The Queen v Pickering

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 02 May 1839
• Date: 02 May 1839
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

QUEEN'S BENCH.

The QUEEN

and

PICKERING.

Kite & Lane's CaseENR 1 B. & C. 105.

King v. SealeENR 8 East. 569, note.

DIVISIONAL JUSTICES INFORMATION EXCISE LAWS.

1839. DILLON V. KEENEDY. 298 CASES IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH. as if it were an an application against the cognuzor himself, before he was discharged as an insolvent: the more particularly, as the intended purÂÂchaser had actual notice of the existence of this judgment, and as he had executed the purchase deed or paid the purchase money. Per Curiam.-Disallow the cause shewn, but without costs.* * On the 5th day of June, the Court of Common Pleas gave liberty to revive another judgÂÂment against the same cognuzor, under circumstances nearly similar to those of the principal case. The judgment revived in the Common Pleas had been enteredin Trinity Term, 1815, on a bond and warrant executed in that year by the said John Kennedy, and one Robert Craig, to secure the reÂÂpayment of 385. 15s., the residue of Margaret Kehoe's fortune, which had been lent to John Kennedy by the trustees of the settlement. Wednesday, May 2d. DIVISIONAL JUSTICES-INFORMATION-EXCISE LAWS. The QUEEN V. PICKERING. This was an information against the defendant for a violation of the excise laws ; it came before the court by certiorari to the magistrates of the Head Office of Police for the city of Dublin, the return to which was as follows: county of Dublin to wit.-Be it remembered, that on the 27th day of, &c., at the office of the Castle Division of the Police district of Dublin metropolis, at the Exchange Court in the county of the city of Dublin, W. Mathews exhibited an information against the deÂÂfendant, by order of the Commissioners of Excise, before A. Hamilton, one of the justices of the peace for the county of Dublin, wherein the offence was committed ; and then stated, that defendant was a paper maker in the county of Dublin, that he had within the previous four months unlawfully removed a quantity of paper, to wit, &c., with intent to defraud, &c., and thereby forfeited 100; there was a second count for the forfeiture of the goods seized ; that the defendant, having been previously summoned to make defence, personally appeared at the Head Office of Police in the county of the city of Dublin, before A. Hamilton, J. P. for the Castle Division of the Police district of the Dublin metropolis, and also a J.P. for the county of Dublin, and Joseph Gabbett, J. P. for the College Division of Police of said district ; that...