House of Lords Journal Volume 62
16 February 1830

Sponsor

History of Parliament Trust

Publication

Pages

21, 22, 23

Annotate

Comment on this article
Double click anywhere on the text to add an annotation in-line

Citation Show another format:

'House of Lords Journal Volume 62: 16 February 1830', Journal of the House of Lords: volume 62: 1830, pp. 21-23. URL: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=16297 Date accessed: 02 September 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Die Martis, 16 Februarii 1830.

DOMINI tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Archiep. Cantuar
Ds. Lyndhurst, Cancellarius.
Epus. Oxon.
Vicecom. Goderich.
Ds. Holland.
Ds. Vernon.
Ds. Calthorpe.
Ds. Carrington.
Ds. Northwick.
Ds. Ellenborough.
Ds. Bexley.
Ds. Wharncliffe.
Ds. Tenterden.
Ds. Durham.
Ds. Wynford.
Comes Bathurst, Præses.
Comes Rosslyn.C. P. S.
Dux Richmond.
Dux Wellington.
March. Lansdowne.
March. Cleveland.
Comes Shaftesbury.
Comes Ferrers.
Comes Stanhope.
Comes Charleville.
Comes Morley.
Comes Bradford.
Comes Cawdor.

PRAYERS.

The King v. Westwood, in Error, Judges Opinions delivered seriatim.

The Order of the Day being read for taking into further Consideration the Cause wherein The King is Plaintiff, and Thomas Westwood is Defendant; and for the Judges to attend, to deliver their Opinions upon the Question of Law propounded to them on Thursday the 28th of May last;

The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House, "That the Judges differed in their Opinions upon the said Question."

Ordered, That the Judges present do deliver their Opinions upon the said Question, seriatim, with their Reasons.

Accordingly, Mr. Justice James Parke was heard upon the said Question, and delivered his Opinion thereupon in the Negative; and gave his Reasons.

Then Mr. Baron Vaughan was heard upon the said Question, and delivered his Opinion thereupon in the Negative; and gave his Reasons.

Then Mr. Justice Gaselee, Mr. Justice Littledale, Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Baron Garrow were severally heard upon the said Question, and delivered their Opinions thereupon in the Affirmative; and gave their Reasons.

Then Mr. Justice Bayley was heard upon the said Question, and delivered his Opinion thereupon in the Negative; and gave his Reasons.

Then The Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer was heard upon the said Question, and delivered his Opinion thereupon in the Affirmative; and gave his Reasons.

Ordered, That the further Consideration of the said Cause be put off sine Die.

Roake et al. v. Denn, in Error, Judges Opinion delivered:

The Order of the Day being read for taking into further Consideration the Cause wherein John Henry Roake, and others, are Plaintiffs, and John Denn, on the several Demises of Richard Nowell and William Atkinson, is Defendant; and for the Judges to attend, to deliver their Opinions upon the Question of Law propounded to them on Thursday the 28th of May last;

Accordingly, The Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer delivered the unanimous Opinion of the Judges present on the said Question in the Negative; and gave his Reasons.

Whereupon the following Order and Judgment was made:

Whereas, by virtue of His Majesty's Writ of Error returnable in The House of Lords in Parliament assembled, a Record of the Court of King's Bench was brought into this House the 20th Day of March 1827, wherein John Henry Roake, Thomas William Roake and George Roake are Plaintiffs, and John Denn, on the several Demises of Richard Nowell Gentleman and William Atkinson, is Defendant, in order to reverse a Judgment given in the Court of King's Bench, reversing a Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas; and Counsel having been heard on Thursday the 28th Day of May last, to argue the Errors assigned upon the said Writ of Error: And the unanimous Opinion of the Judges having been delivered this Day upon a Question of Law to them proposed; and due Consideration had of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:

Judgment Affirmed:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Judgment of the Court of King's Bench, reversing a Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, be, and the same is hereby Affirmed; and that the Record be remitted, to the end such Proceeding may be had thereupon as if no such Writ of Error had been brought into this House.

The Tenor of which Judgment, to be affixed to the Transcript of the Record, is as follows; (viz t.)

Tenor.

"On which Day, before the same Court of Parliament aforesaid, at Westminster aforesaid, come the Parties aforesaid, by their Attornies aforesaid; Upon which all and singular the Premises being seen, and by the said Court of Parliament here fully understood, and as well the Record and Proceedings aforesaid, as the other Matters and Causes by the said John Henry Roake, Thomas William Roake and George Roake, above assigned for Error, being fully examined and seen, and mature Deliberation thereupon had; It appears to the said Court of Parliament now here, that there is no Error in the said Record, and Proceedings of Reversal and annulling of the Judgment aforesaid by the Court of the said Lord the King before the King Himself on the first Writ of Error; Therefore it is considered by the Court of Our said Lord the King before the King Himself in His said Parliament, that the said Judgment of reversing and annulling the Judgment aforesaid on the said first Writ of Error be in all Things Affirmed, and remain in full Force and Effect, the Matters and Causes by the said John Henry Roake, Thomas William Roake and George Roake, above assigned for Error, in anywise notwithstanding."

Bruce v. Bruce.

After hearing Counsel, in Part, in the Cause wherein James Carstairs Bruce Esquire is Appellant, and Thomas Bruce Esquire is Respondent:

It is Ordered, That the further Hearing of the said Cause be put off to Friday next.

Governors of Heriot's Hospital et al. v. Dickson et al.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Cause wherein The Governors of Heriot's Hospital, and others, are Appellants, and James Dickson, and others, are Respondents, which stands appointed for this Day, be put off 'till To-morrow.

Farquharson v. Barstow.

Ordered, That the Cause wherein Archibald Farquharson is Appellant, and Miss Frances Barstow is Respondent, be heard by Counsel at the Bar To-morrow.

Faussett v. Carpenter: Humphrys v. Pratt: Writs of Error from Ireland delivered.

The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House, "That the Clerk of the Parliaments had received, by Post, from the Clerk of the Errors of the Court of Exchequer Chamber in Ireland, Two Writs of Error, in the first of which, Charles Faussett is Plaintiff, and Michael Carpenter, feigned Lessee of James Palmer Esquire, and also of Thomas Palmer Esquire, and also of Anna Maria Newcomer Widow, and also of the said James Palmer, Thomas Palmer and Anna Maria Newcomb, and also of The Reverend Mungo Henry Noble Waller Clerk, and also of The Reverend Augustus Beaufort Clerk and Mary his Wife, and also of Robert Mayne Esquire and Leonora his Wife, and also of The Reverend George Brabazon Clerk and Leonora his Wife, and also of Elizabeth Waller Spinster, and also of The Reverend Mungo Henry Noble Waller Clerk, The Reverend Augustus Beaufort Clerk and Mary his Wife, Robert Mayne and Leonora his Wife, The Reverend George Brabazon Clerk and Leonora his Wife and Elizabeth Waller Spinster, and also of William Palmer Esquire, and also of Charles Jones Esquire and Elinor his Wife, and also of Anne Battersby Widow, and also of Elizabeth Palmer Spinster, and also of Thomas Palmer, William Palmer, Charles Jones and Elinor his Wife, Anne Battersby Widow and Elizabeth Palmer, is Defendant; and in the last, William Humphrys is Plaintiff, and Harvey Pratt is Defendant, transmitted pursuant to the Provisions of an Act passed in the First Year of the Reign of His present Majesty, for the better Administration of Justice in the Court of Exchequer Chamber in Ireland."

Ordered, That the said Writs of Error do lie on the Table.

20th Report of Comrs of Revenue Inquiry, Address for.

Ordered, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, to request that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to order that there be laid before this House, "A Copy of the Twentieth Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Collection and Management of the Revenue."

Ordered, That the said Address be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

Trustees of Stonehaven Harbour v. Sir A. Keith:

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of the Trustees and Commissioners appointed under an Act of Parliament passed in the Sixth Year of the Reign of His present Majesty, Cap. 54, intituled, "An Act for improving and maintaining the Harbour of the Burgh of Barony of Stonehaven, in the County of Kincardine, and the Entrance thereto, and rendering more convenient and commodious the Streets and Avenues leading to the same;" and of James Tindal their Clerk; complaining of an Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland, of the 15th of January 1828; and also of Two Interlocutors of the Lords of Session there, of the Second Division, of the 12th of February and 30th of May 1829; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Appellants may have such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that Sir Alexander Keith of Dunnottar, Knight Marischall of Scotland, may be required to answer the said Appeal:"

It is Ordered, That the said Sir Alexander Keith may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the 16th Day of March next; and Service of this Order upon the said Respondent, or upon any one of his known Agents in the Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service.

Duthie to enter into a Recog ce on it.

The House being moved, "That James Duthie of John Street, Adelphi, in the County of Middlesex, Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for the Trustees and Commissioners of the Stonehaven Harbour, on account of their Appeal depending in this House, they being Residents in Scotland:"

It is Ordered, That the said James Duthie may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellants, as desired.

Inglis et al. v. Harper:

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of William Inglis, Writer to the Signet, and William Paul, Accountant in Edinburgh, Trustee upon his Sequestrated Estate; and of Miss Ann Buchan, residing in London; complaining of an Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland, of the 29th of May 1827; and also of an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session there, of the Second Division, of the 27th of May 1828 (except in so far as it conjoins the Two Actions, and finds no Expences due to the Respondents;) and praying, "That the same may be reversed, varied or amended, so far as complained of, or that the Appellants may have such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that James Harper Esquire, of Morningfield, may be required to answer the said Appeal:"

It is Ordered, That the said James Harper may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the 16th Day of March next; and Service of this Order upon the said Respondent, or upon any one of his known Agents in the Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service.

Thomson to enter into a Recog ce on it.

The House being moved, "That William Gibson Thomson of Old Palace Yard, Westminster, Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for William Inglis, and others, on account of their Appeal depending in this House, they residing in Scotland and France:"

It is Ordered, That the said William Gibson Thomson may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellants, as desired.

Hicks & Williams v. Morant:

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Robert Hicks of Afton, in the Isle of Wight, in the County of Southampton, Gentleman, and Richard Williams of Martin, in the County of Wilts, Gentleman; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, of the 12th of June 1829; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, or that the Appellants may have such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that John Morant Esquire may be required to answer the said Appeal:"

It is Ordered, That the said John Morant may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the 2d Day of March next; and Service of this Order upon the Solicitor or Agent of the said Respondent shall be deemed good Service.

Blackmore to enter into a Recog ce on it.

The House being moved, "That Edward Blackmore of Gray's Inn, in the County of Middlesex, Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Robert Hicks and Richard Williams, on account of their Appeal depending in this House, they residing in the Country:"

It is Ordered, That the said Edward Blackmore may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellants, as desired.

Morgan v. Evans et al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Francis Morgan, complaining of Four several Orders of the Court of Exchequer, of the 4th Day of February 1827, the 3d Day of May 1827, the 12th Day of May 1829 and the 6th Day of July 1829 respectively, made in Four several Causes, in the first of which Sir Watkin Lewes Knight was Plaintiff, and John Morgan and Amelia his Wife, William Farrer, James Morgan Clerk and Mary Ann his Wife, Henry Wilder, George Morgan, Dame Rebecca Eleanora Lewes and Justina Anna Lewes, were Defendants; in the second, the said Sir Watkin Lewes was Plaintiff, and Bartholomew Higgins, Executor of the said William Farrer deceased, Francis Morgan and James Morgan Esquire, Executors of the said James Morgan Clerk, deceased, and Joan Wilder, Administratrix of the said Henry Wilder deceased, were Defendants; in the third, the said Francis Morgan, Executor of the said John Morgan deceased, was Plaintiff, and Herbert Evans, Heir at Law of the said Sir Watkin Lewes deceased, Jacob Warner, John Garrard and William Hooker, Executors of the said Bartholomew Higgins deceased, the said James Morgan Esquire and Mary Ann Morgan, and Joan Wilder, and William Morgan and Charles Morgan, Executors of the said George Morgan deceased, were Defendants; and in the last, the said Francis Morgan was Plaintiff, and John Jenkins and Philip Hurd, Administrators of the said Sir Watkin Lewes, were Defendants, by original and amended Bill, and several Bills of Revivor; and praying, "That the said Four several Orders may be reversed or varied, as to their Lordships, in their great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that the said Herbert Evans, John Jenkins and Philip Hurd, may be required to answer the said Appeal:"

It is Ordered, That the said Herbert Evans, John Jenkins and Philip Hurd may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the 2d Day of March next.

Thomson v. Dr. Williamson et al.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed for hearing the Cause wherein James Thomson Esquire is Appellant, and Doctor James Williamson, and others, are Respondents, ex-parte, the Respondents not having put in their Answer to the said Appeal, though peremptorily Ordered so to do:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause ex-parte, by Counsel at the Bar, on the first vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed, unless the Respondents put in their Answer thereto in the mean time.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Mercurii, decimum septimum diem instantis Februarii, horâ decimâ Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.