HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0130 and id is 1 raw text is: 'OONEA.KHOTY MOODELIAR V. R. [18351
to such an Act done by the Crown itself ; and it may not be amiss to observe, that in
whatever way the royal authority be exercised, for [347] the alteration of an
existing law, it is highly fit and proper that it should be done in such a form, as
that the subject may know, on the face of the Act. itself, by which the alteration is
made, that it is made by that authority which le is bound to obey. It. would be
most inconvenient if he were left to ascertain, by collateral inquiries, often difficult
and sometimes impracticable, whether the Act did or did not emanate from the
Sovereign power. It is hardly necessary to touch on the argument used at the Bar,
that even if the King had no power to legislate in this respect by virtue of his pre-
rogative, yet this being an office during his pleasure, which he might have determined
whenever he pleased, he had also the power from time to time to reduce its fees. We
expressed an opinion in the course of the argument, that His Majesty had no such
power, without the consent of the officer, though be might have removed him from it.
And it is to be observed, that if the King had the power, the same difficulty occurs
as to the exercise of it by the Governor without a special authority.
For these reasons we are of opinion that the judgment of the Court below should
be affirmed, and with costs.
'[Mews' Dig. tit. COLONY, I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES, 3. Governors and Public Officers;
II. PARTICULAR COLONIES, 3. British Guiana. S.C., with full annotation, 3 St.
Tr. (N.S.) 607; Printed Cases in Privy Council Appeals. On point (i.) as to
authority of Colonial Governor, followed in Hill v. Bigge, 1841, 3 Moo. P.C.
* 465; Musgrave v. Pulido, 1879, 5 A.C. 102 ; and cf. Tandy v. Westmoreland (Earl
of), 1792, 27 St. Tr. 1246; Luby v. Wodehouse, 1865, 17 Ir. C.L. 618; Sullivan v.
Spencer (Earl), 1872, 6 Ir. R.C.L. 177; Phillips v. Eyre, 1869, L.R. 4 Q.B. 225;
1870 (Ex. Ch.) L.R. 6 Q.B. 1 ; Sierra Leone, In re Seizure of Slaves at, 1863, Br.
and Lush. 148; Forsyth, Cases on. Const. Law, 80; Finlason on Martial Law
(lists of authorities and cases, pp. xlvi.-liii.) ; (ii.) as to non-objection by Crown
to notification, see Burrn v. Denman, 1848, 2 Ex. 167. See also note to Elphin-
stone v. Bedreechund, 1830, 1 Knapp, 361 and Willis v. Gipps, 1846, 5 Moo. P.C.
379, 387, 388, and note at p. 393.]
[348] ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE RECORDER OF BOMBAY.
POONEAKHOTY MOODELIAR,-Appellant; THE KING,-Respondent * [19th
and 20th May, 1835].
Plea to an Indictment for a misdemeanour by a native of Arcot resident at
Serroor, within the dominions of the Peishwa, to the jurisdiction of the
Recorder's Court of Bombay, overruled on the ground that it amounted to
a plea of the general issue, no other Court of competent jurisdiction being
stated for the trial of the offence [3 Knapp, 355].
A Hindoo merchant employed in the Commissariat Department of the Bombay
army in camp at Serroor, within the territories of the Peishwa, having forged
a receipt upon the East India Company for charges incurred in the public
service, which receipt was transmitted, to Bombay, and there entered in the
Commissariat accounts, was indicted for the misdemeanour in the Recorder's
Court at Bombay. Held by the Judicial Committee, that the uttering the
receipt was the completion of the offence, and that therefore it was well laid in
Bombay [3 Knapp, 367-369].
Seinble. The description of The Court of the Recorder of Bombay, as T..
Court of tie Honourable the Recorder of Bombay, is not a fatal variance
in an indictment for a niisdemeanour within the jurisdiction [3 Knapp, 370].
Present :-The Vice-Chancellor [Sir Lancelot Shadwell], Mr. Justice Bosanquet,
Mr. Justice Vaughan, and the Chief Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy [The Hon.
Thomas, Erskine]:
III KNAPP, 347](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0130&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)