“It is necessary for Courts of Justice to hold a strict hand over summary proceedings before magistrates, and I never will agree to relax any of the rules by which they have been bound. Their jurisdiction is of a limited nature, and they must shew that the party was brought within it.”

— Lloyd Kenyon, 1st Baron Kenyon

King v. Stone (1800), 1 East, 650.

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "It is necessary for Courts of Justice to hold a strict hand over summary proceedings before magistrates, and I never wi…" by Lloyd Kenyon, 1st Baron Kenyon?

Lloyd Kenyon, 1st Baron Kenyon 92

British Baron 1732–1802

Related quotes

“The Court must not depart from those rules which have been considered necessary for the due administration of justice.”

Henry Bickersteth, 1st Baron Langdale (1783–1851) British lawyer

Symonds v. The Gas Light and Coke Co. (1848), 11 Beav. 285.
Quote

“The Court ought never to come to the conclusion that two cases in the same Court, or in Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, are in conflict, unless it is obliged to. I agree that if two cases are in conflict the Court must say with which of them it agrees.”

William Brett, 1st Viscount Esher (1815–1899) British lawyer, judge and politician

Duke of Devonshire v. O'Connor (1890), L. R. 24 Q. B. D. 473.

“The law has armed the High Court of Justice with the power, and imposed on it the duty of preventing brevi manu and by summary proceedings any attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. It is on that ground, and not on any exaggerated notion of the dignity of individuals that insults to Judges are not allowed.”

Charles Bowen (1835–1894) English judge

In re Johnson (1887), L. R. 20 Q. B. D. 74.

“It was said by a very learned Judge, Lord Macclesfield, towards the beginning of this century that the most effectual way of removing land marks would be by innovating on the rules of evidence; and so I say. I have been in this profession more than forty years, and have practised both in Courts of law and equity; and if it had fallen to my lot to form a system of jurisprudence, whether or not I should have thought it advisable to establish two different Courts with different jurisdictions, and governed by different rules, it is not necessary to say. But, influenced as I am by certain prejudices that have become inveterate with those who comply with the systems they found established, I find that in these Courts proceeding by different rules a certain combined system of jurisprudence has been framed most beneficial to the people of this country, and which I hope I may be indulged in supposing has never yet been equalled in any other country on earth. Our Courts of law only consider legal rights: our Courts of equity have other rules, by which they sometimes supersede those legal rules, and in so doing they act most beneficially for the subject. We all know that, if the Courts of law were to take into their consideration all the jurisdiction belonging to Courts of equity, many bad consequences would ensue. To mention only the single instance of legacies being left to women who may have married inadvertently: if a Court of law could entertain an action for a legacy, the husband would recover it, and the wife might be left destitute: but if it be necessary in such a case to go into equity, that Court will not suffer the husband alone to reap the fruits of the legacy given to the wife; for one of its rules is that he who asks equity must do equity, and in such a case they will compel the husband to make a provision for the wife before they will suffer him to get the money. I exemplify the propriety of keeping the jurisdictions and rules of the different Courts distinct by one out of a multitude of cases that might be adduced.... One of the rules of a Court of equity is that they cannot decree against the oath of the party himself on the evidence of one witness alone without other circumstances: but when the point is doubtful, they send it to be tried at law, directing that the answer of the party shall be read on the trial; so they may order that a party shall not set up a legal term on the trial, or that the plaintiff himself shall be examined; and when the issue comes from a Court of equity with any of these directions the Courts of law comply with the terms on which it is so directed to be tried. By these means the ends of justice are attained, without making any of the stubborn rules of law stoop to what is supposed to be the substantial justice of each particular case; and it is wiser so to act than to leave it to the Judges of the law to relax from those certain and established rules by which they are sworn to decide.”

Lloyd Kenyon, 1st Baron Kenyon (1732–1802) British Baron

Bauerman v. Eadenius (1798), 7 T. R. 667.

“I should be extremely sorry to find that in a fictitious proceeding, instituted for the more easy attaining of justice, different rules were to obtain in the different Courts.”

Lloyd Kenyon, 1st Baron Kenyon (1732–1802) British Baron

Goodright v. Rich (1797), 7 T. R. 334.

“It is a rule that those who come into a Court of justice to seek redress, must come with clean hands, and must disclose a transaction warranted by law.”

Lloyd Kenyon, 1st Baron Kenyon (1732–1802) British Baron

Petrie v. Hannay (1789), 3 T. R. 422.

“If the Bill of Rights was intended to place strict limits on federal power and protect individual and locality from the national government—the 14th Amendment effectively defeated that purpose by placing the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in federal hands, where it was never intended to be. Put differently, matters previously subject to state jurisdiction have been pulled into the orbit of the judiciary.”

Ilana Mercer South African writer

"Whodunit? Who Meddled With Our Democracy?" Part 2 http://american-exceptionalism.org/whodunit-who-meddled-with-our-american-democracy/, The Heartland Institute, May 18, 2018.
2010s, 2018

“As to proceedings in Courts of justice, it is for the interest of all the public to hear what takes place in Court.”

William Brett, 1st Viscount Esher (1815–1899) British lawyer, judge and politician

Pittard v. Oliver (1891), L. J. 60 Q. B. D. 221.

“It is of course true that any kind of judicial legislation is objectionable on the score of the limited interests which a Court can represent, yet there are wrongs which in fact legislatures cannot be brought to take an interest in, at least not until the Courts have acted.”

Learned Hand (1872–1961) American legal scholar, Court of Appeals judge

Letter to Louis D. Brandeis, dated (22 January 1919).
Extra-judicial writings

“It is a maxim in our law that a plaintiff must shew that he stands on a fair ground when he calls on a Court of justice to administer relief to him.”

Lloyd Kenyon, 1st Baron Kenyon (1732–1802) British Baron

Booth v. Hodgson (1795), 6 T. R. 409.

“It is necessary for Courts of Justice to hold a strict hand over summary proceedings before magistrates, and I never will agree to relax any of the rules by which they have been bound. Their jurisdiction is of a limited nature, and they must shew that the party was brought within it.”

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Lloyd Kenyon, 1st Baron Kenyon 92

Related quotes

Related topics