Doe ex dem. Stewart against Denton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1785 |
| Date | 01 January 1785 |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 944
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Vaise against Delaval
944 VAISE V. DEL AVAL 1 T. R. 11. [11] vaise against dei.aval. 1785. Affidavit of a juror that the jury, having been divided, tossed up, and that the plaintiff had won, rejected. Upon a motion by Law for a rule to set aside a verdict, upon an affidavit of two jurors, who swore that the jury, being divided in their opinion, tossed up, and that the plaintiffs friends won, in which was cited, Hale v. Cove, 1...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
13 cases
-
DPP v Mahon
...has been reached not by a consideration of the evidence but by a random tossing of a coin by two of their number; Vaise v Delaval (1785) 1 TR 11, see also Harvey v Hewitt (1840) 8 Dowl 598 where it alleged that the jurors had drawn lots to decide their verdict. An affidavit from the jury ba......
-
R v Mirza; R v Connor and Rollock
...room. The importance of this rule was recognised long ago in an opinion given by Lord Mansfield in Vaise v Delaval (1785) 1 TR 11, 99 ER 944 (KB), where it was held that the court could not receive affidavits from two jurors indicating that they had decided on their verdict by tossing a co......
-
NH(Appellant) v The Director of Public Prosecutions
...v The Queen [No 2] (1984) 153 CLR 521 at 530–532 per Gibbs CJ and Mason J; [1984] HCA 7. 96 (2015) 123 SASR 523 at 570 [158]. 97 (1785) 1 TR 11 [ 99 ER 98 (1785) 1 TR 11 at 11 [ 99 ER 944 at 944] (footnotes omitted). 99 Rosshirt, ‘Admissibility of Jurors' Affidavits to Impeach Jury Verdict’......
-
Smith v Western Australia
...8 at [63]. 16 [2013] WASCA 7 at [48]–[49]. 17 [2013] WASCA 7 at [48]. 18 cf Minarowska (1995) 83 A Crim R 78 at 86. 19Vaise v Delaval (1785) 1 TR 11 [99 ER 944]. 20Phipson on Evidence, 15th ed (2000) at [24–32]. 21 [2004] 1 AC 1118 at 1173. 22 [1995] QB 324. 23 [2013] WASCA 7 at [10]. 24 (1......
Get Started for Free
4 books & journal articles
-
The Criminal Jury in England and Scotland: The Confidentiality Principle and the Investigation of Impropriety
...Democracy’ in N. Vidmar (ed.), World JurySystems (OUP: Oxford, 2000) 125. 5 [1922] 2 KB 113. 6 Ibid. at 118. See also Vaise v Dalava (1785) 1 TR 11; R v Armstrong [1922] All ER 153 at 157, per LordHewart CJ; R v Thompson [1962] 1 All ER 65. For Scotland, see the case of Janet Nicol (1767) d......
-
Subject Index
...Ltd[2004] EWCA Civ 330, BAT .. 195–196United States of America v Philip MorrisInc. [2004] EWCA Civ 330 ........... 193Vaise v Delaval (1785) 1 TR 11 .........187Van Mechelen v The Netherlands(1998) 25 EHRR 647 ......................184Visser v The Netherlands [2002] CrimLR 495 ...................
-
The Complaining Juror: Attorney-General v Scotcher
...left open and came up for consideration in the recent case of Attorney-General v Scotcher.4 * Email: g.daly@uea.ac.uk. 1 Vaise v Delaval (1785) 1 TR 11.2 R v Mirza; R v Connor and Rollock [2004] UKHL 2, [2004] 2 WLR 201, noted by G. Daly (2004) 8 & P 186; R v Smith [2005] UKHL 12, [2005] 1 ......
-
Jury Secrecy: R v Mirza; R v Connor and Rollock
...the power of thecourt; it was the long-standing rule of the common law not s. 8 that restrictedthe court’s inquiry.115Vaise v Delaval (1785) 1 TR 11.6R v Miah [1997] 2 Cr App R 12.7Harvey v Hewitt (1840) 8 Dowl 598 (evidence taken from bailiff and persons in adjoining room).8R v Young (Step......