Medical Jurisprudence, Volume 3 (of 3)Paris, John Ayrton
Science
Medical Jurisprudence, Volume 3 (of 3)
Paris, John Ayrton
Medical laws and legislation -- Great Britain
punish without limitation; and a special manner how they shall punish,
in one and the same sentence. 3dly, Hil. 38 Eliz. in a _Quo warranto_
against the Mayor and Commonalty of London, it was held, that where a
grant is made to the Mayor and Commonalty, that the Mayor for the time
being should have [153]_plenum et integrum scrutinium, gubernationem, et
correctionem omnium et singulorum mysteriorum, &c._ without granting
them any court, in which should be legal proceedings, that it is good
for search, whereby a discovery may be made of offences and defects,
which may be punished by the law in any court, but it doth not give, nor
can give them any irregular or absolute power to correct or punish any
of the subjects of the kingdom at their pleasure. 2. It was objected,
that it is incident to every court created by letters patent, or act of
Parliament, and other courts of record, to punish any misdemeanor done
in court, in disturbance or contempt of the court, by imprisonment. To
which it was answered, that neither the letters patent nor the act of
Parliament has granted them any court, but only an [154]authority, which
they ought to pursue, as it shall be afterwards said. 2. If any court
had been granted them, they could not by any incident authority
_implicitè_ granted them, for any misdemeanor done in court, commit him
to prison without bail or mainprize, until he should be by the
commandment of the president and censors, or their successors,
delivered, as the censors have done in this case. 3. There was not any
such misdemeanor for which any court might imprison him, for he only
shewed his case to them, which, he was advised by his counsel, he might
justify, which is not any offence worthy of imprisonment. The second
point was, admitting that the censors had power by the act, if they had
pursued their authority, or not? And it was resolved by the Chief
Justice, Warburton and Daniel, that they had not pursued it for six
reasons. 1. By the act, the censors only have power to impose a fine, or
amerciament; and the president and censors imposed the amerciament of
5l. upon the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff was summoned to appear _coram
presidente et censoribus, &c. et non comparuit_, and therefore he was
fined 10l. whereas the president had no authority in that case. 3. The
fines or amerciaments to be imposed by them, by force of the act, do not
belong to them, but to the King, for the King had not granted the fines
or amerciaments to them, and yet the fine is appointed to be paid to
them, _in proximis comitiis_, and they have imprisoned the plaintiff for
non-payment thereof. 4. They ought to have committed the plaintiff
presently, by construction of law, although that no time be limited in
the act, as in the statute of W. 2. cap. 11 [155]_De servientibus,
ballivis, &. qui ad compotum reddend’ tenentur, &c. cum dom’ hujusmodi
servientium dederit eis auditores compoti, et contingat ipsos in
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account