Administrative - 1800- 1849

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 130,000 case listings, and over 95,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 15 November 2008.

Rex -v- Jukes (1800) 8 term Rep 542
1800 Lord Kenyon CJ	Administrative, Magistrates	Casemap 1 Citers
	A conviction by magistrates was said to be erroneous on its face, having failed to exclude a possible defence. The prosecutor objected to an application that it be quashed, saying "that the defendant having elected to appeal to the sessions, the certiorari was in effect taken away by the Act, because it said that the determination of the session should be final." Held: "That would be against all authority; for the ecrtiorari being a beneficial writ for the subject, could not be taken away without express words . . ."

Williams -v- Lord Bagot (2) (1824) 4 Dow & Ry KB 315
1824 Abbott CJ	Administrative	Casemap 1 Citers
	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."

Rex -v- Warnford (1825) 5 Dow & Ry KB 489
1825	Administrative	1 Citers
	The courts have power to order an inferior court to complete or correct an imperfect record.

Doe d. Bishop of Rochester -v- Bridges (1831) 1 B & Ad 847
1831 Lord Tenterden CJKB	Administrative	Casemap 1 Citers
	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.

Regina –v- The Vestrymen and Churchwardens or St Pancras Middlesex (1839) 11 Ad and E 15
1839 Lord Denman CJ	Administrative, Ecclesiastical	Casemap
	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"

Rex -v- Cheltenham Commissioners (1841) 3 QBD 467
1841 QBD Lord Denman CJ	Administrative
	Express words took away the right of the court to issue a certiorari. Nevertheless application was made on the basis that one member of the tribunal was disqualified. Held: Certiorari did lie. Lord Denman CJ: The statute cannot affect our right and duty to see justice executed . . ."

Chuck -v- Cremer (1846) Cooper temp Cottenham 205
1846 Lord Cottenham L.C	Administrative	Casemap 1 Citers
	'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.'