1794, March 1.--Lords' Minutes.
_Twelfth._
_Question._--Whether a paper, read in the Court of Directors on the 4th
of November, 1783, and then referred by them to the consideration of the
Committee of the whole Court, and again read in the Court of Directors
on the 19th of November, 1783, and amended and ordered by them to be
published for the information of the Proprietors, can be received in
evidence, in reply, to rebut the evidence, given by the defendant, of
the thanks of the Court of Directors, signified to him on the 28th of
June, 1785?
1794, March 1.--Lords' Minutes.
_Answer._--Whereupon the Lord Chief-Justice of the Court of Common
Pleas, having conferred with the rest of the Judges present, delivered
their unanimous opinion upon the said question, in the negative,--and
gave his reasons.
1794, March 1.--Lords' Minutes.
FOOTNOTES:
[82] See Lord Clarendon's commission as High Steward, and the writs and
precepts preparatory to the trial, in Lord Morley's case. VII. St. Tr.
[83] See the orders previous to the trial, in the cases of the Lords
Kilmarnock, &c., and Lord Lovat, and many other modern cases.
[84] Lords' Journals.
[85] Afterwards Earl of Nottingham.
[86] In the Commons' Journal of the 15th of May it standeth
thus:--"Their Lordships further declared to the committee, that a Lord
High Steward, was made _hac vice_ only; that, notwithstanding the making
of a Lord High Steward, the court remained the same, and was not thereby
altered, but still remained the Court of Peers in Parliament; that the
Lord High Steward was but as a Speaker or Chairman, for the more orderly
proceeding at the trials.
Pages:
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189