to serve as burgesses for the said borough of N. M." this was considered a description of indenture of return and the borough being therein misled the borough of M. "he variance was held fatal.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Sir Francis Burdett, Bart v The Right Hon Charles Abbot; KBD 1811 - (1811) 14 East 1; [1811] EngR 83; (1811) 104 ER 501
 
Burdett, Bart v The Right Honourable Charles Abbot [1812] EngR 191; (1812) 4 Taunt 401; (1812) 128 ER 384
22 Apr 1812
CA

Constitutional

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Creevey Esq MP (1813) 1 M and S 273; (1813) 105 ER 102; [1813] EngR 254
1813


Constitutional
A statement made out of Parliament is not to be protected by its absolute privilege even if what is said simply repeats what was said inside the House.
A member of the House of Commons may be convicted upon an indictment for a libel in publishing in a newspaper the report of a speech delivered by him in that House, if it contain libellous matter, although the publication be a correct report of such speech, and be made in consequence of an incorrect publication having appeared in that and other newspapers.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Burdett (Bart) v Abbot (Speaker, House of Commons); And Burdett (Bart) Colman (Sergeant At Arms) [1817] EngR 614; (1817) 5 Dow PC 165; (1817) 3 ER 1289
2 Jul 1817
PC

Constitutional
To an action of trespass against the Speaker of the House of Commons forcibly and with the assistance of armed soldiers, breaking into the messuage of the Plainttiff (the outer door being shut and fastened), and arresting him there, and taking him to the Tower of London, and imprisoning there : it is a legal justification to plead that a Parliament was held which was sitting during the period of the trespasses complained of : that the Plaintiff was a member of the House of Commons : and that the House having resolved, "that a certain letter, etc. in Cobbett's Weekly Register was a libellous and scandalous paper, reflecting on the just rights and privileges of the House, and that the Plaintiff, who had admitted that the said Ietter, etc. was printed by his authority, had been thereby guilty of a breach of the privileges of that House ; and having ordered that, for his said offence, he should be committed to the Tower, and that the Speaker should issue his warrant accordingly ; the Defendant as Speaker, in execution of the said order, issued his warrant to the Serjeant at Arms, to whom the execution of such warrant belonged, to arrest the plaintiff and to commit him to the custody of the Lieutenant of the Tower : and issued another warrant to the Lieutenant of the Tower to receive and detain the Plaintiff in custody during the pleasure of the House ; by virtue of which first warrant the Serjeant at Arms went to the messuage of the Plaintiff, where he then was, to execute it; and because the outer door was fastened, and he could not enter, after audible notification of his purpose and demand made of admission, he, by the assistance of the said soldiers, broke and entered the Plaintiff's messuage, and arrested and conveyed him to the Tower, where he was received and detained in custody under the other warrant by the Lieutenant of the Tower. And to a similar action against the Serjeant at Arms, a similar plea, with variations, however, adapted to his situation, is a legal justification.
The Lord Chancellor considering it as clear in law that the House of Commons have the power of committing for contempt, and that this was a commitment for contempt. Lord Erskine concurring.
1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Novello v Toogood (1823) 1 B and C 554; [1823] EngR 492; (1823) 1 B and C 554; (1823) 107 ER 204
29 Apr 1823


Constitutional, Rating
The defendant a British born subject was a music master and teacher of Italian, but was also employed in part as a chorister in the chapel of a foreign ambassador. He rented a large house, subletting parts. He resisted distraint on the premises for non-payment of poor rates. Held: The appointment as a servant of the foreign ambassador was not sufficient to to protect him from such distraint, at least so far goods were not associated with hs appointment.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
The East India Company v Syed Ally, Habiboon Nissa Begum, Syed Ahmed, Syed Yahyah, And Nagaboon Nissa Begum [1827] EngR 552; (1827) 7 Moo Ind App 555; (1827) 19 ER 417
23 Jun 1827


Constitutional

[ Commonlii ]
 
Wellesley v The Duke Of Beaufort; Mr Long Wellesley's Case [1831] EngR 809; (1831) 2 Russ and My 639; (1831) 39 ER 538
28 Jul 1831

Lord Brougham LC
Constitutional
A member of Parliament asserted parliamentary immunity from the consequences of having abducted his child. Lord Brougham LC said: "how incumbent it is upon the courts of law to defend their high and sacred duty of guarding the lives, the liberties, and the properties of the subject, and protecting the very existence of the Houses of Parliament themselves, against wild and extravagant, and groundless, and inconsistent notions of privilege." and (obiter) "If a Court of Law or of Equity, upon due deliberation, entertains an opinion that a Member of either House of Parliament has privilege of Parliament, that Court is, in my judgment, bound to give him the benefit of his privilege, and to give it him with all its incidents, even although the House to which he belongs abandons it as a claim of right; for a Court knows nothing judicially of what takes place in Parliament till what is there done becomes an Act of the Legislature."
Lord Brougham LC warned courts of justice against acceding to claims of privilege "the instant they hear that once magical word pronounced."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Mirehouse v Rennell (1833) 1 Cl and F 527
1833

Parke J
Constitutional
Parke B described how the elements of a common law offence are to be distilled from the cases in which the relevant principles have been set out: "Our common-law system consists in the applying to new combinations of circumstances those rules of law which we derive from legal principles and judicial precedent; and for the sake of attaining uniformity, consistency and certainty, we must apply those rules, where they are not plainly unreasonable and inconvenient, to all cases which arise; and we are not at liberty to reject them, and to abandon all analogy to them, in those to which they have not been judicially applied, because we think that the rules are not as convenient and reasonable as we ourselves could have devised."
1 Citers


 
Stockdale v Hansard And Others [1837] EngR 486; (1837) 7 Car and P 731; (1837) 173 ER 319
7 Feb 1837


Defamation, Constitutional
The House of Commons, in the years 1836 and 1836, made resolutions that parliamentary papers and reports, printed for the use of the house, should be publicly sold by their printer ; and afterwards a report from the Inspectors of Prisons was ordered by the house to be printed. Held: that If this report contained a libel on an individual, the printer of the House of Commons who sold it was liable to an action, and that the resolution of the House did not render this a privileged publication.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Stockdale v Hansard And Others [1837] EngR 487; (1837) 2 M and Rob 9; (1837) 174 ER 196 (B)
7 Feb 1837


Defamation, Constitutional
The order of the House of Commons for the publication and sale by certain booksellers of Reports laid before the House, does not exempt the booksellers from answering in an action of libel any individual injured by defamatory matters in such Reports so sold by them.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 9 Ad and El 1; [1839] EWHC QB J21; 112 ER 1112; (1839) 9 Ad and Ell 96
1839

Lord Denman CJ
Constitutional, Defamation
Bailii It is no defence in law to an action for publishing a libel, that defamatory matter is part of a order of the House of Commons, laid before the House, and thereupon became part of the proceedings of the House and which was afterwards, by orders of the House, printed and published by defendant; and that the House of Commons heretofore resolved, declared, and adjudged "that the power of publishing such of its reports, votes, and proceedings as it shall deem necessary or conducive to the public interests is an essential incident to the constitutional functions of parliament, more especially to the Commons' House of Parliament as the representative portion of it."
On demurrer to a plea suggesting such a defence, a court of law is competent to determine whether or not the House of Commons has such privilege as will support the plea.
Lord Denman CJ said: "Our respect and gratitude to the Convention Parliament ought not to blind us to the fact that this sentence of imprisonment was as unjust and tyrannical as any of those of arbitrary power for which they deprived King James of his Crown." and "Where the subject matter falls within their jurisdiction, no doubt we cannot question their judgment; but we are now enquiring whether the subject matter does fall within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. It is contended that they can bring it within their jurisdiction by declaring it so. To this claim, as arising from their privileges, I have already stated my answer: it is perfectly clear that none of these Courts could give themselves jurisdiction by adjudging that they enjoy it."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
John Joseph Stockdale v James Hansard, Luke Graves Hansard, Luke James Hansard, And Luke Henry Hansard [1839] EngR 139; (1839) 9 Ad and E 1; (1839) 112 ER 1112
1839


Constitutional, Defamation
It is no defence in law to an action for publishing a libel that the defamatory matter is part of a document which was, by order of the House of Comnions, laid before the House, and thereupon became part of the proceedings of the House, and which was afterwards, by orders of the House, printed and published by defendant and that the House of Commons heretofore resolved, declared, and adjudged "that the power of publishing such of its reports, votes, and proceedings as it shall deem necessary or conducive to te public interests is an essential incident to the constitutional functions of parliament, more especially to the Commons' House of Parliament as the representative portion of it." On demurrer to a plea suggesting such a defence, a Court of Law is competent to determine whether or not the House of Commons has such privilege as will support the plea.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Edwards v Cruickshank (1840) 3 D 282
1840

Lord President Hope
Constitutional
Lord President Hope described the jurisdiction of supreme courts: "With regard to our jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of the supreme courts in every civilized country with which I am acquainted, I have no doubt. They have power to compel every person to perform their duty - persons whether single or corporate; and, in our noble constitution, I maintain - though at first sight it may appear to be a startling proposition - the law can compel the Sovereign himself to do his duty, ay, or restrain him from exceeding his duty. Your Lordships know that the Sovereign never acts by himself, but only through the medium of his ministers or executive servants; and if any duty is refused to be done by any minister in the department over which he presides, or if he exceed his duty to the injury of the subjects, the law gives redress. In England the Court would proceed, according to the nature of the case, by injunction or mandamus, or a writ of quo warranto. In this country a person would proceed by action or by petition; and, if he was right, a decree would be passed and would be enforced by ordinary process of law."
1 Citers


 
Attorney-General v The Ironmongers' Company Betton's Charity [1840] EngR 425; (1840) 2 Beav 313; (1840) 48 ER 1201
14 Feb 1840

Lord Langdale MR
Charity, Constitutional
Bequest of residue to a company, to apply the interest of a moiety "unto the redemption of British slaves in Turkey or Barbary," one-fourth to charity schools in London and its suburbs; and in consideration of the care and pains of the company, the remaining one-fourth towards necessitated decayed freemen of the company. There were no such British slaves to redeem, and a reference was made to the Master to approve of a scheme for the application of the fund thus unapplied, having regard to all the charitable bequests in the will. Held, that the application of the fund to the education of the British emancipated apprenticed negroes was iiot a cy-pres application ; secondly, that the gift to the freemen of the company was a charitable bequest ; and, thirdly, there being no direct objects to which the income could be applied, regard being had to the bequest touching British captives, that the application of the fund to the second and third purposes was as near as could be to the intention of the testator, having regard to all the charitable bequests in the will.
Lord Langdale MR said that: " He did not recognise the relator as distinct from the Attorney-General. That the suit was the suit of the Attorney-General, though at the relation of another person upon whom he relied and who was answerable for costs; and that he could only recognise the counsel for the relator as the counsel for the Attorney-General, and could hear them only by his permission ; that the suit was so entirely under the control of the Attorney-General that he might desire the Court to " dismiss the information, and that if he stated that he did not sanction any proceeding, it would be instantly stopped ".
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
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 ]
 
The Attorney-General v The Ironmongers' Company [1841] EngR 283; (1840-1841) Cr and Ph 208; (1841) 41 ER 469
23 Jan 1841


Constitutional
Under a, reference to approve a scheme for the application of charity funds, the Master has no authority to allow, still less to invite, any person to intervene in the inquiry, who is not a party to the cause. If any such person is desirous of proposing a scheme of his own, his proper and only course is to apply to the Court for leave so to do.
In an information, the Attorney-General and not the relator, is the party prosecuting the cause : and, therefore, the Court will not allow counsel for the relator to be heard in any other character than as counsel for the Attorney-General.
1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
The Attorney General For The Crown Sir William Follett For Mr Le Strange Styleman Le Strange Sir Harris Nicolas For Sir Jacob Astley [1841] EngR 667; (1841) West 621; (1841) 9 ER 621
13 May 1841


Constitutional
A summons to Parliament, and a sitting under it, is evidence of a title to a peerage descending to the heirs of the body including females; so likewise is it evidence of a similar title, where there have been several summonses, both prior and subsequent to a sitting in parliament and a sitting in parliament, though no sitting under a summons, has been proved, proof being adduced that during the period of that sitting there were no writs of summons
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway Company v Wauchope; HL 22-Mar-1842 - [1842] UKHL 710; 8 ER 279; (1842) 8 Cl and F 710; [1842] EngR 405; (1842) 8 Cl and Fin 710; (1842) 8 ER 279; [1842] UKHL J12
 
Edward Kielley v William Carson, John Kent, And Others [1842] EngR 593; (1841-1842) 4 Moo PC 63; (1842) 13 ER 225
23 May 1842
PC

Constitutional, Commonwealth
The House of Assembly of the Island of Newfoundland does not possess, as a legal incident, the power of arrest, with a view of adjudication on a contempt committed out of the House; but only such powers as are reasonably necessary for the proper exercise of its functions and duties as a local legislature.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Logan And Moore v Lieut Godolphin James Burslem, The Officers And Crew Of H M Ship Viper, And The Queen [1842] EngR 1123; (1842) 4 Moo PC 284; (1842) 13 ER 312; [1842] UKPC 20
29 Nov 1842
PC

Transport, Constitutional

[ Commonlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Lopez, And Others v Lieut Burslem, The Officers And Crew of Her Majesty's Ship Viper, And The Queen [1843] EngR 1180; (1843) 4 Moo PC 300; (1843) 13 ER 318; [1843] UKPC 14
29 Nov 1843
PC

Constitutional
(United Kingdom)
[ Commonlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Rex v Charles Gavan Duffy (1848) St Tr (NS) 915
1848

Ball J
Crime, Constitutional
The defendant was editor of the Irish newspaper 'The Nation'. He was accused of treason. Held: The judge summed up the offence of treason under the Act as follows: “if any person shall entertain the intention of deposing Her Majesty from her sovereignty in this country, or the intention of levying war against Her Majesty for the purpose of coercing her to change her measures and counsels and shall in either case manifest such an intention by any printing or writing, he shall be guilty of felony . . an attempt to depose the sovereign does not impart any intention to injure the Queen or even to treat her with any personal disrespect. Neither is a formal intention to deprive her of her titles, position and dignity necessary. The offence has been perpetrated if the prisoner has entertained and expressed the intention of constituting or setting up in this Kingdom any body of persons who were to exercise the functions of the Government and virtually to supersede the Queen’s authority – still more so if the prisoner has entertained and expressed an intention of severing this country from the British crown and establishing either a republic or any other form of Government.”
Treason Felony Act 1848 3
1 Citers


 
Regina v Mitchel (1848) St Tr (NS) 599
1848


Crime, Constitutional
The judge instructed the jury that advocacy of republicanism was necessarily an offence: "There are no two things more inconsistent with each other – no two ideas more opposed to each other – no two expressions more contradictory of each other than that of a republic to a monarchy; and any man who does avow his desire to compass and obtain a republic, must inevitably intend to imagine the deposition and destruction of the monarchy. The two things cannot combine; the destruction of one is involved in the existence of the other. And if, looking to the natural import, tenor and meaning of the words used, you think that he did compass and intend to have a republic, there is necessarily and inevitably implied in that compassing an intention to deprive Her Majesty of her imperial throne.” This was the last known prosecution under the Act.
Treason Felony Act 1848 3
1 Citers


 
The Stockton And Hartlepool Railway Company v The Leeds And Thirsk And The Clarence Railway Companies [1848] EngR 809; (1848) 2 Ph 666; (1848) 41 ER 1101
5 Aug 1848


Constitutional

[ Commonlii ]

 
 The Grand Junction Canal Company v Dimes; 1-May-1849 - [1849] EngR 576; (1849) 12 Beav 63; (1849) 50 ER 984
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.