Warrantless Arrest Complaint Filing
In 1605 Queen Elizabeth directed Secretary Sir George Carey to prepare a fiant. Carey forwarded the document to the Irish Chancery. The fiant authorized a land grant under the great seal to a loyal subject.
Also known as: fiants · fiat · warrant · letters patent
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A historical decree or commission. Specifically, a warrant issued to the Chancery of Ireland for a grant under the great seal.
In 1605 Queen Elizabeth directed Secretary Sir George Carey to prepare a fiant. Carey forwarded the document to the Irish Chancery. The fiant authorized a land grant under the great seal to a loyal subject.
Lord Deputy Sir Arthur Chichester received an urgent petition in 1612. He issued a fiant to the Chancery for an immediate land patent. The grant under the great seal secured the petitioner's title before rival claimants acted.
Petitioner Thomas Wentworth submitted affidavits to the Irish council in 1635. The council approved and transmitted a fiant to Chancery. The resulting grant under the great seal conveyed the requested estate.
Attorney Patrick Darcy drafted a defective fiant in 1628. The error caused loss of a promised estate. No further commission issued because the single mistake did not demonstrate unfitness for crown service.
The king named Sir John Davies to receive a fiant in 1609. Only Davies or his designated deputy could present it to Chancery. The grant under the great seal was properly sealed and recorded.
Claimant Robert Boyle petitioned the council in 1662. The council required clear proof of prior service before approving the fiant. Only after that standard was met did Chancery issue the grant under the great seal.
During a 1967 adjudicatory hearing conducted pursuant to section 742 of the New York Family Court Act, a judge in New York Family Court found that the twelve-year-old appellant had entered a locker and stolen one hundred twelve dollars from a woman's pocketbook. The petition which charged appellant with delinquency alleged that his act, if done by an adult, would constitute the crime or crimes of larceny. The judge acknowledged that the proof might not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but relied on section 744(b) of the New York Family Court Act, which provides that any determination at the conclusion of an adjudicatory hearing that a juvenile did an act or acts must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. After a subsequent dispositional hearing, appellant was ordered placed in a training school for an initial period of eighteen months, subject to annual extensions of his commitment until his eighteenth birthday, six years in appellant's case. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, affirmed without opinion. The New York Court of Appeals then affirmed by a four-to-three vote, expressly sustaining the constitutionality of section 744(b). The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
View caseA fiant was a decree or commission. It specifically referred to a warrant directed to the Chancery of Ireland authorizing a grant under the great seal.
…of an officer by the Executive. A commission is only evidence of an appointment. Delivery is not necessary to the validity of letters patent. The President cannot authorize a Secretary of State to omit the performance of those duties which are enjoined by law. When a commission for an officer not holding his office at the will…