The Queen, at the prosecution of Rchard Fawcett, v Thomas Francis Read

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 24 May 1850
• Date: 24 May 1850
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench

THE QUEEN, at the prosecution of RCHARD FAWCETT,

and

THOMAS FRANCIS READ.

The Queen v. James Q. B., M. T. 1842.

The Queen v. Mƒ€™Mahon Q. B., T. T. 1844.

The Queen v. Johnson Exch., T. T. 1847.

The Queen v. Rossmore Exch. T. T. 1847.

The Queen v. 1 Irish Jurist, 236.

470 CASES AT LAW. T. T. 1850. Queen's Bench THE QUEEN, at the prosecution of RICHARD FAWCETT, v. THOMAS FRANCIS READ. May 24. Where the re- CERTIORARI, to return the proceedings before the Recorder of tum to a cer tiorari in a Dublin, on an appeal under the 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 53, s. 83, from a Revenue case has been filed, dismissal by the Magistrates at the Head Police-office of an inforÂÂand the case mation exhibited against the defendant for a breach of the Revenue set down in the Law List for laws. argument, the Crown will be The return having been filed, the case was set down in the entitled to the order sought, Crown List under an order dated April the 22nd 1850, which as of course, if the defendant directed " that the subject-matter of the return should be set down neglect to join in the ex- 4, in the Crown List for argument in the ensuing Trinity Term ; pence of books. " books for the Judges to be made up according to the usual course " of the Court, and each party to join in the expense thereof within " four days after service thereof upon the said T. F. Read." The order sought by the prosecutor, in case of a decision in his favour, was, that the judgment of the Recorder might be set aside, and the case sent back to him to enter continuances, and hear and decide the case upon the merits. Four books were made up and furnished to the Judges, and the prosecutor paid for two of them, but the defendÂÂant declined to pay for the other two. The case having been called on Smyly and Jebb, for the Crown, insisted that they were entitled to the order sought, as of course, the defendant not having joined in the expense of the books. This was the uniform practice both in this Court and in the Exchequer : The Queen v. James (a); The Queen v. 211Wahon (b); The Queen v. Johnson (c); The Queen v. (a) Q. B., M. T. 1842. (6) Q. B., T. T. 1844. (c) Exch., T. T. 1847. CASES AT LAW. 471 Crown Side, pp. 219, 223, 613 ; 2 Nolan on Poor Laws, p. 599. TILE QUEEN The Queen v (b), which states that it is unnecessary to v. furnish books, is an erroneous report of the The Queen v. Philbin, READ. in which (as appears from the entry in the office book) the question arose upon...