This is an actual case from Jan 20, 1866. It is taken from a print edition of English Reports Annotated, 1866, pages 2673 to 3874, found in the James J. Lunsford (Hillsborough County) Law Library. The stamp on the inside cover of the book credits Wm. M. Taliaferro, O K. Reaves, Chas F. Blake, M G. gibbons Jr., H.P. Macfarlane, G. L. Reeves, John R. Himes and Karl E. Whitaker for the “Loan.”
[In The Court of Queen’s Bench]
Jan. 20, 1866
TRIGGS, appellant, v. LESTER, respondent
14 W. R. 279; L. R. 1 Q.B. 259; 13 L. T. 701.
STATUTE.-By the Islington Parish Act, 1857, it is forbidden to conduct or drive cattle upon any street, road, or pathway within the parish of Islington between the hours of twelve on Saturday night and twelve on Sunday night:–Held, that the words “conduct or drive” did not apply to the conveyance of cattle in a van.
This case was stated on a complaint by the respondent against the appellant for conducting or driving cattle upon certain roads within the parish of Islington between the hours of twelve o’clock on Saturday night and twelve o’clock on Sunday night, contrary to the provisions of the Islington Parish Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. C. xxi).
By the 3rd section of the act it is enacted “that it shall not be lawful for any drover or other person to conduct or drive in, upon, or through any of the roads, lanes, streets, squares, or other places, or on or over any of the footpaths which now are, or hereafter may be, within the parish of Islington, any oxen, sheep, swine, or other cattle between the hours of twelve of the clock on any and every Saturday night throughout the year; and twelve of the clock on any and every Sunday night throughout the year;” and the section impose a penalty upon a drover or other p[erson who shall be guilty of such offense.
It was proved that the appellant was driving horses which were drawing a van containing cattle. It was concluded on behalf of the appellant that this was not a conducting or driving within the statute. The magistrate convicted the appellant, subject to the opinion of the court on the above case.
Underdown was heard in support of the conviction.
Besley, for the appellant, was not called on.
The court1 being of opinion that the facts proved did not constitute a “conducting or driving” within the meaning of the statutes.
(1) Cockburn, C.J., Blackburn and Lush, JJ.
English Reports Annotated, 1866, vol. 2. Part II (Cited as  E.R.A.). Annotated To February, 1914. Pages 2692-2693.
“The court of Queen’s Bench” is the pretty much the equivalent of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was first established in 1215, and still exists today. The Court of Queen’s Bench has jurisdiction over both civil and criminal matters.
As fun as it is to look through these old cases and draw whatever conclusions we may, we should also remember that the American system of law is based on case laws such as this from the Old English Common Law.