« PrejšnjaNaprej »
GARROW, B.-If the counsel for the prosecution thinks fit to open the evidence, I cannot control him (a).
A person named Ward had been indicted with the two prisoners for the offence in question, but the Grand Jury had thrown out the bill against him; but he was present in Court in the custody of the gaoler of Cambridge, having been brought by him to answer this charge, and, being detained in such custody, to be taken back to Cambridge, to answer another charge there. It was proposed on the part of the prosecution to place him in the dock beside the prisoners who were on trial, in order that he might be identified as a person who was in their company.
Smith, for the defence, objected, that as the Grand Jury had thrown out the bill, he was as free from the present charge as if it had never been preferred against him, and therefore ought not to be treated as if the bill had been found and he was actually on his trial.
Garrow, B., said, that there was no doubt as to the right to have the party produced in order that he might be identified; and Ward was, in consequence, placed at the bar. His Lordship afterwards observed, that the same course had been adopted on the trial of Thistlewood and others at the Old Bailey.
[Attornies--Swain & Co., and Isaacs.]
(a) In a case tried on the same Circuit, in March, 1831, a similar objection was made, and a similar decision given by Alderson, J.; but in the case of Rer v. Swatkins and
Others, Vol. 4 of these Reports, p. 548, Bosanquet and Patteson, Js., were of opinion that the correct practice was only to state the general effect of the conversation.
BEFORE LORD LYNDHURST, C. B.
away two heif
Rex v. Tuffs.
July 22nd. THE prisoner was indicted for stealing two heifers, the A prisoner, inproperty of James Suker of Mildenhall. The heifers were ing two heifers, not missed by the prosecutor or any person in his service, said: "I drove and the only evidence against the prisoner was his own ers from the statement, when questioned on the subject, that he had Dolver," (i. e. driven away two heifers from his uncle's premises, “the Fen). The proWorld's End Dolver," (Dolver meaning, in that part of was called by
that name, but the country, a fen). The prosecutor and another person he could not proved that the prosecutor's farm was called by that name, was not any but they could not undertake to say that there was not other of the any other of that name.
insufficient to Lord LYNDHURST, C. B., upon this, told the Jury, that, warrant a conunder the circumstances, there was not any evidence of a stealing as to the heifers of the prosecutor; though, if it had been proved that his farm was the only "World's End Dolver," it would have been sufficient.
swear that there
same name in
Rex v. ОFFORD, July 23rd. To justify the THE prisoner was indicted for the murder of a person acquittal of a prisoner indict- named Chisnall, by shooting him with a gun. The deed for murder; fence was insanity. It appeared that the prisoner labouron the ground of insanity, the ed under a notion that the inhabitants of Hadleigh, and Jury must be satisfied that he particularly Chisnall, the deceased, were continually issuof judging being warrants against him with intent to deprive him of his tween right and liberty and life; that he would frequently, under the same wrong, and at the time of com- notion, abuse persons whom he met in the street, and with mitting the act did not consider whom he never had any dealings or acquaintance of any that it was an
kind. In his waistcoat pocket a paper was found, headoffence against the laws of God ed, “ List of Hadleigh conspirators against my life.” It and nature,
contained forty or fifty names, and among them “ Chisnall and his family.” There was also found, among his papers, an old summons about a rate, at the foot of which he had written, “ This is the beginning of an attempt against my life.” Several medical witnesses deposed to their belief, that, from the evidence they had heard (a), the prisoner laboured under that species of insanity which is called monomania; and that he committed the act while under the influence of that disorder, and might not be aware that, in firing the gun, his act involved the crime of murder.
Lord LYNDHURST, C. B. (in summing up), told the Jury that they must be satisfied, before they could acquit the prisoner on the ground of insanity, that he did not know, when he committed the act, what the effect of it, if fatal, would be, with reference to the crime of murder. The question was, did he know that he was committing an offence against the laws of God and nature? His Lordship referred to the doctrine laid down in Bellingham's case (6)
(a) See Rer y. Haswell, Russ. & Ry. C. C. R. 459, cited Carr.
Sup. p. 72.
(b) The prisoner was indicted
by Sir James Mansfield, and expressed his complete accordance in the observations of that learned Judge.
The Jury acquitted the prisoner, on the ground
Austin and Palmer, for the prosecution.
Smith, for the prisoner.
[Attornies—Last, and Leech.]
for the murder of the Right Hon. crime. That, in the species of Spencer Perceval, and the defence madness called “ Lunacy,” where was insanity. According to the persons are subject to temporary statement of the case in Russell on paroxysms, in which they are guilCrimes and Misdemeanors, Vol. ty of acts of extravagance, such 1, p. 10, extracted from Collinson persons committing crimes when on Lunacy, Addenda 630, the they are not affected by the malalearned Judge, in charging the dy, would be, to all intents and Jury, told them, “ that in order purposes, amenable to justice; to support such a defence, it ought and that so long as they could to be proved by the most distinct distinguish good from evil, they and unquestionable evidence, that would be answerable for their the prisoner was incapable of conduct. And that in the species judging between right and wrong; of insanity in which the patient that, in fact, it must be proved fancies the existence of injury, beyond all doubt, that, at the time and seeks an opportunity of grahe committed the atrocious act tifying revenge by some hostile with which he stood charged, he act, such a person be capable in did not consider that murder was other respects of distinguishing a crime against the laws of God right from wrong, there would be and nature; and that there was no excuse for any act of atrocity no other proof of insanity which which he might commit under this would excuse murder or any other description of derangement.”
HOME WINTER CIRCUIT.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PATTESON.
REX v. JAMES HARGRAVE. . An indictment INDICTMENT against the prisoner, as a principal in for manslaughter charged, the second degree in the manslaughter of Richard Dodd. that A. gave to the deceased
The deceased, and another person named Cox, (who divers mortal
had afterwards died), met, on the day laid in the indictblows at P., in the county of ment, at Islington, and there commenced a pugilistic conM., and that the deceased lan- test. Having been interrupted by the interference of the guished and died at D. in
police, they proceeded to the Isle of Dogs, where they rethe county of commenced the fight; and the deceased, Dodd, in conseK.; and that the prisoner was quence of the injuries which he received, died shortly after then and there aiding in the his removal from the place of combat, on board the hospicommission of tal ship Grampus, which was then stationed in the Thames, the felony :Held, that the and within the parish of St. Nicholas, Deptford. The inindictment was good, and that dictment stated, that James Cox made an assault on the the word there deceased, at the parish of All Saints, Poplar, in the coun
to in the county
ty of Middlesex, and beat the deceased, giving him divers of M.
Although all mortal bruises and contusions, &c.; " of which said bruises persons present and contusions the said Richard Dodd, from &c., until ing a prize fight, &c., at the parish of St. Paul's, Deptford, in the county of where one of the combatants Kent, did languish &c.; and that he there died; and that is killed, are guilty of man- the said James Hargrave, together with &c., were then slaughter, as principals in the
and there present, aiding, abetting, &c., the said James second degree; Cox in the commission of the said felony." yet they are not such accomplices as require their evidence to be confirmed, if they are called as witnesses against other parties charged with the manslaughter.