And Rex V Simpson - Judgment Search Results

Yusofalli Mulla Noorbhoy Vs. the King

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR1

Bates [1911] 1 K.B. 964 and Rex v. Marsham: Pethick Lawrence, Ex parte [1912] 2 K.B. 362 referred to.;Rex v. Simpson [1914] 1 K.B. 66. distinguished.;Quaere, whether Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code constitutes a complete Code in … lawful one which might have resulted in a conviction, the accused was never in jeopardy. The case of Rex v. Simpson [1914] 1 K.B. 66. on which Mr. Page relied, is distinguishable because the first order on which the

In Re: C. Devanugraham

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1952Mad725; (1952)1MLJ550

K. B. 964 and 'Rex v. Marsham; PATHICK LAWRENCE EXPARTE' (1912) 2 K B 362 were referred to and 'Rex v. Simpson', (1914) 1 K B 66 was distinguished. The Judgment of the Bombay High Court was affirmed. The present

In Re: Sinnu Gowndan and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1914)26MLJ160

R. v. Antrim justices (1895) 2 Ir. Rep. 603. The latest case on the point is that of Rex v. Simpson and Ors. (1915) 136 L.T. 10 Exparte Smiths on K.B.D. October 23, 1913 reported in the Law Journal

In Re: Sinnu Goundan and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad1028

W.R. 499 and R.v. Antrim Justices (1895) 2 Ir. R. 603. The latest case on the point is Rex v. Simpson K.B.D., Oct. 23, 1913, reported in the Law Journal of Nov. 8 at p. 646; S.C, (1914) (Q.B.)

Bram Vs. United States

Court: US Supreme Court

6 Car. & P. 353, saying: "You had better split, and not suffer for all of them." In Rex v. Simpson, (1834) 1 Moody 410, and Ry. & Mood. 410, repeated importunities by neighbors and relatives of the prosecutor,

Najib Mohammad and anr. Vs. Rahman Khan and ors.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: AIR1952Ori131

argument, the well-known distinction as regards the validity of acts of authorities with limited jurisdiction pointed out in 'Rex v. Commissioner of Taxes', (1888) 21 Q B D 313, followed in 'The King v. Bloomsbury Income-tax Commrs.', (1915) … and is a nullity, as this does not involve any relief by way of annulment. See 'Balkishen Das v. Simpson', 25 Cal 833. The only question in such cases is whether the grounds put forward as objections to

Mayuri Pulse Mills and Others Vs. Union of India and Others.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR348; (1994)96BOMLR953; [1996]86CompCas121(Bom)

adulterated food. So under the Game Acts, as to the innocent possession of game by a carrier : Rex v. Marsh 2 B C 717. So as to the liability of a guardian of the poor, whose partner, … Morden v. Porter 7 C.B. 641; 29 M.C. 213, as to unintentional trespass in pursuit of game; Lee v. Simpson 3 C.B. 871 as to unconscious dramatic piracy and Hargreaves v. Diddams LR 10 QB 582, as to

Secretary of State Vs. V.M. Meyyappa Chettiar

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1937Mad241

It is true that in Kensington Income-tax Commissioners v. Aramayo (1916) 1 AC 215 [affirming the decision in Rex v. Kensington Income-tax Commissioners (1914) 3 KB 429] it was decided that 'prohibition' will lie and is an appropriate … and do not therefore require to be set aside within the shorter period of limitation: cf. Balakrishan Das v. Simpson (1898) 25 Cal 833; Marukkolundayammal v. Secy. of State AIR 1932 Mad 664. In Fischer v. Twigg (1898)

Moore Vs. United States

Court: US Supreme Court

absence of a statutory regulation, the authorities upon this subject are practically uniform. Wharton's Criminal Law § 1942; Rex v. Snowley, 4 Car. & P. 390; Commonwealth v. Simpson, 9 Met. 138; People v. Sherman, 10 Wend. 298;

United States Vs. Howell

Court: US Supreme Court

be issued under the authority of the statute, the difficulty would have been removed. In the case of Rex v. Birch and Martin, the indictment charged them "with publishing as true a false, forged, and counterfeited paper writing … be a bank bill of the United States for ten dollars, signed by Thomas Willing, president, and G. Simpson, cashier." And because the statute relating to the charge set forth in the indictment is inconsistent, repugnant, and