Deslalds against Gregory and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 June 1860 |
| Date | 15 June 1860 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 121 E.R. 230
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
[613] the queen against johnson. Wednesday, February 8tb, 1860. After a verdict of Not guilty upon an indictment for obstructing a highway, a new trial will not be granted on the ground that the verdict was against evidence; although the Judge who tried the case reports that he is dissatisfied with the verdict. [S, C. 29 L. J. M. C. 133; 6 Jur. N. S. 553; 8 W. E. 236. Considered, E. v. North Eastern Railway, 1901, 19 Cox, C. C. 685.] Indictment for making obstructions in a public and common highway, situate in the parish of Long Sutton, in the county of Lincoln, whereby the said highway was obstructed and straightened. Plea, Not guilty. Issue thereon. (a) Before Williams, Willes and Byles Js., Martin, Channell and Wilde Bs. 2 EL. & EL. 614. THB QUEN 1). JOHNSON 231 Thia indictment was removed by certiorari into this Court and was tried before Cockburn C.J., at the Lincolnshire Summer Assizes, 1859, when the jury returned a verdiet for the defendant of Not guilty. Field had obtained a rule, calling upon the defendant to shew cause why there should not be a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Cockburn C.J. reported that he was dissatisfied with the verdict. Hayes Serjt. now shewed cause. There can be no new trial. It is contrary to the practice of the Court to grant a new trial in a criminal proceeding, after a verdict of Not guilty, except for a misdirection of the Judge. Rex v. Burbon (5 M. & S. 392), Sex v, Wandsworth (1 B. & Aid. 63), are instances in which a new trial was refused, after such a verdict [614] upon an indictment for the non-repair of a highway. In Bex v. Mann (4 M. & S- 337), where the indictment was for a nuisance to a highway, the same practice was followed; Lord Ellenborough C.J. saying, " unless you can point out some distinction between the case of a nuisance and other criminal cases, the general rule is that we do not grant a new trial upon an indictment for a misdemeanour, where a verdict has passed for the defendant upon the merits. Thia is, to be sure, in the nature of a remedy for a civil right; yet it is in form a criminal proceeding, and may subject the defendant to be punished criminally." And his Lordship referred to Rex v. Reynell (6 East, 315), where the Court refused to grant a rule nisi for a new trial after a verdict for the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davies v Kennedy, and Others
...170. Eyre v. M'DowellENR 9 H. L. C. 619. Shaw v. NealeENR 6 H. L. C. 581. Beavan v. Lord Oxford 6 D. M. & G. 492. Marples v. HartleyENR 2 El. & El. 610. Banbury v. White 2 Y. & C. C. 300. Hickson v. CollesUNK 6 Ir. Eq. R. 524; 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 447. Warburton v. LovelandENR 6 Bli. N. S. 1; 2 ......