★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''[{{fullurl:JB/050/090/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | '''[{{fullurl:JB/050/090/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head>INFORMATION</head> <!-- this page is organised in two columns | <head>INFORMATION</head> <!-- this page is organised in two columns.<p>R. V. Joseph Dacre <sic>Esq:<hi rend="superscript">r</hi></sic></p> <p>The case was this</p> <p>Margaret Teasdale who appeared to be the <lb/><sic>Proscutrix</sic> was the <add>owner &</add> occupier of a Public<lb/>House <add>situated</add> near a River over which about the <lb/> year 1761 it was thought proper by the<lb/> Quarter-Sessions (<unclear>agrable</unclear> to the power given them<lb/> by Statute) that a Bridge should be made.<lb/> The Share on one side was her property:<lb/> and upon being applied to to give up <add>to the</add> a small <lb/> piece of ground over which <add>to <sic>compleat</sic></add> it was necessary<lb/> that the road should pass to meet the Bridge<lb/><add>but without</add> <del>it appear</del> any compensation <sic>offer'd,</sic> it appeared <lb/> that she gave a verbal consent — In consequence<lb/>of this the Bridge was made: over<lb/> which together with the road taken out of<lb/>her land the Public passed <add>for 9 years to then</add> without interruption.<lb/>After all this time had lapsed,<lb/>thinking as seemed probable that as she<lb/> had received no consideration for the Land, nor<lb/> executed any conveyance, her right continued<lb/> <sic>uncancelled,</sic> & that she might bring the County <lb/> to terms, she or a <gap/> caused a ditch</p> <!-- start of right hand column --> <p> to be <del>made <gap/></del> <add><gap/> & a Gate to be put up across</add> that part of the land that<lb/> had been her's — For this she <gap/><lb/> at the Quarter Sessions as for a Nuisance,<lb/>but the Indictment for some reason<lb/> or other which did not appear, was quashed.<lb/> at the next Sessions <sic>holden</sic> licencing Public<lb/> Houses only the <sic>Def<hi rend="superscript">t</hi> & one other<lb/> Justice (who had died before the commencement<lb/> of the Prosecution) were present : & they<lb/> two refused to review her License; <sic>tho'</sic> the<lb/> house had been kept for 40 or 50 year</p> <p> The information was therefore moved for<lb/> against the <sic>Def<hi rend="superscript">t</hi></sic> for refusing the woman <lb/> her licence upon the account of what she<lb/> had done respecting the road. No personal<lb/> pique was <sic>alledged.</sic></p> <p> It appeared, as the Court declared, very<lb/> clearly, that the nature of the <sic>Def<hi rend="superscript">t</hi></sic> was<lb/> no other than this <del>although</del> For the <sic>Def<hi rend="superscript">t</hi></sic><lb/> did not deny the discourse <gap/> upon<lb/> him on the part of the prosecution, wherein<lb/> he had <sic>alledged</sic> it as a reason. But he<lb/> swore further that the house was a house<lb/> of bad fame, & <del>(I believe)</del> that he refused<lb/> the licence because the house was a house<lb/> of bad fame — but <del>certainly</del> he did not<lb/> swear that this was his <hi rend="underline">only</hi> reason.<lb/> <add> Of this bad fame no instances were given, nor any information pretended to have been made.</add></p> <p> A person who made an <sic>affadavit</sic> o his<lb/> behalf swore that the Lease had been<lb/> such using other general expressions, <gap/><lb/> the not that of "a house of despicable <lb/> character" for 20 years, <add> ago that he had known</add> & that of late it<lb/> had been but "indifferent".</p> <p> The Court <del>refused to grant the rule</del> <add><del>directed that </del> the <sic>Def<hi rend="superscript">t</hi> had </add> acted<lb/> improperly in <add>shape</add> calling in his power of granting<lb/> licences "in aid" (as <sic>L<hi rend="superscript">d</hi></sic> Mansfield's expression<lb/> was) of his other Jurisdiction, and in particular<lb/> added his Lordship, I do not take<lb/> his saying that he refused <hi rend="underline">because</hi> the<lb/> house was of that character which it is <lb/> very plain he did not.</p> <p>The Court however <del> refused to grant the</del> <add>observed that</add><lb/> <del>information</del> "because the <sic>Prosecutrix</sic> did<lb/> not "come with clean hands" that she had<lb/> been <hi rend="underline">very ill advised</hi> to do what she had<lb/> done, & that if the Information were granted<lb/> <hi rend="underline">she</hi> would only find herself where she was<lb/> at the end of a long & expensive litigation.<lb/> They therefore refused to grant the Information<lb/> And put it to the Council whether if the Licence<lb/> <!-- continues in the bottom half of the left hand column --> <p>was <del>granted</del> <add> received nor</add> the <sic>Proscatrix</sic> would not<lb/> remove the nuisance which <del>terms</del> <add> proposal</add> appeared<lb/> to be embraced by the Counsel on both sides</p> <p>Information</p> | ||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | ||
INFORMATION
to be made & a Gate to be put up across that part of the land that
had been her's — For this she
at the Quarter Sessions as for a Nuisance,
but the Indictment for some reason
or other which did not appear, was quashed.
at the next Sessions holden licencing Public
Houses only the Deft & one other
Justice (who had died before the commencement
of the Prosecution) were present : & they
two refused to review her License; <sic>tho' the
house had been kept for 40 or 50 year
The information was therefore moved for
against the Deft for refusing the woman
her licence upon the account of what she
had done respecting the road. No personal
pique was alledged.
It appeared, as the Court declared, very
clearly, that the nature of the Deft was
no other than this although For the Deft
did not deny the discourse upon
him on the part of the prosecution, wherein
he had alledged it as a reason. But he
swore further that the house was a house
of bad fame, & (I believe) that he refused
the licence because the house was a house
of bad fame — but certainly he did not
swear that this was his only reason.
Of this bad fame no instances were given, nor any information pretended to have been made.
A person who made an affadavit o his
behalf swore that the Lease had been
such using other general expressions,
the not that of "a house of despicable
character" for 20 years, ago that he had known & that of late it
had been but "indifferent".
The Court refused to grant the rule directed that the <sic>Deft had acted
improperly in shape calling in his power of granting
licences "in aid" (as Ld Mansfield's expression
was) of his other Jurisdiction, and in particular
added his Lordship, I do not take
his saying that he refused because the
house was of that character which it is
very plain he did not.
The Court however refused to grant the observed that
information "because the Prosecutrix did
not "come with clean hands" that she had
been very ill advised to do what she had
done, & that if the Information were granted
she would only find herself where she was
at the end of a long & expensive litigation.
They therefore refused to grant the Information
And put it to the Council whether if the Licence
was granted received nor the Proscatrix would not
remove the nuisance which terms proposal appeared
to be embraced by the Counsel on both sides
Information
|
Identifier: | JB/050/090/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 50. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
050 |
procedure code |
||
|
090 |
information |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
|||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [lion with vryheyt motif]]] |
||
|
16081 |
|||
