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: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 96 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.


 
 Rex v Lord Rusby; 1800 - (1800) Pea (2) 189
 
The King v Higgins [1801] EngR 444; (1801) 2 East 5; (1801) 102 ER 269
11 Nov 1801

Lawrence J
Crime
Lawrence J said: “All offences of a public nature, that is, all such acts were attempts to lead to the prejudice of the community, are indictable.”
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Crunden's Case (1809) 2 Camp 89
1809

McDonald CB
Crime
The defendant went bathing at Brighton; he was seen as he undressed and swam in the sea. He was convicted of outraging decency for exposing his naked person in presence of people. Held: By exposing his naked person he was guilty of a misdemeanour, as it outraged public decency. "The law will not tolerate such an exhibition. Whatever his intention might be, the necessary tendency of his conduct was to outrage public decency and to corrupt public morals." It was no defence that people had previously bathed there naked before the houses were built: "Whatever becomes the habitation of civilised men, there the laws of decency must be enforced."
1 Citers


 
Rex v Leefe, Gent One, and Co [1809] EngR 268; (1809) 2 Camp 134; (1809) 170 ER 1106
27 May 1809


Constitutional, Crime
If a count in an indictment for perjury undertake to set out continuously the substance and effect of what the defendant swore when examined as a witness; it is necessary, in support of this count, to prove, that in substance and effect he swore the whole of that which is thus set out as his evidence, although the count contains several distinct assignments of perjury. In an indictment for perjury before a select commttee of the House of Commons, it was averred, that an election was had for a borough "by virtue of a certain precept of the high sheriff of the county by him duly issued to the bailiff of the said borough of NM", Held, that thls was not a description of the precept, aud that although the borough was therein differently denominated the variance was immaterial. But the indictment having stated that "AB and CD were returned to serve as burgesses for the said borough of N. M." this was considered a description of indenture of return and the borough being therein misled the borough of M. "he variance was held fatal.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Phillips (1811) 3 Camp 73
1811


Crime
That a woman had not conceived could not afford a defence to the offence under section II.
Lord Ellenboroughs Act of 1803 II
1 Citers


 
Rex v Douglass [1811] EngR 67; (1807, 1808, 1811) 1 Camp 212; (1811) 170 ER 933
1811


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Kingsnorth v Bretton And Another [1814] EngR 315; (1814) 5 Taunt 415; (1814) 128 ER 750
27 Apr 1814


Animals, Crime
A magistrate who convicts an unqualified person of killing game under the stat. B Ann. e. 14, and causes his dog to be brought for the purpose of seizing it, may order the dog to be killed without any formal adjudication of seizure.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Rex -v William Sawyer; 1815 - [1815] EngR 431; (1815) Russ and Ry 294; (1815) 168 ER 810
 
Rex v Vantandillo (1815) 4 MandS 73
1815


Crime
The mother of a young child took him through a public street well knowing that the child suffered from the contagious, infectious and dangerous disease of smallpox. Held: She was properly convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment in the custody of the marshal for the offence of committing a public nuisance.
1 Citers



 
 Rex v William Sawyer; 7-Apr-1815 - [1815] EngR 615; (1815) 2 Car and K 101; (1815) 175 ER 41
 
Rex v Thomas Buttery And Timothy Macnamarra [1818] EngR 63; (1818) Russ and Ry 342; (1818) 168 ER 836 (A)
1818


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v James Egerton [1819] EngR 106; (1819) Russ and Ry 375; (1819) 168 ER 852
1819


Crime
Fear of loss of character and service, upon a charge of sodomitical practices is sufficent to constitute robbery, though the party has no fear of being taken into custody, or of punishmeat.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Rex v Borron; 1820 - (1820) 3 BandAld 432; [1820] EngR 136; (1820) 3 B and A 432; (1820) 106 ER 721
 
Ilott v Wilkes (1820) 3 B and Ald 304
1820


Crime, Negligence

1 Citers


 
Rex v Burdett Times, 28 November 1820; [1821] EngR 127; (1821) 4 B and A 314; (1821) 106 ER 952
28 Nov 1820


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v George Tacey [1821] EngR 45; (1821) Russ and Ry 452; (1821) 168 ER 893
1821


Crime
The removal of a part of a knitting frame was damaging the frame “although the part taken out was not injured, and the replacing it would again make the frame perfect” on the ground that “it made the frame imperfect and inoperative”.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Joseph Jackson [1822] EngR 90; (1822) Russ and Ry 487; (1822) 168 ER 911 (A)
1822


Crime
12 judges decided by 8 to 4 that carnal knowledge of a woman whilst she was under the belief that the man is her husband was not rape.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v William Britton Dyson [1823] EngR 191; (1823) Russ and Ry 523; (1823) 168 ER 930
1823


Crime
If a man encourages another to murder himself and is present abetting him while he does so, such person is guilty of murder as a principal. If two encourage each other to murder themselves together, and one does so, but the other fails in the attempt upon himself, he is a principal in the murder of the other. But if it be uncertain whether the deceased really killed himself or whether he came to his death by accident before the moment when he meant to destroy himself, it will not be murder in either.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Waters v Chambers [1823] EngR 447; (1823) 1 Sim and St 225; (1823) 57 ER 90
20 Mar 1823


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Peter Rosinski [1824] EngR 154; (1824) 1 Mood 19; (1824) 168 ER 1168
1824


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rosinski's Case [1824] EngR 167; (1824) 1 Lewin 208; (1824) 168 ER 1015 (A)
1824


Crime
A medical man by false pretences procuring a female to strip herself naked in his presence, under pretece of applying jis medical skills, but in reality for his own lewd gratification is guilty of common assault.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v James Whitney [1824] EngR 148; (1824) 1 Mood 3; (1824) 168 ER 1162 (A)
1824


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Peter Rosinski's Case [1824] EngR 131; (1824) 1 Lewin 11; (1824) 168 ER 941
1824


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Thomas Gnosil [1824] EngR 432; (1824) 1 Car and P 304; (1824) 171 ER 1206
14 Mar 1824

Garrow B
Crime
Garrow B considered the nature of the force involved in an act of robbery at common law: "'The mere act of taking being forcible will not make this offence highway robbery; to constitute the crime of highway robbery the force used must be either before or at the time of taking and must be of such a nature to show it was intended to overpower the party robbed and prevent his resisting, and not merely to get possession of the property stolen...'
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Rex v Hollingberry; 1825 - (1825) 4 B and C 329; [1825] 6 Dow and Ry 345; [1825] 107 ER 1081
 
Rex v William Yates, Also D F Jones [1827] EngR 155; (1827) 1 Mood 170; (1827) 168 ER 1229
1827


Crime, Stamp Duty

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Henry Smith [1827] EngR 146; (1827) 1 Mood 178; (1827) 168 ER 1232 (A)
1827


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Ramsden And Others [1827] EngR 508; (1827) 2 Car and P 603; (1827) 172 ER 275 (A)
2 Jun 1827


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Scudder (1828) 1 Mood CC 216
1828


Crime

Lord Ellenboroughs Act of 1803
1 Citers


 
Rex v Howarth [1828] 1 Moody 207
1828


Crime, Police
There is no need for a police officer to tell a man why he is being arrested when he must, in the circumstances of the arrest, know the reason already.
1 Citers



 
 Rex v Edmeads And Others; 4-Mar-1828 - [1828] EngR 441; (1828) 3 Car and P 390; (1828) 172 ER 469
 
Rex v Hodgkinson (1829) 10 BandC 74
1829

Lord Tenderden
Crime
The term victuals" has means food or sustenance including drink, and "victualler" means anyone who sells victuals.
1 Citers


 
Rex v Rouverard [1830] Denman's reports 344 (Note)
1830

Baron Parke
Crime
(York) The defendant, a French master was accused of outraging pubic decency: "for exposing his person at a window in Micklegate, York, to excite a girl who was a servant on the second floor of the house on the opposite side of the street." Held: Baron Parke said: "I left it to the jury to say whether those in the street could have seen him or not (not whether they did see him); and that, if they could have seen him, it was a nuisance." Exposure by the defendant to one person was not sufficient to constitute the offence, but if the jury found that the defendant was in such a position that those in the street could have seen him had they happened to look, it was an offence; it did not matter that no one in the street had actually seen him.
1 Citers


 
Hanway v Boultbee [1830] 1 M and Rob 15; [1830] EngR 887; (1830) 4 Car and P 350; (1830) 172 ER 735 (B); [1830] EngR 888; (1830) 174 ER 6
30 Nov 1830


Torts - Other, Crime
A person may use a proportionate degree of force to defend himself, or others, from attack or the threat of imminent attack, or to defend his property or the property of others in the same circumstances.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ] - [ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Peter Withers [1831] EngR 196; (1831) 1 Mood 294; (1831) 168 ER 1277
1831


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Withers [1831] EngR 203; (1831) 4 Car and P 446; (1831) 172 ER 776
1831


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Capewell And Pegg [1831] EngR 186; (1831-1833) 5 Car and P 549; (1831) 172 ER 1094
1831


Crime
A count in an indictment for night poaching stated, that the prisoners were in a field called A., for the purpose of then and there taking game : Held, that the prisoners could not be convicted on that count, unless the jury were satisfied that the prisoners had an intention of taking game in that particular field
[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Collison [1831] EngR 502; (1831) 4 Car and P 565; (1831) 172 ER 827 (B)
16 Mar 1831

Garrow B
Crime
Two men went out by night with carts to steal apples. They were detected by the landowner's watchman. One of the thieves attacked him with a bludgeon which he was carrying and caused the man severe injury. The second thief was tried for assault and wounding with intent to murder. Held: Garrow B ruled: "To make the prisoner a principal, the Jury must be satisfied that, when he and his companion went out with a common illegal purpose of committing the felony of stealing apples, they also entertained the common guilty purpose of resisting to death, or with extreme violence, any persons who might endeavour to apprehend them; but if they had only the common purpose of stealing apples, and the violence of the prisoner's companion was merely the result of the situation in which he found himself, and proceeded from the impulse of the moment, without any previous concert, the prisoner will be entitled to an acquittal."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Russell [1831] EngR 828; (1831) 1 M and Rob 122; (1831) 174 ER 42
9 Aug 1831


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Moore (1832) 3 BandAd 184
1832


Crime
Moore ran a rifle range in Bayswater. His customers shot at pigeons, which caused a crowd to gather outside and in neighbouring fields to shoot at the pigeons which escaped, causing noise, damage, disturbance and mischief. Held: On conviction for committing a public nuisance, with the defendant undertaking to discontinue the shooting, no penalty was imposed.
1 Citers


 
Rex v Henry Russell [1832] EngR 236; (1832) 1 Mood 356; (1832) 168 ER 1302
1832


Crime
If a woman takes poison with intent to procure a miscarriage and, dies of it, she is guilty of self-murder, whether she was quick with child or not, and a person who furnished her with the poison for that purpose will, if absent when she took it, be an accessory before the fact only. And as he could not have been tried as such before 7 Geo. IV. c 64, s 9, he is not triable for a substantive felony under that Act An accessory before the fact to the crime of self-murder was not triable at common law, because the principal could not he tried And he is not now triable under 6 Geo IV c 64, s 9, for that section is not to be taken to make accessories triable except in cases in which they might have been tried before.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Williams v Carwardine [1833] EWCC J44; [1833] EWHC KB J44
22 Mar 1833
KBD

Crime

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Rex v Medley (1834) 6 CandP 292
1834

Denman CJ
Crime
The defendant directors of a company were accused of committing a public nuisance by acts causing pollution of the River Thames. Held: The jury was directed that directed the jury that the ignorance of the directors was no defence if they had authorised a manager to conduct the works, and they were each fined £25.
1 Citers


 
Rex v John Mountford [1835] EngR 232; (1835) 1 Mood 441; (1835) 168 ER 1336
1835


Crime
Sending a tin box filled with gunpowder and peas, to prosecutor, so contrived that prosecutor should set fire to the powder by opening the box, is not attempting to discharge certain loaded arms.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Rex v Pearson; 1835 - (1835) 2 Lew CC 144
 
Rex v Whitney [1835] EngR 244; (1835) 7 Car and P 208; (1835) 173 ER 92
1835


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Harris (1836) CCR
1836
CCR

Crime
The defendant bit a woman's nose. He was accused of wounding her. The prosecution argued, using the expression unius est exclusio alterius rule that it was akin to a "stab, cut or wound" Held: The defendant should be acquitted. The words suggested an intention that any injury must be inflicted by means of some weapon and this did not include the use of parts of the body.

 
Rex v Pritchard [1836] 7 C and P 303; [1836] EngR 540; (1836) 7 Car and P 303; (1836) 173 ER 135
21 Mar 1836

Alderson B
Crime
A person, deaf and dumb, was to be tried for a capital felony the Judge ordered a Jury to be impanneled, to try whether he was mute by the visitation of God, the jury found that he was so. The jury were then sworn to try whether he was able to plead, which they found in the affirmative, and the prisoner, by a sign, pleaded Not guilty The Judge then ordered the jury to be sworn to try whether the prisoner was 'now sane or not'; and on this question, his Lordship directed the jury to consider whether the prisoner had sufficieut intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings, so as to make a proper defence, to challenge any juror he might wish to object to, and to comprehend the details of the evldence, and that if they thought he had not, they should find him not of sane mind. The jury did so, and the Judge ordered the prisoner to be detained.
The court stated the test for whether a defendant was fit to plead. Alderson B said: "There are three points to be enquired into:- first, whether the prisoner is mute of malice or not; secondly, whether he can plead to the indictment or not; thirdly, whether he is of sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings in the trial so as to make a proper defence - to know that he might challenge any of you [the jury] to whom he may object - and to comprehend the details of the evidence, which in a case of this nature must constitute a minute investigation.'"
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Rex v Kirkham; 1837 - [1837] 8 Car and P 115; [1839] EngR 273; (1839) 8 Car and P 115; (1839) 173 ER 422
 
Rex v Greenacre (1837) 8 CandP 35
1837


Crime
Once the prosecution has established that one person has died at the hand of another, it is for the defedant to establish by evidence or inference form the circumstances some excuse or mitigation to reduce the charge from murder.
1 Citers


 
Macklin, Murphy, And Others' Case [1838] EngR 176; (1838) 2 Lewin 225; (1838) 168 ER 1136 (A)
1838


Crime
If several persons act together with a common intent, every act done by each of them in furtherance of that intent is done by all. If a deadly weapon be used an intention to kill is to be inferred - not so from a blow with a fist. From continued violence, after much beating, an intention to kill may be inferred.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Stockdale's Case [1838] EngR 267; (1838) 2 Lewin 220; (1838) 168 ER 1134
1838


Crime

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Regina v Young And Webber; 22-Sep-1838 - [1838] EngR 876; (1838) 8 Car and P 644; (1838) 173 ER 655
 
Regina v Joseph Wheeldon [1839] EngR 242; (1839) 8 Car and P 747; (1839) 173 ER 700
1839


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v Bolam [1839] EngR 535; (1839) 2 M and Rob 192; (1839) 174 ER 259
4 Mar 1839


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
St. George (1840) 9 C and P 483
1840

Parke B
Crime
The "actus reus" in an assault is the action causing the effect on the victim's mind.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Cullen [1840] EngR 1089; (1840) 9 Car and P 681; (1840) 173 ER 1008
17 Dec 1840


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v Hetherington (1841) 4 St Tr N S 563
1841

Lord Denman CJ
Crime
Lord Denman CJ directed a jury on a trial for blasphemous libel: "Because, a difference of opinion may subsist, not only as between different sects of Christians, but also with regard to the great doctrines of Christianity itself . . even discussions on that subject may be by no means a matter of criminal prosecution but, if they be carried on in a sober and temperate and decent style even those discussions may be tolerated and may take place without criminality attaching to them; but that if the tone and spirit is that of offence and insult and ridicule, which leaves the judgment really not free to act and therefore cannot be truly called an appeal to the judgment but an appeal to the wild and improper feelings of the human mind, more particularly in the younger part of the community, in that case the jury will hardly feel it possible to say that such opinions, so expressed, do not deserve the character which is affixed to them in this indictment."
1 Citers


 
Holland, Regina v [1841] EWHC QB J103; [1841] EngR 481; (1841) 2 M and Rob 351; (1841) 174 ER 313; [1841] EW Misc J91
7 Apr 1841
Misc
Maule J
Crime
Indictment for murder. The prisoner was charged with inflicting divers mortal blows and wounds upon Thomas Garland, and (amongst others) a cut upon one of his fingers.
It appeared by the evidence that the deceased had been waylaid and assaulted by the prisoner, and that, amongst other wounds, he was severely cut across one of his fingers by an iron instrument. On being brought to the infirmary, the surgeon urged him to submit to the amputation of the finger, telling him, unless it were amputated, he considered that his life would be in great hazard. The deceased refused to allow the finger to be amputated. It was thereupon dressed by the surgeon, and the deceased attended at the infirmary from day to day to have his wounds dressed; at the end of a fortnight, however, lock-jaw came on, induced by the wound on the finger; the finger was then amputated, but too late, and the lockjaw ultimately caused death. The surgeon deposed, that it the finger had been amputated in the first instance, he thought it most probable that the life of the deceased would have been preserved.
For the prisoner, it was contended that the cause of death was not the wound inflicted by the prisoner, but the obstinate refusal of the deceased to submit to proper surgical treatment, by which the fatal result would, according to the evidence, have been prevented.
Maule J., however, was clearly of opinion that this was no defence, and told the jury that if the prisoner wilfully, and without any justifiable cause, inflicted the wound on the party, which wound was ultimately the cause of death, the prisoner was guilty of murder; that for this purpose it made no difference whether the wound was in its own nature instantly mortal, or whether it became the cause of death by reason of the deceased not having adopted the best mode of treatment; the real question is, whether in the end the wound inflicted by the prisoner was the cause of death?
Guilty.
[ Bailii ] - [ Commonlii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v M'Phane, Popham, and Donoghue; 17-Jun-1841 - [1841] EngR 840; (1841) Car and M 212; (1841) 174 ER 476
 
Regina v Brown (1841) C and Mar 314; [1841] EngR 932; (1841) Car and M 314; (1841) 174 ER 522
15 Jul 1841

Alderson Baron
Police, Crime
(Bedford Assizes -(Crown Side)) Constable Herbert complained that the defendant had not assisted him when called on to do so when he tried to halt a riot. Held: Baron Alderson said: "The offence imputed to the defendant consists in this - that Herbert being a constable, and there being a breach of the peace actually committing under his own view, he called upon the defendant to assist him in puttmg an end to it, and that he without lawful excuse refused so to do. It is no ummportant matter that the Queen’s subjects should assist the officers of the law, when duly required to do so, in preserving the public peace and it is right that the state of the law should be known, and that all parties violating the duty which the law casts upon them should be fully aware of the very serious risk they ran in case of refusal. It is necessary you should be satisfied of three particulars -first, that the constable actually saw a breach of the peace committed by two or more persons. It is clear that ail prize-fights are illegal, and that all persons engaging in them are punishable by law. The constable, therefore, saw parties breaking the law ; and if a breach of the peace is in the act of being committed in the presence of a constable, that constable is not only justified but bound to prevent it, or put a stop to it if it has begun, and he is bound to do so without a warrant. Secondly, you must be satisfied that there was a reasonable necessity for the constable Herbert calling upon other persons for their assistance and support; and in this case there is no doubt that the constable could not by his own unaided exertions have put an end to the combat. Lastly, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant was duly called upon to render his assistance, and that, without any physical impossibility or lawful excuse, he refused to give it. Whether the aid of the defendant, if given, would have proved sufficient or useful is not the question or the criterion. Every man might make that excuse, and say that his individual aid would have done no good; but the defendant’s refusal may have been and perhaps was the cause of that of many others. Every man is bound to set a good example to others by doing his duty in preserving the public peace.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v John Johnston [1842] EngR 55; (1842) 2 Mood 254; (1842) 169 ER 101
1842


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v Brookes And Three Others [1842] EngR 366 (B); (1842) Car and M 543
8 Mar 1842


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v Pitts [1842] EngR 395 (A); (1842) Car and M 284
17 Mar 1842

Erskine J
Crime
If a person, being attacked, should from an apprehension of immediate violence, an apprehension which must be well grounded and justified by the circumstances, throw himself for escape into a river, and be drowned, the person attacking him is guilty of murder.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Daniel M'Naghten's Case; HL 1843 - (1843) 10 Cl and Fin 200; [1843] 8 ER 718; [1843] UKHL J16; [1843] EngR 875
 
Regina v Yates [1843] EngR 121; (1843) Car and M 132; (1843) 174 ER 441
1843


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v John Brookes And Three Others [1843] EngR 81; (1843) Car and M 544; (1843) 174 ER 627
1843


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v Archer And Four Others [1843] EngR 45 (B); (1843) 1 Car and K 174
1843


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
McNaughten's Case (1843) 10 CI andF 200
1843


Crime

1 Citers


 
Regina v Joshua Jones Ashley [1843] EngR 480; (1843) 1 Car and K 198; (1843) 174 ER 773
25 Mar 1843


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Blake and Tye (1844) 6 QB 126
1844


Crime
Admissibility of admissions against co-conspirators.
1 Citers


 
Rex v Bunyan and Morgan (1844) 1 Cox 74
1844


Crime
The two defendants were seen by a servant through the window to be exposing themselves to each other and committing lewd acts in a parlour room of a public house where they were alone; she summoned others who witnessed the act. The indictment charged the offence of outraging public decency as being in the sight and view of the servant and divers others. It was argued that publicity was of the essence of the offence and that therefore it was essential that it be committed in a public place so that the natural consequence of it was that it would be seen by others and that it was actually seen by others. Held: The Recorder of London held that it was not necessary to prove that the public would detect them as the parties would seek as much privacy as they could, but was their position such that there was no reasonable probability of their being discovered? It was sufficient that they exposed themselves in a place where they were likely to be witnessed by others.
1 Citers


 
Webb v Beavan [1844] EngR 160; (1844) 6 Man and G 1055; (1844) 134 ER 1220
25 Jan 1844


Crime
In trespass for entering a yard, thc defendant was allowed to plead that he entered for the purpose of viewing a mare then in a stable in the yard, which had been recently stolen from him.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v Thomas Dunnett [1844] EngR 253 (B); (1844) 1 Car and K 425
12 Feb 1844


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
The Queen v James Smith [1845] EngR 271; (1845) 1 Den 79; (1845) 169 ER 158
1845


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v Ann Coxhead [1845] EngR 551; (1844) 1 Car and K 623; (1845) 174 ER 964
3 Mar 1845


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v Dingley And Nine Others [1845] EngR 571; (1844) 1 Car and K 637; (1845) 174 ER 970
12 Mar 1845


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v James Smith [1845] EngR 588 (B); (1844) 1 Car and K 700
19 Mar 1845


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v Henry Smith [1845] EngR 1128; (1845) 2 Car and K 207; (1845) 175 ER 86
14 Jul 1845


Crime

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Regina v Serva and nine others; 26-Jul-1845 - (1846) 2 C and K 53; [1845] EngR 274; (1845) 1 Den 104; (1845) 169 ER 169; [1845] EngR 1168; (1846) 2 Car and K 53; (1845) 175 ER 22
 
Regina v Levi Warman [1846] EngR 179; (1846) 1 Den 183; [1846] 169 ER 203
1846

Alderson B
Crime
An indictment for murder, by inflicting a mortal wound, is supported by proof of a blow, which caused an internal breach of the skin, though externally there were only the appearances of a bruise Quaere, Whether such an allegation would have been sufficient in an indictment on the statute for cutting or wounding, with intent to murder.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Goodhall (1846) 1 Den CC 187
1846


Crime
Proof of pregnancy was unnecessary to establish an offence under the Act of procuring a miscarriage.
Offences against the Person Act 1837
1 Citers


 
Rex v Goodchild (1846) 2 Car and K 293
1846


Crime
The defendant was accused of administering a noxious thing with intent to procure a miscarriage. Held: It was no defence that the woman to whom the noxious thing was administered was not with child.
1 Citers


 
Regina v John Swindall And James Osborne [1846] EngR 506; (1846) 2 Car and K 230; (1846) 175 ER 95
23 Mar 1846


Crime
If each of two persons be driving a cart at a dangerous and furious rate, and they be inciting: each other to drive at a dangerous and furious rate along a turnpike road, and one of the carts run over a man and kill him, each of the two persons is guilty of manslaughter, and it is no ground of defence, that the death was partly caused by the negligence of the deceased himself, or that he was either deaf or drunk at the time Generally, it may be laid down, that, where one by his negllgence has contributed to the death of another, he is guilty of manslaughter.
[ Commonlii ]
 
The Queen v Gompertz, Lewis, William Witham, Robert Witham And Francis Witham [1846] EngR 1219; (1847) 9 QB 824; (1846) 115 ER 1491
17 Dec 1846


Crime
A count in an indictment is good which simply charges that defendants, unlawfully, &c., did conspire, combine, confederate and agree together, by divers false pretences and indirect means to cheat and defraud R. of his moneys. Where an indictment for conspiracy Contains several counts, if only a single conspiracy be proved, the verdict may nevertheless be taken on so many of the counts as describe the conspiracy consistently with the proof. In the course of proving a conspiracy to defraud, carried into effect by prevailing upon the prosecutor to accept bills, a warrant of attorrney, given to him for the purpose of inducing him to accept, reciting the acceptance may be given in evidence though unstamped. An indictment for conspiring to defraud the the prosecutor may be supported by proof of a conspiracy to obtain his acceptances, though the prosecutor part with no money, and though he never has intended to take up the acceptances, and though the bills were never in his hands except for the purpose of his accepting. Where all of several defendants in an indictment for conspiracy are found guilty, if one of them shew himself entitled to a new trial on grounds not affect ing the others, the new trial will nevertheless be granted as to all.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Watson (1847) 3 Cox CC 376
1847

Lord Denman CJ
Crime
The defendant having indecently exposed himself in Paddington Churchyard to a 12 year old girl was charged with committing a public nuisance. Held: Only one person had seen him. The charge could not be sustained unless there had been at least two people present, of whatever sex. Lord Denman CJ said: "The general rule is that a nuisance must be public; that is, to the injury or offence of several. There is no precedent of such an indictment as the present and we are not inclined to make one."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Emanuel White [1847] EngR 38; (1847) 1 Den 208; (1847) 169 ER 214
1847


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v Emanuel White [1847] EngR 37; (1847) 2 Car and K 404; (1847) 175 ER 167
1847


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v Rose (1847) 2 Cox 329
1847


Crime
A person may use proportionate force to defend himself.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Bruce (1847) 2 Cox CC 262
1847


Crime

1 Citers


 
Regina v Barnett, O'Brien, And Whitney [1848] EngR 36 (A); (1848) 2 Car and K 594
1848


Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Charles Gavan Duffy (1848) St Tr (NS) 915
1848

Ball J
Crime, Constitutional
The defendant was editor of the Irish newspaper 'The Nation'. He was accused of treason. Held: The judge summed up the offence of treason under the Act as follows: “if any person shall entertain the intention of deposing Her Majesty from her sovereignty in this country, or the intention of levying war against Her Majesty for the purpose of coercing her to change her measures and counsels and shall in either case manifest such an intention by any printing or writing, he shall be guilty of felony . . an attempt to depose the sovereign does not impart any intention to injure the Queen or even to treat her with any personal disrespect. Neither is a formal intention to deprive her of her titles, position and dignity necessary. The offence has been perpetrated if the prisoner has entertained and expressed the intention of constituting or setting up in this Kingdom any body of persons who were to exercise the functions of the Government and virtually to supersede the Queen’s authority – still more so if the prisoner has entertained and expressed an intention of severing this country from the British crown and establishing either a republic or any other form of Government.”
Treason Felony Act 1848 3
1 Citers


 
Regina v Mitchel (1848) St Tr (NS) 599
1848


Crime, Constitutional
The judge instructed the jury that advocacy of republicanism was necessarily an offence: "There are no two things more inconsistent with each other – no two ideas more opposed to each other – no two expressions more contradictory of each other than that of a republic to a monarchy; and any man who does avow his desire to compass and obtain a republic, must inevitably intend to imagine the deposition and destruction of the monarchy. The two things cannot combine; the destruction of one is involved in the existence of the other. And if, looking to the natural import, tenor and meaning of the words used, you think that he did compass and intend to have a republic, there is necessarily and inevitably implied in that compassing an intention to deprive Her Majesty of her imperial throne.” This was the last known prosecution under the Act.
Treason Felony Act 1848 3
1 Citers


 
Rex v Webb (1848) 3 Cox CC 183; (1848) 2 Carr and K 933; (1848) 1 Den 338
1848

Pollack CJ, Cresswell Parke B
Crime
(Exchequer Chamber) The defendant was accused of having exposed himself to a barmaid in the bar of a public house when there was no one else in sight. The charge was for outraging public decency contrary to common law. She ran off and informed her husband. Nobody else had been in sight. The defendant argued that he should not have been convicted of outraging public decency as the indictment averred that he exposed and exhibited himself in the "presence" (as opposed to "within sight and view") of the woman and others; that it was essential it be in the sight of the public and that the words used in the indictment did not make this clear, and that only one woman was involved, and that the law required there to be two or more. Held: There was no proof that the act had taken place in the presence of more than one person, and the charge failed. The judges differed as to their reasons.
Pollock CB observed in the course of argument: "This indictment says 'in the presence of'; and it might be that the defendant took particular care that it should not be seen."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Rex v Button (1848) 3 Cox CC 229
1848

Crompton J
Crime
The defendants were charged with conspiracy to use their employers' vats and dyes to dye articles which they were not entitled to dye, to secure profits for themselves and so to defraud their employer of profit. There was no false pretence and no deceit of their employer by inducing him to believe something to be true which was false.
1 Citers


 
Rex v Orchard and Thurtle (1848) 3 Cox CC 248
1848

Cresswell J
Crime
(Old Bailey) The defendants were each charged with exposure to each other and the commission of lewd acts in a urinal in a market which was alleged to be a public place; no one could see in from the outside. The prosecution argued that if the defendants committed an act in a place where the public could enter and witness what was happening then that was sufficient. Held: The place was not a public place for the purpose of the offence as everyone who entered had to expose himself and exposure to one person was not enough.
1 Citers


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