Welcome to The Briercliffe Society Forum

The forum is free to join and you do not need to be a member of the society. You will receive an email to activate your account before you will be able to log in. Please check spam filters and junk mail folders for this email.
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 5:58 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:24 am 
Spider Lady
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:23 pm
Posts: 8183
Location: Staffordshire
The Morning Chronicle

Tuesday April 25 1826

Court of King's Bench - April 24

The King v. Thomas Parker, Esq.
This was a rule obtained last Michaelmas Term, calling on a Magistrate for the West Riding of the County of york, to shew cause why a criminal should not be filed against him for supposed corrupt conduct in his office. The curcumstances under which the motion was made, were these:- Two persons, named Baldwin and Whittaker, had been out on the 22d September and 13th October coursing for a Mr. Shaw, an aged gentleman, residing at Colne, in the immediate neighbourhood of Mr. Parker's residence. On the 26th October, informations were laid against these persons before Mr. Parker, for having used sporting dogs on the days above mentioned, without qualifications; and the summonses were made returnable at Broosham, another seat belonging to Mr. Parker, about 18 or 20 miles from Colne. Mr. Shaw and his two servants, Baldwin and Whittaker, at ended at Broosham to answer summonses, when the latter set up, by way of defence, that they were merely acting for Mr. Shaw, who was qualified to kill game, and who stood upon a bank whilst they coursed with his dogs. Mr. Parker called upon Mr. Shaw to prove his qualification . The latter produced his rent roll; but not having his title deeds with him, Mr. Parker refused to receive evidence of the rent roll, and declined swearing Mr. Shaw to his qualification; and in the absence of any osher evidence, Baldwin and Whittaker were convicted in two penalties. It was alleged that Mr. Parker had treated Mr. Shaw with great disrespect; that Horsfall and Vivers, the informers, had filed the informations at his instance, in order that he mght be judge in his own cause: and that he had made the summonses returnable twenty miles from Colne, in order to harrass and annoy Mr. Shaw and his servants.
Mr. Brougham, Mr. Tindal, and Mr. E. Alderson, now shewed cause against the rule, upon affidavits denying the allegations made on the other side, and disclaiming any unworthy motives on the part of Mr. Parker. It was stated that Mr. Shaw appeared, at first, in the character of attorney for Baldwin and Whittaker: but afterwards assumed the character of master, and claimed protection for them as servants. with respect to the evidence of qualification offered by Mr. Shaw, it was admitted that Mr. Parker had acted under aan error in judgement, in supposing that Mr. Shaw, was bound to produce his title deeds, but all corrupt motive was disclaimed; and apprehending that he had acted erroneously in this respect, he (Mr. P.) directed a case to be stated for the opinion of two eminent counsel, who being of opinion that such strict evidence was not necessary, the penalties were not enforced. Mr. P. solemnly denied that he had anything to do in promoting the informations. In this he was confirmed by the affidavits of the two informers; and with respect to the summonses being made returnable at his house, twenty miles from Colne, that arose from his having urgent occasion to go to Broosham, on the day when they were returnable. It was sworn that no disrespect was offered to Mr. Shaw, and that, on the contrary, all the insolence proceeded from one of his supposed servants.
The Lord Chief Justice said, he disapproved of Mr. Parker's having made the summonses returnable at a place 20 miles from Colne, where the offences were supposed to have been committed; but he put it to Mr. Scarlett, whether he could support the rule for the information, after the facts stated on the affidavits in answer?
Mr. Scarlett submitted, that at all events the rule, if discharged, ought to be discharged on payment of costs.
After some contest on this point-
The Court ordered the rule to be discharged, without costs.

_________________
Mel

Searching for lost relatives? Win the Lottery!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group