Swindon Judgment Summonses in September 1861

[KGarrad]

Looking at the original page of the newspaper (Swindon Advertiser & North Wilts Chronicle, Monday 16th September 1861), the 2 column article is headed:

SWINDON COUNTY COURT
Wednesday, 11th Sept
(Before C.F.D. Caidard, Esq., judge)

Two-hundred and forty new causes, and adjourned case, and twenty-five judgment summonses were issued for hearing at this court.

Most of the cases were concluded by an order for payment.
The 5 Judgment Summonses were all concluded with  a commitment for 7 to 21 days,  with a suspension for between a week and 3 weeks.

My take on this is that the 5 were defaulters of previous judgments, and ordered to pay within a week or so, or face a spell in the debtor's prison?

Happy to be proved wrong, of course!

[CarolA3]

I have no idea what fastfusion has been reading, but the newspaper item described by Toby says nothing about masons or contracts for work   Perhaps he would care to enlighten us.

An ancestor of mine appeared before Berkshire County Magistrates in 1850.  A farmer had engaged him to hoe turnips, and he duly started the job but went absent 'soon after'.  I believe the distinctions between 'civil' and 'criminal' matters were a little different back then, but whatever the technicalities might have been, the outcome was a prison sentence of one month for the errant labourer.

So yes, people could be imprisoned for failing to do their jobs - if that's what happened in Wallis-v-Hornblow.

(By the way, the letter 'R' before 'v(ersus)' doesn't stand for 'Royal'.  That would be absurd, because 'Royal' is an adjective.  It means either Rex or Regina depending on the gender of the monarch at the time of the case.)

Be sure to keep us informed, Toby

Carol

[fastfusion]

Carol A3>   I checked out the two individuals first as to see where they lived in the censuses and to what manner of occupations they had.

I will also point out that I have many a book on the legal profession and I will not take that any further excepting to ask which Law School did you qualify from to make comments as such regarding "Royal" in lines of references versus another party. [knowing very well about REX and REGINA] thank you

The post asks for an explanation as to the judges comments....  firstly one must get the context..  KGarrad points out that numerous people were also mentioned in the article for which the comment is same.   If and when we see a Debtors Prison admissions list that compares to the names in the article then I will accept KGarretts opinion in full,  and I am quite happy to accept that partially the case invoked Law of Contracts and some criminality resulting in possible results in the Debtors Prison........

[majm]

R v .......   (Regina/Rex/Royal)

http://guides.is.uwa.edu.au/content.php?pid=51430&sid=409790

"Abbreviations in Case Titles

"R" - Rex or Regina. Latin for King or Queen. Used in cases pertaining to criminal law matters"

Add
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legal_abbreviations    R  = Rex or Regina

http://global.oup.com/uk/academic/authors/lawspecific/listofabbreviations/
Regina (Rex)—The Queen (or King)   R

Cheers,  JM

[KGarrad]

Oh dear, oh dear!

FF is not quite right.

Debtors Prison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtors%27_prison#Great_Britain_.28later_the_United_Kingdom.29

Debtors Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtors_Act_1869

Judgement Summons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_summons

Knowing that some people can't be bothered to read the links, I offer the following precis:

The judgment summons cites the defendant to appear personally in court, and be examined on oath as to the means he has, or has had, since the date of the order or judgment made against him, to pay the same, and to show cause why he should not be committed to prison for his default.

[CarolA3]

fastfusion, I will deal with the points you raise in the same order.

Carol A3>   I checked out the two individuals first as to see where they lived in the censuses and to what manner of occupations they had.

Very good, but the census sheds no light on the nature of the court case.  It could just as well be about property damage, for example.

I will also point out that I have many a book on the legal profession and I will not take that any further excepting to ask which Law School did you qualify from to make comments as such regarding "Royal" in lines of references versus another party. [knowing very well about REX and REGINA] thank you

I have also referred to many legal textbooks in the course of over 30 years working with the English legal profession.  However, the meaning of ‘R’ is an item of general knowledge and wouldn’t be out of place in an average English pub quiz.

The post asks for an explanation as to the judges comments....  firstly one must get the context.. 

Yes, we do need to know the context.  Until Toby completes his enquiries, there is no point in speculating about debtors or contracts or anything else.

I agree that the definitions provided by JM and KG are correct, and I suggest that we all go away now and do other things until there is something definite to discuss.

Carol

[fastfusion]

""""Two hundred and forty new causes, one adjourned case, and twenty five judgement summonses were issued for hearing at this court,
but the major part of them were settled out of court or withdrawn. Those heard possessed but little public interest, and the COurt rose at an earlier hour than usual."""


the major part of them were settled out of court or withdrawn

so none were sent to debtors prison or the like..........


b]

this rootschatter posted one the """twenty five judgement summonses """ mentioned in the article.

So maybe we go back to what I originally said>

"""The two parties had a "contract" of sorts.  one of the gentlemen had to stick around and probably perform work for 7 days to obligate the "contract".     then there was a suspension of said contract for 14 days.......    this could be that the defendant had personal issues such as a death or illness or otherwise and asked for a stay.......      meaning that whatever contract was to be done would be done by grace of God or the gentlemans honour......""""

which equals  SETTLING OUT OF COURT which is also described in the header of the article.....


I will also point out THAT after further investigation...... it seems the Hornblow family in question were transient tenants moving across Wiltshire probably to follow the flow of work.....   I didnt see any evidence of ownership by the plantiff of property for which the defendant may have rented .
So I believe that , Hornblow was to supply goods, or labour or some other service, or had the mason provide a service unto Hornblow for which the latter could not either provide or pay for.

I also agree that further information is required to determine the nature of the dispute to warrant the use of the court.

the reflection of comments thrown at me disputing the initial post shows me that in future I wont respond to any flippin post to offer an opinion ........ <sup>(*)



(*)</sup> Moderator Comment: rude language removed

[CarolA3]

""""Two hundred and forty new causes, one adjourned case, and twenty five judgement summonses were issued for hearing at this court,
but the major part of them were settled out of court or withdrawn. Those heard possessed but little public interest, and the COurt rose at an earlier hour than usual."""


the major part of them were settled out of court or withdrawn

so none were sent to debtors prison or the like..........


b]

this rootschatter posted one the """twenty five judgement summonses """ mentioned in the article.

So maybe we go back to what I originally said>

"""The two parties had a "contract" of sorts.  one of the gentlemen had to stick around and probably perform work for 7 days to obligate the "contract".     then there was a suspension of said contract for 14 days.......    this could be that the defendant had personal issues such as a death or illness or otherwise and asked for a stay.......      meaning that whatever contract was to be done would be done by grace of God or the gentlemans honour......""""

which equals  SETTLING OUT OF COURT which is also described in the header of the article.....


I will also point out THAT after further investigation...... it seems the Hornblow family in question were transient tenants moving across Wiltshire probably to follow the flow of work.....   I didnt see any evidence of ownership by the plantiff of property for which the defendant may have rented .
So I believe that , Hornblow was to supply goods, or labour or some other service, or had the mason provide a service unto Hornblow for which the latter could not either provide or pay for.

I also agree that further information is required to determine the nature of the dispute to warrant the use of the court.

the reflection of comments thrown at me disputing the initial post shows me that in future I wont respond to any flippin post to offer an opinion ........

Thank you for your interesting contribution.  I look forward to hearing from Toby.

Carol

[youngtug]

[a], 

[from fastfusion; I will also point out THAT after further investigation...... it seems the Hornblow family in question were transient tenants moving across Wiltshire probably to follow the flow of work.....   I didnt see any evidence of ownership by the plantiff of property for which the defendant may have rented .quote finished.
//////////////////

 The Hornblow's have lived in Broad Blunsdon and other villages in the area for quite a while [200+years.] Sometimes they lived in rented accomodation, others owned their property. The type of work and the means of travelling to and from have changed over the years but I don't think itinerant is the correct word to describe most of the Hornblows of this area.. The London Gazette 1867;  https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/23237/page/2120