« PrejšnjaNaprej »
be in the power of the Court to receive any favourable circumstance in exculpation of the defendant's conduct, before any judgment was given against him. The verdict was brought in
Mr. Kennett's counsel were Mr. Erskine and Mr. Bond; his attorney, Mr. Woodhouse, solicitor of Bedlam and Bridewell.
There was another information against Mr. Kennett, for discharging six prisoners out of the Poultry Compter (6); but it appearing that the defendant had acted in that instance in conjunction with seven aldermen, and other circumstances appearing in the defendant's favour, which had not before come to Mr. Attorney-General's knowledge, he was pleased to drop that prosecution; and the Special Jury were discharged.
(a) No sentence was ever passed prison, to be safely kept, it not in this case, as Mr. Kennett died then being a fit time to carry them soon after the trial.
before a justice of the peace for ex(6) This information charged amination; and that the defendant, that John Lloyd, William Beard, being one of the Justices of the ciHenry Jones, Solomon M‘Daniel, ty of London, and intending to obJohn Hughes, and Thomas Dunk- struct and hinder the due course of ley, and divers others, to the num- justice, did order that the said J. L., ber of five hundred, were riotously W. B., H. J., S. M., J. H., and T. assembled, attempting to break D., should be brought before him, open a certain prison, called the and did order that they should be Poultry Compter; that Jos. Gates, discharged, without any examinathen being a constable, apprehend- tion, and in the absence of, and ed them, and delivered them, the without notice to, Joseph Gates; said J. L., W. B., H. J., S. M., J. and that they were discharged and H., and T. D, into the custody of set at liberty. Henry West, the keeper of the said
OXFORD SPRING CIRCUIT.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE LITTLEDALE, AND MR. JUSTICE
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE LITTLEDALE.
1832. Rex v. John Cox.
March 6th. INDICTMENT for carnally knowing and abusing Sarah Where, on a
charge of rape, Blakeway, a child under the age of ten years.
the Jury found It appeared that the prisoner, who was a man upwards that there had of sixty years of age, had induced the child to go up stairs tion, but that with him by promising to give her an apple; and that a no emission from
the prisonerwoman who went up stairs soon after found a mark as if
The 15 Juilges some one had lain on a bed which was there. It was held that the
prisoner was also proved that the person of the child exhibited marks rightly convict
ed of the rape. of violence; and that both she and the prisoner had gonorrhea.
there had been
The Jury found that there had been penetra
tion, but that there had been no emission
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE passed sentence on the prisoner,
and reserved the case for the consideration of the fifteen
Rex v. JAMES WEDGE. On an indict
INDICTMENT for carnally knowing and abusing Mary nally knowing Underhill, a child under the age of ten years. and abusing a
The offence was alleged to have been committed on the female child under ten years 5th of February, 1832. To prove the child under ten of age, the best evidence of the years old at the time of the alleged offence, the father of age of the child the child was called; he stated, that he was in the habit ought to be produced. of going out with boats for a week or a fortninght at a Where an of fence of this time; and that, in the month of February, 1822, he went kind was committed on the
from home for a few days, and that his wife had not then 5th of February, been confined; and that, on his return, on the 9th of 1832, and the child's father proved, that, on his return after an absence from home of a few days, on the 9th of Feb., 1822, he found that the child had been born, and was told by her grandmother that she had been born the day before; and the register of baptisms shewed that the child had been baptized on the 9th of Feb., 1822: it was held not sufficient to prove that the child was under ten years old.
February, 1822, he found that this child had been born; and he was told by his wife's mother, that it had been born the day before. An examined copy of the register of the baptism of the child was put in; and from that it appeared that the child had been baptized on the 9th of February, 1822. The mother of the child was dead, but the grandmother was living at the time of the trial.
Mr. Justice Taunton (having conferred with Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE).-My learned brother concurs with me in thinking that this evidence is not sufficient. The whole amount of the evidence to prove the time of the child's birth is the declaration of the grandmother to the father. The father was from home at the time of the birth, and the mother is dead; but still the grandmother might have been called. As this is a matier of so much importance in a case of this kind, we think that the best evidence ought to be adduced.
Corbet for the prosecution.
See the case of Rex v. Cox, ante, p. 297; and Rex v. Gammon,
post, p. 321.
Rex v. Hilditch and Others.
May 13th. INDICTMENT for a robbery. The case for the prose- Any evidence cution had been closed, and the defence of the prisoners firmation of the was an alibi, viz. that they were at a public-house,
public-house, at a original case,
cannot be given considerable distance from the place at which the robbery as evidence in was committed.
reply; and the only evidence that can be
given in reply is that which goes to cut down the defence, without being any confirmation of the original case.
W. J. Alexander, for the prosecution, wished to call a witness in reply, to prove, that he saw all the prisoners near the spot at which the robbery was committed; and that, therefore, they could not have been at the publichouse.
Mr. Justice Taunton.—Proving that the parties were near the place at which the offence was committed is evidence in chief and not evidence in reply. Whatever is a confirmation of the original case cannot be given as evidence in reply: and the only evidence which can be given as evidence in reply, is that which goes to cut down the case on the part of the defence, without being any confirmation of the case on the part of the prosecution.
The evidence was rejected.
W.J. Alexander, for the prosecution.
F. V. Lee, for the prisoner.
See the case of Rex v. Stimpson, ante, Vol. 2, p. 415.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE LITTLEDALE.
Rex v. BOOTYMAN. Where a party EMBEZZLEMENT. – Before the indictment was is charged with embezzlement,
found by the Grand Jury, the prisoner having been held the Judge,
to bailbefore the indictment is found, will order the prosecutor to furnish the prisoner with a particular of the charges, if the prisoner make an affidavit that he does not know what the charges are, and that he has applied to the prosecutor for a particular, and it has been refused.