Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Crime - From: 1200 To: 1799

This page lists 77 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
CASE XXII 1 H 7, 27 Sanctuary By All The Judges of England [1220] EngR 26; (1220-1623) Jenk 166; (1220) 145 ER 108 (B)
1220


Ecclesiastical, Crime
Sanctuary at conmion law does not lie for treason ; it lay for other offences. At this day all sanctuaries are abolshed by a statute made 1 Jac. 1, cap. 21. Nee veniam lesso numine casus habet.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Case XI 1 Cr 315, 340, 438, 9, 448 14 Jac Cr 404, Rice's Case Trial, Justices De Peace; 1220 - [1220] EngR 5; (1220-1623) Jenk 317; (1220) 145 ER 230 (G)
 
Case XXXIV 1 H 7, 22, 23, 25 Felony, Rescous, Sancturary, Treason [1220] EngR 25; (1220-1623) Jenk 171; (1220) 145 ER 112 (A)
1220


Crime
The rescous of any person indicted of felony, is felony by the common law. Counsel should be allowed to a felon, if he has matter in law to plead ; but he ought to shew this matter before counsel shall be allowed. Sanctuary did riot lie for treason at common law; nor was any prescription for such sanctuary allowed.
[ Commonlii ]
 
12 Jac 2 Cr 647 Hob 89, Foxcroft And Lacy's Case [1220] EngR 112; (1220-1623) Jenk 297; (1220) 145 ER 216 (E)
1220


Crime
Slander, Description, Nosme, Joinder in Action.
A bill was preferred in the Star-chamber against sixteen, the plaiiitiff was one of them ; and B. said that John Farrer was murdered by William Oldfield ; and having discourse concerning the said bill, said also, that the said sixteen defendants to the said bill abetted the said murder ; for these words, the plaintiff being one of the sixteen brought his action ; the defendant pleads not guilty ; and 'tis found for the plaintiff; he has judgment affirmed in error ; for the description of a person is a slander to him, although he be not named ; and is sufficient to maintainan action ; and the plaintiff alone my bring this action ; and every one of the sixteen may have the like action against the defendant.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Case XCVII 19 H 6, 47 By The Judges of Both Benches Treason, Equity [1220] EngR 223; (1220-1623) Jenk 101; (1220) 145 ER 72 (A)
1220


Crime
A servant kills a feme covert, who is his mistress ; this is petty treason within the statute of the 28 E. 3, ch. 2, which says, if a servant kills his master. They are one person, and therefore he is servant to her.
Clergy is denied in the case of burning of dwelling-houses, by the equity of the statute of 23 H. 8, ch. 1, and in the case of provisors upon the statute of 27 E. 3, ch. 1. For these are statutes for the publick good, and therefore shall be taken by equity.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Oldcastle's Case
1419


Crime
In a case of treason immediate fear of death can be a justification.
1 Citers


 
Reniger v Feogossa 75 ER 1 (ex); (1551) 1 Plowden 1
1551


Crime
(Exchequer Chamber ) “[I]f a person that is drunk kills another, this shall be felony, and he shall be hanged for it, and yet he did it through ignorance, for when he was drunk he had no understanding nor memory, but inasmuch as that ignorance was occasioned by his own act and folly, and he might have avoided it, he shall not be privileged thereby.”

 
Buckler's Case (1551) 1 Dyer 68; 73 ER 145
1551


Crime
The indictment read that the defendant on a charge of murder had 'feloniously struck, killed, and murdered' the victim. Held: The words were sufficient without an allegation of 'malice aforethought'. The word murder implies 'malice aforethought'.

 
Salisbury's case (1553) 1 Plowden 97
1553


Crime

1 Citers



 
 Mansell and Herbert's case; 1555 - (1555) 2 Dyer 128b; (1555) 73 ER 279

 
 James Creychtoun v Martine Creychtoun; SCS 9-Nov-1565 - [1565] Mor 1702
 
Bryson v Somervill [1565] Mor 1703
17 Nov 1565
SCS

Scotland, Crime, Family
Anent the action pursued by Janet Bryson against Janet Somervill, and William Sharer, her son, for a spulzie committed by umquhil David Sharer, her husband, and herself, and their son being in company with them; it was alleged for the said William, That in time of the said spulzie committed by his father and mother, he was within the age of twelve years, and but alleged to be in company with his said father; and so not being doli capax, et in patria potestate, non potuit contrahere obligationem.-It was alleged by the said pursuer, that the said William was past ten years, and therefore might be called for the said spulzie, because he was doli capax, quia in proxima erat pubertati et malitia potuit supplere aetatem; neither the woman nor he could be excused, by the man being father to the boy, and husband, quia omnes in pari delicto parem paenam sustineant, et cum hisce actio ex maleficio orietur, omnes tenebat.-It was alleged by the said William, because the said pursuer alleged him to be of ten years and not fourteen, therefore he should be assoilzied: Whilk allegeance of the said pursuer was repelled; and the allegeance of the said defender admitted; and the said defender assoilzied frae the spulzie, for the causes foresaid.-It was alleged by the said Janet Somervill, That she should be assoilzied frae the said spulzie, because it was alleged in the pursuer's libel, that umquhil David Sharer her husband, and she in company with him, committed the said spulzie; so on noways should she be called after his decease, she neither being called after as heir, or executrix to him, but allenarly upon her own deed, done in company with her own husband in his time, he being her principal head: Which allegeance of the said Janet, defender, was admitted, and she affoilzied frae the said spulzie. The like was practiced before, in my Lady Crawfurd's case, who being pursued for the spulzie of, was absolved, because her husband was there; and my Lady Ratie, pursued by ane Bruce, was absolved for the samen reason. See Husband and Wife.
[ Bailii ]
 
Dr Foster's Case, Concerning Recusants [1572] EngR 111; (1572-1616) 11 Co Rep 56; (1572) 77 ER 1222 (B)
1572


Ecclesiastical, Crime
By stat. 23 Eliz c1, it is enacted that “every person above the age of 16 years, which shall not repair to some church, chapel, or usual place of common prayer, & contrary to the tenor of a statute made, &c. for uniformity of common prayer, and being thereof lawfully convicted therefor, shall forfeit to the Queen’s Majesty for every month which the or she shall so forbear twenty pounds, &c." Upon an information upon this statute. Held: The party offending may be convicted in the same indictment or information preferred or exhibited against him for the penalty.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Rex v Saunders and Archer; 1573 - (1573) 2 Plowd 473 Fost 371; 75 ER 706
 
Jerome v Phear (1588) Cro Eliz 93; (1588) 78 ER 352
1588


Crime
A person effecting an arrest must not use unnecessary force.

 
Crouther's case (1599) 2 Hawk PC 116
1599


Crime
A constable was indicted for refusing to make a hue and cry after notice of a burglary committed in the night.
1 Citers


 
Watts v Brains 78 ER 1009; (1600) Cro Eliz 778
1600


Crime
No words or gestures however provoking will justify homicide from the crime of murder.

 
Beverley's Case (1603) 4 Coke 125
1603


Crime
“Although he who is drunk is for the time non compos mentis, yet his drunkenness does not extenuate his act or offence nor turn to his avail, but it is a great offence in itself, and, therefore aggravates his offence, and doth not derogate from the act which he did during that time, and that as well in cases touching his life, his lands, his goods, as any other thing that concerns him.”

 
Baxter v Woodyard 72 English Reports 899; (1606) Moo KB 776
1606


Crime
The courts awarded compensation for cheating in a game of cards where a person used a device to cause loss to the plaintiff, in this case a false card, called a "bumcard"
1 Citers


 
Mackalley's case (1611) 9 Co Rep 65 b; (1611) Cro Jac 279; [1611] ER 824
1611


Crime
If an officer or magistrate is killed when executing a process or preserving the peace, the offence is murder and remains so even if there is some defect in the process being executed, or the arrest was being made at night.
1 Citers


 
Rex v Taverner (1616) 3 Bulstr 171
1616

Coke CJ and Croke J
Crime
The court discussed the offence of killing in a duel. It expounded the heinousness of the offence with copious reference to the ancients and to Holy Scripture. Killing in cold blood was the sin of Cain
1 Citers


 
Rex v Eliot, Hollis and Valentine (1629) 3 St Tr 294
1629


Crime, Constitutional
Proceedings were taken in the King's Bench against three members of the House of Commons, who were charged with seditious speeches, contempt of the King (Charles I) in resisting the adjournment of the House and with conspiracy to keep the Speaker in the chair by force. All pleaded to the jurisdiction. The plea nihil dicit meant that conviction would be inevitable, but if they defended themselves at all, their contention that Parliament was the only body with jurisdiction over these matters would be totally undermined. Eliot's self-acknowledged dilemma was that if he did not submit he would incur the censure of the Court, but if he did, his act would be considered "a prejudice to posterity" and "a danger to Parliament". So he would be silent, just because his duty was to Parliament. Held: Members had no privilege to speak seditiously or behave in a disorderly manner.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Rex v Eliot, Holles and Valentine (1629) 3 St Tr 293
1629


Constitutional, Crime
Parliamentary privilege did not protect the maker against seditious comments made in the Chamber of the House.
1 Citers



 
 Rex v Cook; 1640 - (1640) Cro Car 537
 
The Queen v Bowles [1653] EngR 1985; (1653) Cro Eliz 428; (1653) 78 ER 668 (B)
1653


Crime
An indictment for perjury must shew that the subject matter of the oath was material to the cause in which the perjury was committed.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Anon (1661) 1 Sid 54; (1661) 86 ER 237
1661


Crime
An indictment for perjury or forgery was not to be quashed on a motion of insufficiency without a trial of the issues.

 
Rex v Darcy and Collins (1664) 1 Sid 186; 82 ER 1047
1664


Crime
D & C were indicted for a misdemeanour in that D had challenged E to a dual and sent the challenge by C who knew well about it. Both defendants were Guilty.

 
Tuberville v Savage [1669] EWHC KB J25; [1669] EngR 2160; (1669) 1 Mod 3; (1669) 86 ER 684 (C)
1669


Crime
Tuberville laid his hand upon his sword saying, "If it were not Assize time I would not take such language." It was held that the act could have amounted to an assault but for "the declaration that he would not assault him, the Judges being in town." ; and the intention as well as the act makes an assault. Therefore if one strike another upoti the hand, or arm, or breast in discourse, it is no assault, there being no identim to assault ; but if one, intending to assault, strike at another and miss him, this is an assault : so if he hold up his hand against another in a threatening manner and say nothing, it is an assault. In the principal case the plaiutiff had judgment.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Legg (1674) Kelyng 27
1674


Crime

1 Citers


 
Sedley's case (1675) Strange 168; [1675] 1 Sid 168
1675


Crime
The defendant Sir Charles Sedley showed himself naked on the balcony of a house in Covent Garden in the presence of several people and urinated on them. He was indicted at common law for outraging public decency and pleaded guilty, the magistrate ruling that: "Not withstanding that there was not any Star Chamber, yet they would leave him to know that the Court of King's Bench was the custos morum of all the King's subjects and that it was then high time to punish such profane actions, committed against all modesty, when they were as frequent as if not only Christianity but morality also had been neglected."
1 Citers


 
Taylors Case [1675] EngR 1600; (1675) Jones W 269; (1675) 82 ER 141 (B)
1675


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Taylor's Case (1676) 3 Keb 607; [1726] EngR 773; (1726) 1 Vent 293; (1726) 86 ER 189 (C)
1676

Sir Matthew Hale
Crime, Ecclesiastical
(Year?) An iriformatiori exhibited against him in the Crown Offce, for uttering of dlvers blasphemous expressions, horrible to hear, (viz.) that Jesus Christ was a bastard, a whoremaster, religion was a cheat ; and that he neither feared God, the devil, or man.
Beirig upon his trial, he acknowleclged the speaking of the words, except the word bastard ; and for the rest, he pretended to mean them in another sense than they ordinarily bear, (viz.) whoremaster, i.e. that Christ was master of the whore of Babylon, and such kind of evasions for the rest. But all the words being proved by several witnesses, he was found guilty.
And Hale said, that such kind of wicked blasphemous words were not only an offence to God and religion, but a crime against the laws, State and Government, and therefore punishable in this Court. For to say, religion is a cheat, is to dissolve all those obligations whereby the civil societies are preserved, arid that Christianity is parcel of the laws of England ; and therefore to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the law.
Wherefore they gave judgment upon him, (viz.) to stand iri the pillory in three several places, and to pay one thousand marks fine, and to find sureties for his good behaviour during life.
An attack on Christian beliefs would undermine and endanger society: "For to say that religion is a cheat is to dissolve all those obligations whereby the civil societies are preserved and that Christianity is a parcel of the laws of England and therefore to reproach Christianity is to speak in subversion of the law." and "Contumelious reproaches of God and of the religion established are punishable here.... the Christian religion is part of the law itself".
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Penny 91 ER 999; (1687) 1 Ld Raym 153
1687


Defamation, Crime
Spoken words defamatory of a private person were held not to be a crime.

 
Rex v Orbell (1703) 87 ER 804; (1703) 6 Mod 42,
1703


Crime
The indictment stated that the defendants had fraudulently and per conspirationem, to cheat J.S. of his money, got him to lay a certain sum of money upon a foot race and prevailed with the party to run "booty". Held. No false representation was made to J.S. and he was not led to believe something to be true which was in fact false.
1 Citers


 
Trial of David Lindsay [1704] EngR 43; (1704) Holt KB 693; (1704) 90 ER 1283
19 Apr 1704


Crime
Plea that as a scotsman, the defendant was not liable for conviction as a traitor
[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Wyat (1705) 1 Salk 380
1705


Crime
Where an officer [a constable] neglects a duty incumbent upon him, either by common law or statute, he is for his default indictable.
1 Citers


 
Armstorng v Lisle [1708] EngR 3; (1708) Kel 93; (1708) 84 ER 1096
1708


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
The Commissioners and Trustees of The Forfeited Estates v Kenneth Mackenzie of Assint, A Minor, By Colonel Alexander Mackenzie, His Curator [1720] UKHL Robertson - 280; (1720) Robertson 280
1 Mar 1720
HL

Scotland, Crime
Estates forfeited by vassals were acquired by the trustees for a Papist superior, but were forfeited again by the Papist's treason.
[ Bailii ]
 
The Commissioners and Trustees of The Forfeited Estates v Sir Robert Grierson, of Lagg, Bart [1720] UKHL Robertson - 298; (1720) Robertson 298
30 Mar 1720
HL

Scotland, Crime
Forfeiture - Tailzie - A father executes an entail in favour of his son; the son incurs an irritancy, but before declarator is attainted of treason: the Court of Session found that the estate returned to the father, though there was no declarator of the irritancy, and that the irritancy was not purgeable:- upon appeal, the judgment was found null, the Court not having jurisdiction.
The estate being held by the son upon a base infeftment from the father, the procurators of resignation in the hands of the Crown not having been executed, and an act of parliament having declared, that the estates of vassals attainted were to go to superiors continuing loyal; the Court upon this act adjudged the estate to the father; but their judgment was reversed upon appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
The Commissioners and Trustees of The Forfeited Estates v Sir James Macdonald of Slate, Bart [1720] UKHL Robertson - 307; (1720) Robertson 307
11 Jun 1720
HL

Scotland, Crime
Forfeiture for Treason - An act of parliament, passed on the 7th of May 1716, enacts that the persons therein mentioned, should, under tain of attainder, surrender themselves to a justice of the peace by a day certain. A person, who had surrendered by letter to the commander in chief, before the passing of the act, and was directed to proceed to a place appointed, but who, it was alleged, was prevented by indisposition; and who never surrendered to a justice in terms of the act, was nevertheless attainted of creation.
Proof - The Court having allowed a party to repeat a proof led in the same matter at issue, but in a cause at the instance of another party, in which his present opponents " did compear," the judgment is reversed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Ex Parte The Commssioners and Trustees of The Forfeited Estates v George Ogilvie of Lunan, and Mr John Ogilvie of Balbegno, Advocate [1720] UKHL Robertson - 331; (1720) Robertson 331
14 Dec 1720
HL

Scotland, Crime
Forfeiture for Treason. - Kirk Patrimony - This act for the encouragement of vassals continuing loyal, gave them a right to hold their lands. &c. of the Crown, in the same manner as they were held by the superior forfeited for treason: but vassals in church-lands, who had not claimed the benefit of the acts 1633 and 1661, annexing the superiorities of church-lands to the Crown, and had paid their feuduties to a subject superior, without receiving any new investiture from him, were not on his attainder entitled to the benefit of the said act, 1 G. 1. c. 20., but found to have right to hold of the Crown on payment of the same feuduties, &c. as paid to the forfeiting person.
[ Bailii ]
 
Ex Parte The Commissoners and Trustees of The Forfeited Estates v Sir James Mackenzie of Royston, One of The Senators of The College of Justice [1720] UKHL Robertson - 335; (1720) Robertson 335
19 Dec 1720
HL

Scotland, Crime
Forfeiture for Treason. - Recognition to a loyal Superior - An act of parliament having enacted, that the lands of those guilty of high treason, held of subject superiors, should recognosce and return into the hands of the subject superior who continued loyal; John Grant, an attainted person, held his lands of Alexander Mackenzie as his immediate superior: this Alexander was also attainted, and he held of Lord Roystoun as his superior, Lord Roystoun holding of the Crown: by the attainder of Grant, Lord Roystoun was not entitled to the property of Grant's estate, but the same was forfeited to the Crown.
[ Bailii ]
 
The Commissioners and Trustees of The Forfeited Estates v Sir George Stewart of Balcasky, Bart [1721] UKHL Robertson - 345
23 Jan 1721
HL

Scotland, Crime
Forfeiture for Treason.
Another question of the same nature as in the last appeal, arose between the same parties, in regard to the lands of Waterstown. The titles of the respondent to these lands stood in the same situation, as his titles to the lands of Gaskinhall. No cases have been found on the present appeal. That the questions were the same in this and the last appeal, appears from the report of the English Judges on the point of jurisdiction in the Court of Session, (Journal, 11 March 1719-20,) which they left undecided.
[ Bailii ]
 
John Paterson, Eldest Son and Executor of John Archbishop of Glasgow, Deceased v The Commissioners and Trustees of The Forfeited Estates [1721] UKHL Robertson - 349
20 Mar 1721
HL

Crime
Forfeiture for Treason. - I Geo. I. c. 20. - Personal debt claimed on a forfeited Estate. -
The acts relative to forfeiture for treason having solved the rights of creditors innocent, dutiful, and loyal; a claim on a forfeited estate, by virtue of a personal bond, (which had been given up in the inventory by the claimant when confirmed to his fathers) is made by a person who had been confined in prison upon suspicion, but liberated without trial; this claim is rejected by the trustees and Court of Delegates, but their judgment is reversed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Rex v Keate [1724] EngR 520; (1724) Comb 406; (1724) 90 ER 557 (B)
1724


Crime
Upon two indictments, the one for murther, the other upon the Statute of Stabbing; it was found specially, that before 15 Junii, which was the time laid in the indictment, the prisoner hired Wells, now killed, into his service as a gardiner, that 15 Junii, Wells being then in his service, the prisoner sent another servant to Wells to fetch the key of his garden, with an intent to discharge Wells from his service; Wells refused to send the key, the other servant told Keat, that Wells refused, &c. super quo Keat fetched his sword, came into the kitchen and expostulated with Wells concerning the key, WelIs said he should have it if he would ; upon this Keat drew his sword and struck Wells, and cut him on the head with it ; Wells endeavoured to have struck Keat with a sney’d (or handle) of a scythe, but the rack of a chimney was in the way, but he punch’d him with the sney’d, and followed him into the middle of the room punching at him, then Keat run him thro’ the body, whereof he died.
Cowper pro Rege. The verdict is not well as to the time, but I must take the several facts to succeed one another in the same order as they are set down in the verdict.
[ Commonlii ]
 
The Commissioners and Trustees of The Forfeited Estates v Elizabeth Stevenson, Widow of Archibald Pitcairn of That Ilk, Doctor of Medicine [1725] UKHL Robertson - 518; (1725) Robertson 518
13 Feb 1725
HL

Scotland, Crime
Treason - Obligations granted in Prison before Trial - The Earl of Winton, while in prison previous to his trial and attainder for high treason, granted receipts bearing to be for money advanced to him, but these are not allowed in whole.
It is found, however, that he was entitled to be alimented out of his estate at that period, and to apply money to the expences of his trial, and for his maintenance in prison for three months 5 and for such expences a sum of money (2972 l. 3 s.) is modified.
[ Bailii ]
 
John Earl of Sutherland, and Captain David Ross, of Daan, Tenant of The Lands of Skelbo v Mr Archibald Dunbar, and Sir Thomas Calder, and Others, Creditors On The Estate of Skelbo [1725] UKHL Robertson - 531; (1725) Robertson 531
19 Apr 1725
HL

Crime
Temporary Jurisdiction in the Commissioners of Forfeitures - Claims upon the estate of an attainted person, which had reverted to a loyal superior, did not fall under this jurisdiction, but remained to the Ordinary Courts.
Process. - Adjudication. - Mails and Duties - In an action of Mails and Duties brought by an adjudger, the superior to whom the estate hid reverted makes various objections to the adjudications, as already paid, and as in regular; upon the adjudger finding caution to repeat over-payments, these objections are repelled, leaving to the superior his remedy by declarator.
Sequostration - An estate of a person attainted, which had reverted to a loyal superior, is sequestrated at the instance of competing creditors, adjudgers prior to the forfeiture.
[ Bailii ]
 
Anonymus [1726] EngR 181; (1726) 1 Vent 32; (1726) 86 ER 23 (A)
1726


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Oneby (1727) 2 Stra 766; (1727) 1 Barn KB 17
1727


Crime
Where A & B have a sudden violent quarrel, and later, after tempers shoud have cooled, A kills B, that is murder. If A says he will revenge himself on B, or will have his blood, that is express malice. The fact of killing is prima facie murder. It is for the defendant to extenuate the fact of killing.
1 Citers


 
Curl's Case (1727) 2 Stra 788; ER 899
1727


Defamation, Crime
Obscene libel was recognized as an offence at common law.

 
The King v Donnavan [1730] EngR 52; (1730-1815) 1 Leach 69; (1730) 168 ER 137 (B)
1730


Crime
A prison or common gaol is a house within the meaning of 9 Geo. I. e. 2Z
[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Huggins and Barnes (1730) 2 Str 883; (1730) 2 Ld Raym 1574; (1730) Fitz 177
1730
KBD
Lord Raymond LCJ, Lord Chief Justice
Prisons, Crime, Vicarious Liability
The defendant Huggins was warden of the Fleet Prison. A prisoner, Arne, died in 1725. Barnes, a gaoler had put him in a room "without fire, chamber-pot or close-stool, the walls being damp and unwholesome, and the room built over the common sewer". Thus confined, Arne "by reason of his imprisonment in the said room sickened, and by duress thereof died" 44 days later. Huggins was indicted and tried at the Old Bailey for his murder, under an allegation that as warden of the Fleet he "had the care and custody of the prisoners committed thither", that "Barnes was his servant, employed by him in taking care of the prisoners", that at the time of Arne's imprisonment Barnes and Huggins knew the room to be as before described and that Huggins was "aiding and abetting Barnes in committing the said felony and murder." The jury had returned a special verdict finding that Barnes was in fact the servant of Huggins' deputy, Gibbon, and that Huggins had visited the cell only once, some 15 days before Arne died. Held: In a certiorari in the Kings Bench, the judges concluded that Barnes, if indicted, would, on the facts as found by the jury, have been guilty of murder, but that Huggins was not guilty.
Lord Raymond LCJ said: "Though he was warden, yet it being found, that there was a deputy; he is not, as warden, guilty of the facts committed under the authority of his deputy. He shall answer as superior for his deputy civilly, but not criminally. It has been settled, that though a sheriff must answer for the offences of his gaoler civilly, that is, he is subject in an action, to make satisfaction to the party injured; yet he is not to answer criminally for the offences of his under-officer. He only is criminally punishable, who immediately does the act, or permits it to be done. Hale's P. C. 114. So that if an act be done by an under-officer, unless it is done by the command or direction, or with the consent of the principal, the principal is not criminally punishable for it. In this case the fact was done by Barnes; and it no where appears in the special verdict, that the prisoner at the Bar ever commanded, or directed, or consented to this duress of imprisonment, which was the cause of Arne's death."
In Strange's report: "It is a point not to be disputed, but that in criminal cases the principal is not answerable for the act of the deputy, as he is in civil cases: they must each answer for their own acts, and stand or fall by their own behaviour. All the authors that treat of criminal proceedings, proceed on the foundation of this distinction; that to affect the superior by the act of the deputy, there must be the command of the superior, which is not found in this case."
Fitz-Gibbons reported: "The act of the deputy cannot criminally affect the principal; so that unless the act be by command, consent, or privity of the principal, so as to make him an abettor, he cannot be guilty."
1 Citers


 
Rex v Burford (1731) 2 Barn KB 80; (1831) 97 ER 369
1731


Crime
A motion of prosection was granted.

 
Dominus Rex v Woolston [1732] EngR 87; (1732) Fitzg 64; (1732) 94 ER 655 (B)
1732

Raymond CJ
Crime, Ecclesiastical
The defendant having publish'd several discourses on the miracles of Christ, in which he maintain'd that the same are not to be taken in a literal sense, but that the whole relation of the life and miracles of our Lord Christ in the New Testament, is but an allegory, several informations were brought against him, in which it was laid, that the defendant published those discourses, with an intent to vilify and subvert the Christian religion ; and he being found guilty, Mr. Worley mov'd in arrest of judgment that those discouses did not amount to a libel upon Christianity, since the Scriptures are not deny'd, but oonstrued and taken in a different meaning from that they are usually understood in ; and by the same reason that making such a construction should be punishable by the common law, so it would have been punishable by the cornmon law, before the Reformation, to have taken the doctrine of transubstantiattion allegorically ; now as the common law has continued the same since the Reformstion that it was before, whatever was punishable by it before, continues so likewise since the Reformation ; so that this being not now a crime by the common law, nor was it before the Reformation, when it was held literally a part of Christianity ; neither is the allegory made by the defendant, by the same reason, a crime puniishable by the common law ; so that if this be a crime, it must be of ecclesiastical conusance ; and it may be of a very dangerous tendency to encourage prosecutions of this nature in the Temporal Courts, since it may give occasion to the carrying on of proseccutions for a rnere difference in opinion, which is tolerated by law. He urg'd, that the defendant ehould have been proceeded against upon the stat. 10 W, 3, cap. 32, by which, for denying Christianity, the first offence incapacitates the offender to hold any offiice, and c. so that this Act having chalk'd out a special method of punishment, and being made for the benefit of the subject, the defendant should be proceeded against according to its direction ; then he offer'd, that though it should be admitted, the discourses did amount to a libel upon Christianity, yet the common law has not cognisance of suob an offence : but it being opposed, that this should now be made a question, it having been settled in Taylor's Case 1 Vent. 293, and in other instances 'twas answer'd by Raymond Chief Justice : ~hL~~st~a~iity in general is parcel of the common law of En land, and therefore to be protected by it ; now whatever strikes at the very root the opin~on of my Lord Hale in Tmjlor's andse: E663 so that to say, an attem~to subvert the est~b~~~d religiou is not ~utiishab~e by those laws upon which it is ~~blish'd, is an absurdity j if this were an etitirely new case, X shouid not think it a proper question to be made: I would have it taken rrotice of, that we do not meddle with any differences in opinion, and that we interpose otrly where the very root of ~h~stianity it seif is struck at, as it plainly is by this allegorical scheme, the Kew Testament, and the whole relatiori of the life and miracles of Christ being denied; and who can find this alIeg~r~. As to the 9 8 10 W. 3, tis' true, where a statute introduces a new law and ~1i3icts a new punj~h~ent, it must be followed ; but where an Act of ParIiame~~t only inflicts a new ~unish~ent for an off~~~ce at common law, it re~ains an o~et~ce still pu~~~shable aa it wag before the Act; so 'tis in a case of forgery, which notw~~~stand~I~g the 5 Eliz, remains still pun~shab~e, asit was before that statute ; and with him agreed the whole Court. of 8 hristianity, tends ~anifestly to a dissolution of the civil goveriiment, and so was 13, EASTWICK ANT, CORE. Process sued out in the vacation. Vid. 1 Baund. 299.
1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Wm Weir, Esq of Waygateshaw v Arthur Naismith, John Syme, Charles Hamilton, Wm Cullen, Jas Hamilton, William Allan, and Others [1743] UKHL 6 - Paton - 678; (1743) 6 Paton 678
3 Mar 1743
HL

Local Government, Crime
At a time of famine, when meal was scarce, a riot took place in the burgh of Hamilton, whereby the appellant's granaries were broken into, and his meal carried off: Held the magistrates, William Cullen and Charles Hamilton, not liable to make good the damages, having not had any accession to, or connivance with, the rioters, but having done all in their power to prevent it: reversed in the House of Lords, and held them liable as having failed and neglected to perform their duty, and connived at the said riot. Also held William Allan and some others liable as having taken a part in the riot. Quoad ultra affirmed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Alexander MacGrowther's Case [1746] Fost 13; [1746] EngR 782; (1746) Fost 13; (1746) 168 ER 8
1746

Lee CJ
Crime
In the rule that necessity might be a defence to a criminal charge, the distinction was drawn between threats directed against the person and threats upon property. "The only force that doth excuse is a force upon the person, and present fear of death ; and this force and fear must continue all the time the party remains with the rebels. It is incumbent on every man, who makes force his defence, to show an actual force, and that he quitted the service as soon as he could."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
The Case of Macdaniel And Others [1746] EngR 531; (1746-1809) Fost 121; (1746) 168 ER 60
1746


Crime
Indictment against accessaries before the fact in robbery.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v White and Ward (1757) 1 Burr 333
1757


Crime
The court considered the law of public nuisance to be the nuisance to "all the King's liege subjects" living in Twickenham and travelling and passing the King's highway was impregnating the air with "noisome and offensive stinks and smells". Each defendant, on undertaking to avoid repetition, was fined 6s 8d.
1 Citers


 
Rex v Wheatly (1761) 2 Burr 1127; [1761] 97 ER 746
1761

Lord Mansfield
Crime
Lord Mansfield discussed the common law offence of cheating: "The offence that is indictable must be such a one as affects the public. As if a man uses false weights and measures and sells by them . . in the general course of his dealing: so if a man defrauds another under false tokens."
1 Citers


 
Rex v Rispal [1762] EngR 54; (1762) 3 Burr 1320; (1762) 97 ER 852 (B)
19 Jun 1762


Crime
The defendants were accused of having falsely accused another man, Mr Chilton, of having removed hair from bales of human hair being sold. Mr Chilton was arrested. Held. The justices of peace had jurisdiction in the present case; a conspiracy being a trespass, and tending to a breach of the peace and they held, that the indictment was well laid ; and that the gist of the offence is the unlawful conspiring to injure the man by this false charge. They all therefore concurred in opinion, that the rule ought to be discharged.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Delaval's Case (1763) 3 Burr 1434
1763


Crime
The defendant was convicted for outraging public decency, having procuring a girl for the purposes of prostitution.
1 Citers


 
Rex v Royce (1767) 4 Burr 2073; 98 ER 81
1767
CCR

Crime
The defendant was accused of riot. Held: Involvement in a riot as a secondary party could be established by showing verbal encouragement of those physically involved at the time.

 
John Wilkes, Esq v The King [1768] EngR 2; (1768) Wilm 322; (1768) 97 ER 123
1768
HL

Crime, Constitutional
Mr Wilkes had been accused of making a seditious libel against the King. He had peaded not guilty, but then absconded after his conviction, but before his sentence.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Scott v Shepherd; 1773 - (1773) 3 Wils 403; [1773] 2 Wm Bl 892; (1773) 95 ER 1124
 
Rex v Rudd [1775] 1 Cowp 331; [1775] 1 Leach 115; [1775] 98 ER 1114
1775

Lord Mansfield
Crime
Mrs Rudd applied for a writ of habeas corpus, having already given evidence as an accomplice and being ready to give further evidence to assist in convicting her partners in crime. Held: Where a co-accused gave evidence for the crown and sought a pardon after conviction, his claim was for the mercy only of the crown, and had to be based upo the magistrates' implied promise and his own wholhearted co-operation and full disclosure. Lord Mansfield: "If she had such a right, we should be bound ex debito justitiae to bail her. If she had not such legal right, but yet came under circumstances sufficient to warrant the court in saying, that she had a title to a recommendation to the King for a pardon, we should bail her for the purpose of giving her an opportunity of applying for such pardon." The defendant could not claim a pardon as of right (a pardon promised by proclamation or given under statute or earned by the ancient procedure of approvement) but:- "There is besides a practice, which indeed does not give a legal right; and that is where accomplices having made a full and free confession of the whole truth, are in consequence thereof admitted evidence for the Crown and that evidence is afterwards made use of to convict the other offenders. If in that case they act fairly and openly, and discover the whole truth, though they are not entitled as of right to a pardon, yet the usage, lenity and the practice of the courts is to stop the prosecution against them and they have an equitable title to a recommendation for the King’s mercy."
1 Citers


 
Macdaniel's Case (1775) 19 St Tr 745
1775


Crime
It is the indictable offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice knowingly to charge a man falsely with any crime.
1 Citers


 
Rex v Stratton (1779) 21 How St Tr 1045
1779

Lord Mansfield
Crime
It was just possible to imagine cases in which the expediency of breaking the law was so overwhelming that people might be justified in breaking it. The rule could be extended to cases of treason upon a general principle that it could to be extended to other classes of crime.
1 Citers


 
Rex v Bainbridge (1783) 22 St Tr 1
1782

Lord Mansfield CJ
Crime

1 Citers



 
 Rex v Bembridge; 1783 - (1783) 3 Doug K B 32; [1783] EngR 170; (1783) 3 Doug 327; (1783) 99 ER 679 (B)
 
Regina v Benbridge (1783) 99 ER 679
1783

Lord Mansfield
Crime
Lord Mansfield said that: "a man accepting an office of trust concerning the public, especially if attended with profit, is answerable criminally to the King for misbehaviour in his office; this is true, by whomever and in whatever way the officer is appointed".
1 Citers



 
 Steel v Houghton Et Uxor; HL 1788 - [1788] EngR 37; (1788) 1 H Bl 51; (1788) 126 ER 32 (B)
 
The King v E Topham [1791] EngR 1268; (1791) 4 TR 126; (1791) 100 ER 931
29 Jan 1791


Crime
An indictment for publishing libellous matter, reflecting on the memory of a dead person, not alleging that it was done with a design to bring contempt on the family of the deceased, and to stir up the hatred of the King’s subjects against them, and to excite his relations to a breach of the peace, cannot be supported. Proof that the defendant gave a bond to the Stamp-Office for the duties on the advertisements in a newspaper, and had occasionally applied at the Stamp-Office respecting the duties, is evidence that he is the publisher. Vide Pult. de Pace, 2.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Penruddock and Lanxfords Case [1792] EngR 1775; (1792) 1 Bulst 93; (1792) 80 ER 791 (B)
1792


Crime
Exception taken by Yelverton, to quash an indictment of murder being quod, &.c percussit, and doth not say felonice percussit. The Court held this to be a good exception, The Attorney General urged that the indictment was sufficient notwithstanding this exception for that the words mudravit doth imply felonice.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Da Costa Vers Carteret Et Al' [1795] EngR 968; (1795) 2 Str 889; (1795) 93 ER 919 (A)
1795


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Dr Sands's Case [1795] EngR 1574; (1795) 1 Salk 145; (1795) 91 ER 134 (C)
1795


Crime, Ecclesiastical
Certiorari to remove conviction of recusancy denied
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
The Case of Troy, An Attorney [1796] EngR 1717; (1796) 1 Mod 5; (1796) 86 ER 686 (C)
1796


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Fowler v Padget [1798] EngR 47; (1798) 7 TR 509; (1798) 101 ER 1103
8 Feb 1798

Lord Kenyon, CJ
Crime
Lord Kenyon, CJ said: 'It is a principle of natural justice and of our law, that actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. The intent and act must both concur to constitute the crime'
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.