Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

said Courts, be deemed and taken to be part, as well of the county wherein such district or place is so situate as aforesaid, as of the county whereof the same is parcel; and every such writ and process may be directed accordingly and executed in either of such counties."

A Sheriff in former times (g) had often more counties than one under his charge, in the same manner as the Sheriff of Cambridge is at the present day also Sheriff of Huntingdon (h).

There are at this day in England 40 counties (i); in Wales 12; in all 52; namely—

[blocks in formation]

Counties
Palatine.

Counties in fee.

Of these counties or shires there are five of special mark; namely, Durham, Chester (k), Lancaster, Middlesex and Westmoreland. The three first being Counties Palatine (1), the two last in fee.

Durham and Chester are counties palatine by Prescription (m), Lancaster is such by Act of Parliament (n). The Earldom of Chester (Camden states) became vested in the Crown in the time of Hen. 3, and has ever since given title to the king's eldest son. The county palatine of Lancaster, on the attainder of Hen. 6, (1 Edw. 4,) became forfeited, and was then, by act of parliament (0), vested in King Edward 4 and his heirs, kings of England, for ever, but under a separate guiding and governance from the other inheritances of the crown. The county of Durham, the only one remaining in the hands of a subject, was, by a recent statute (p), intituled "An Act for separating the Palatine jurisdiction of the County Palatine of Durham from the Bishoprick of Durham," vested in his late Majesty, his heirs and successors, as a franchise and royalty separate from the Crown. The Queen may make what counties she pleases counties palatine (q).

The Sheriff of a County Palatine is as much the officer of the Court as any other Sheriff, although it is irregular to direct the writ to him in the first instance (r); but if directed to him immediately he is not a trespasser for executing it.

Middlesex, by a charter of Hen. 1, (confirmed by King

c. 26, was part of Wales; see Jenkin's
Rep. case 7.

(k) See 11 G. 4, and 1 Will. 4, c.
70, s. 13, abolishing the jurisdiction of
the Chamberlain, &c.; and since this
the writ is directed immediately to the
Sheriff of the county.

(1) Counties Palatine are so called, à palatio, because the owners thereof, the Earl of Chester, the Bishop of Durham, and the Duke of Lancaster, had in those counties regalem potestatem in omnibus, Bracton, lib. iii. c. 8, s. 4. As to their privileges, and why originally executed, see 4 Inst. 204; 5 Cromp. Juris. 137; 1 Danv. Abr. 750. Pembrokeshire and Hexhamshire were Counties Palatine; the former was abolished by the 27 Hen. 8, the latter in 14 Eliz. By the 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 21, s. 11, the counties

of Wales are called Palatine; the Isle of Ely is only a Royal Franchise, and not a County Palatine; 2 Inst. 220; Grant v. Bagge, 3 East, 128.

(m) Co. Litt. sect. 170.

(n) Seld. tit. Hon. 2, 5, 8; 4 Inst. 204; Plowd. 215; T. Raym. 138. (0) 1 Ventr. Rep. 155, 157; 4 Inst. 245; see also 1 Hen. 7.

[ocr errors]

(p) 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 19; see the extent of the words County of Durham," in this act, sect. 7.

(9) Vaugh. Rep. 418; 4 Inst. 201. (r) Needham v. Bennet, Sir T. Raym. 171; Jackson v. Hunter, 6 Term Rep. 71; 2 Saund. Rep. 193; 1 Ch. Rep. 374. As to Chester, see suprà, note (k); Lancaster and Durham, see 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s, 3; also post, Direction of Capias.

John,) was vested in fee in the mayor and commonalty and citizens of the city of London, upon condition of their paying 3007. a year to the King's exchequer; but by an act of Common Council (s), dated 7th April, 1748, it is enacted, amongst other things, "That henceforth the right of electing persons to the said offices of Sheriffalty shall be, and the same is hereby vested in the liverymen of the several companies of this city," &c. (t)

In Middlesex the two officers constitute only one Sheriff, and must in all writs and pleadings be described as Sheriff; in London they may be described as Sheriffs (u), (x).

Westmoreland is the inheritance of the Earl of Thanet.

The Sheriffs of Middlesex and Westmoreland are as much the officers of the Court as other Sheriffs, differing only in their appointment, mode of accounting, and a few other matters which may without prejudice be at present omitted.

There are also Counties Corporate (y)—that is, certain cities Counties of ancient boroughs, to which formerly, out of special grace and corporate. favour, the kings of England have granted the privilege to be counties of themselves, and not to be comprised in any other county; and are governed by their own sheriffs and other magistrates, so that no officers of the county at large have any power to intermeddle therein-12 cities and 5 towns; namely (~): Counties of Cities with two Sheriffs.

[blocks in formation]

(s) See this "Act of the Common Council," set out verbatim in Impey's Sheriff, P. 15-25.

(t) Viner's Abr. Sheriff, C. a.; see also Bohun, Norton, Green or Jacob, on the Privileges of London.

(u) Bac. Abr. Sheriff, K. 162; 2 Ld. Raym. 1135; Barker v. Weedon, 1 C. M. & R. 396; 2 Ch. Pl. 291, 6th edit.

(x) In the county of Londonderry, in Ireland, the office is executed by two; 1 Roe on Elect. 498.

(y) Co. Litt. 109.

(3) See 3 Geo. 1, c. 15.

(a) 42 Eliz.

(b) Hen. 1, 2 Inst. 230; 2 Inst. 248

(c) 32 Hen. 8. By the Municipal Corporation Act, (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 141,) the Queen is empowered to grant Charters of Incorporation. Note, the Sheriff of the city of Oxford, appointed in pursuance of the above act, has not the execution in Oxford of writs from the Superior Courts; they are executed by the Sheriff of the county; Granger v. Taunton, 5 Dowl. 190.

Two Sheriffs.

Counties of Towns with one Sheriff.

Kingston upon Hull

Newcastle upon Tyne

Nottingham

Pool and Southampton.

The peculiarity of these Counties Corporate is, that there are in some that is counties of cities two Sheriffs, constituting in law but one officer (d). In Viner's Abridgment, Sheriff, C. a. it is accounted for thus (with reference more immediately to London and Middlesex) :—" The first beginning of this custom seems to be upon the foundation of the Charter of King John, who granted the sheriffwick of London and Middlesex to the mayor and citizens of London, at the farm of 300l. per annum, so that being a grant in fee of the sheriffwick as a corporation, they had a right to name one or more officers in order to execute the same; and they thought it proper to name two officers, indifferently to execute both offices, and both of them to execute as one sheriff, though the writ in Middlesex is directed to them as one, viz.: Vic. Com. Middx. Præcipimus tibi; in that of London, Vic. London Præcipimus vobis. And the reason of this difference seems to be, that before this grant of the sheriffwick to the corporation, the corporation nominated to the Crown, and the Crown appointed the Sheriffs for London, and the London Sheriffs were responsible to the King for the London profits of the sheriffwick, and that was the reason why two were appointed, that both might be responsible; and this nomination was, that the citizens might exhibit to the King responsible persons and that seems to be the reason that in many of the corporations that are cities and counties there are two sheriffs. But when by the Charter of King John the sheriffwick of London and Middlesex was granted to the citizens as a perpetual Fee Farm, then they entered their Sheriffs, which before were nominated for London only, and the election of the two was for both sheriffwicks, but the directing of the King's Writs were as before, viz. in London, To the two Sheriffs; in Mid

(d) Auditor Curle's case, 11 Co.
7, and cases cited; Rich v. Player,
Show. Rep. Ca. 276; Wood's Inst.
71; 2 P. Wms. 108; Bac. Abr. She-
riff, K.; 4 Mod. 65; Vin. Abr. She-
riff, C. a. pl. 1; Weobly's case, 3 Rep.
72, a.
In case of the death or chal-
lenge of one of these two Sheriffs, see

Rex v. Warrington, 4 Mod. 65; 1 Salk. 152; S. C. Year Book, 22 Hen. 6, 51, b, pl. 17; Rich v. Player, Skin. 102; 2 Show. 262, 286; Vin. Abr. tit. Sheriff, C. a. ; also where there are two who suffer an escape, and one dies, Cro. Eliz. 625 ; 2 Ch. P1. 267, n.

dlesex, as if there was one only. G. Hist. of C. B. 136; 3 Co. 72; 1 Show. 289, 162; 2 Show. 262, 286; Lev. 284; Priv. of London, fol. 5, 6, 7, 272, 273; Hob. 70."

The Sheriffs of Counties Corporate are as much the officers of the Court as other Sheriffs.

There are also Cinque Ports-certain Ports wherein the Con- Cinque stable of Dover Castle, as Warden, executes all writs, &c.; Ports.

their names are→

Dover
Sandwich
Romney

Hastings

Hythe

Winchelsea and Rye (d).

In Berwick-upon-Tweed the Mayor and Bailiffs have execu- Berwick on tion of all process (e).

Tweed.

definition of.

A Franchise or Liberty is a royal privilege, or branch of the Franchise Queen's prerogative, subsisting in the hand of a subject, wherein or Liberty, the grantee only and his officers are to execute all process (ƒ). Note, when the Queen is a party no franchise is allowed (g); also by the sanction of the Superior Courts, (which is given by issuing a writ with a non omittas clause,) the Sheriff hath power to enter all liberties within his county. All liberties are officially noticed by the Courts (h); the High Sheriff is likewise bound to notice them (i).

A Bailiwick is now, in general, used to signify the whole Bailiwick. county, as in the return of a writ where the person is not arrested, the Sheriff says, "the within-named A. B. is not found Bailiwick; and in the statute of Magna Charta, c. 28,

in my

(d) In the time of Edward the Confessor there were but three ports, Dover, Sandwich, and Romney; but in the time of William the Conqueror, Hastings and Hythe were added; 4 Inst. 222; 2 Inst. 556; and in 1 John, Winchelsea and Rye. The Duke of Wellington is the present Warden.

(e) See 3 Bing. 461; 11 Moore, 372, S. C.

(f) See Newland v. Cliffe, 3 Barn.

& Ad. 633, post, "Bailiffs of Liber-
ties;" Platel v. Dowse, 1 Arnold,
38; Finch, C. 164; Wood's Inst.
206; Boothman v. Surrey, 2 Term
Rep. 5; Balme v. Hutton, 2 C. & J.
19.

(g) Fitz. Prerog. 21, Enquest, 12.

(h) 2 Term Rep. 5, suprà; Car-
rett v. Smallpage, 9 East, 338; New-
land v. Cliffe, 3 B. & Ad. 633.
(i) Ibid.

« ÖncekiDevam »