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.  














Criminal Practice - From: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 22 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Harris v Tippett (1811) 2 Camp 637
1811


Criminal Practice
Where the character of a witness is relevant to the issue, cross examination is permitted, “As to any improper conduct of which he may have been guilty for the purpose of trying his credit; but, when the questions are irrelevant to the issue on the record, you cannot call witnesses to contradict the answer he gives.”
1 Citers


 
Rex v Wooller (1817) 2 Stark 111
1817


Criminal Practice
Some of the jurors, although present when the verdict was delivered, were so placed that they were not able to hear what the foreman said and were in fact in disagreement with it. Held: The exclusionary rule had not been infringed by evidence that the jurors could not see or hear what was taking place when the verdict was announced.
1 Citers


 
Jane Denton's Case [1823] 168 ER 956; (1823) 1 Lewin 53
1823


Criminal Practice
Under the grand jury regime the indictment was authenticated by the delivery of the bill found to be a true bill by the grand jury.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Parkin (1824) 1 Moody CC 45
1824


Criminal Practice
The court asked whena jury might be allowed to change a verdict delivered.
1 Citers



 
 Rex v Hollingberry; 1825 - (1825) 4 B and C 329; [1825] 6 Dow and Ry 345; [1825] 107 ER 1081
 
Fox v Bishop of Chester 6 ER 581; (1829) 1 Dow and Cl 416
1829

Lord Eldon
Criminal Practice
It would be "an insult" to Parliament's intention to prosecute for one offence when the more proper alternative would be barred by statute, since "in substance, if this could be done, you could always evade the statutory limit of time."
1 Citers


 
Barnsley Rioters' Case [1830] EngR 21; (1830) 1 Lewin 5; (1830) 168 ER 939 (A)
1830

Parke J
Criminal Practice
Two approvers on one indictment not allowed. Parke J, refused to allow two persons to go before the grand jury as "approvers" on one indictment, observing, that it was " unusual to allow more than one." He asked if there was any precedent for two ; and, being answered in the negative, he refused to establish one. N.B. On the following day, it appearing that they were to give evidence on separate indictments, and for separate offences, though of the same nature and arising out of the same occasion, he granted the application.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Stewart v Fraser; 1830 - (1830) 5 Murray 166
 
Rex v Dyson Unreported, 1831
1831

Parke J
Criminal Practice
Parke J empanelled a jury to decide whether the defendant was fit to plead. In directing the jury the judge referred to the following passage in Hale's Pleas of the Crown, vol I, p 34: "If a man in his sound memory commits a capital offence, and before his arraignment he becomes absolutely mad, he ought not by law to be arraigned during such his phrensy, but be remitted to prison until that incapacity be removed."
1 Citers


 
The King v William Russell [1832] EngR 294; (1832) 4 B and Ad 576; (1832) 110 ER 572 (B)
1832


Criminal Practice
Follett, on behalf of the defendant, moved (in the Bail Court) for a certiorari to remove any indictments that might be found against him at the sessions for the town and county of Southampton, for stealing two guns, the property of William Burnett. The affidavits on which the motion was made, tended to exculpate the defendant, and to shew that the magistrates of Southampton had acted rigorously in committing. Denman CJ I think the Court cannot presume that, in a case of felony, a jury of twelve indifferent men could not be found in Cornwall. In a case of misdemeanour popular feeling might perhaps operate to the prejudice of defendants, but we cannot suppose it on a charge of felony. Littledale, Taunton, and Patteson, Js., concurred. Rule refused. The defendants were tried at the next assizes for Cornwall, and acquitted.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Giuseppe Sidoli's Case [1833] 168 ER 957; (1833) 1 Lewin 55
1833


Criminal Practice
The court considered the validation of the indictment under the grand jury system.
1 Citers


 
Rex v Williams [1835] EngR 910; (1835) 1 M and Rob 503; (1835) 174 ER 174 (A)
4 Aug 1835


Criminal Practice

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Rex v Grady And Curley; 2-Dec-1836 - [1836] EngR 1128; (1836) 7 Car and P 650; (1836) 173 ER 284 (C)
 
Regina v Zephaniah Williams And William Jones [1840] EngR 212; (1840) 2 Mood 143; (1840) 169 ER 57
1840


Criminal Practice
Before any of the jury were sworn, the counsel of Zephaniah Williams renewed the objection made in the former case, whereupon the Attorney-General called upon him to declare explicitly whether he objected to the prisoner being then tried upon the account of that objection, to which the counsel for the prisoner answered that he did not.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Harvey v Hewitt (1840) 8 Dowl 598
1840

Coleridge J
Criminal Practice
It was alleged that the jurors had drawn lots to select their verdict: "No doubt . . that we cannot take the affidavit of a juryman stating his own misconduct, or that of his brother jurymen . . The affidavits here produced, however, are not made by the jurors themselves . . but they are the affidavits of persons who witnessed the transaction itself, of agreeing to draw lots, and drawing lots". The affidevits were admitted.
1 Citers


 
Bartlett v Smith (1843) 11 M and W 483
1843

Alderson B
Criminal Practice
"Where a question arises as to the admissibility of evidence, the facts upon which its admissibility depends are to be determined by the judge, and not by the jury. If the opposite course were adopted, it would be equivalent to leaving it to the jury to say whether a particular thing were evidence or not."
1 Citers


 
The Queen v George Hinley The Elder, And George Hinley The Younger [1843] EngR 1258; (1843) 2 M and Rob 524; (1843) 174 ER 370
27 Dec 1843


Criminal Practice
It is in the discretion of the Judge whether he will allow several felonies to be given in evidence under one indictment, where they are in fact so mixed as not to be separated without inconvenience, it will be allowed. When the stealing is in county Y and the receiving in county L, both are triable in Y, and the indictment may allege both the stealing aud receiving to have been in Y.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v Scotton [1844] EngR 137; (1844) 5 QB 493; (1844) 114 ER 1335
22 Jan 1844


Criminal Practice

[ Commonlii ]
 
Attorney General v Briant (1846) 15 M and W 169
1846


Criminal Practice

1 Citers


 
Rex v Edmund Garbett (1847) 1 Den 236
1847


Criminal Practice
A man is not compellable to give evidence which might incriminate himself.
1 Citers



 
 The Attorney-General v Hitchcock; 10-Jun-1847 - [1847] EngR 616; (1847) 1 Exch 91; (1847) 154 ER 38
 
Rex v Cheverton (1848) 2 F and F 833
1848


Evidence, Criminal Practice

1 Citers


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