Halsey's case

Decided July 1, 1793

HALSEY was indicted: quod apud Kensington, cum quodam muro coctili, obstupavit altam viam regiam ducentein de London, ad Kinsington: and the indictment was quashed by Jones, J. and Whitlock, J. (absente Doderidge, J.) For the stopping is alledged at Kensington, and the way is alledged to be from London to Kensington: thus Kensington is excluded, as a lease for three years from Michaelmass, excludes Michaelmass.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1793-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1954

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Jones, J.

¶1It is well enough in the case of an indictment for stopping de alta via. But if it had been for stopping a common way, they ought to have said ducentem, from such a vill to such a vill.

¶2Whitlock, J. e contra. For it cannot appear what did nusance is.

And on another day, Whitlock, J. and Doderidge, J. concurred with Jones, J. because a high way leads from the sea through all England.

¶3In another indictment he was named Culielm Halsey, de Fleet-street, London, Plummer; and exception was taken that it does not appear from what ward.

Whitlock, J.

¶4It is well, and it would have been sufficient to have said of London, Plummer. Noy 90. 2 Roll. 81.