Etienne Barronet and Edmond Allain. Emanuel Barthelemy and Philippe Eugene Morney

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date03 November 1852
Date03 November 1852
CourtCourt of the Queen's Bench

English Reports Citation: 118 E.R. 337

IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH

In the Matter of Etienne Barronet and Edmond Allain. In the Matter of Emanuel Barthelemy and Philippe Eugene Morney

S. C. Deare. C. C. 51; 22 L. J. M. C. 25; 17 Jur. 184.

REPORTS of CASES ARGUED and DETERMINED in the COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, and the COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER on Error from the Court of Queen's Bench. By THOMAS FLOWER ELLIS, of the Middle Temple, and COLIN BLACKBURN, of the Inner Temple, Esqrs., Barristers at Law. Vol. I. Containing the CASES of Michaelmas Term, 1852, Hilary Term and Vacation, 1853, and Part of Easter Term, 1853. XVI. VICTORIA. [1] cases argued and determined in the queen's bench, in michaelmas term, XVI. victoria. The Judges who usually sat in Bane in this term were: Lord Campbell C.J., Coleridge J., Wightman J., Erie J. in the matter of etienne barronet and edmond allain. in the matter of emanuel barthelemy and philippe eugene morney. Wednesday, November 3d, 1852. The Court has a discretion to admit accused persons to bail in all cases; but, in exercising that discretion, the nature of the charge, the evidence by which it is supported, and the sentence which by law may be passed in the event of a conviction, are in general the most important ingredients for the guidance of the Court; and, where these are weighty, the Court will not interfere.-Four foreigners were committed, on the coroner's inquest and by the warrant of justices, to take their trial for wilful murder committed in a duel.- Two of them, when before the committing magistrates, avowed that they acted as seconds to the deceased. An application was made on their behalf to this Court to admit them to bail, on affidavits, by these prisoners, that they had acted only as seconds, that the duel was fair, that they were foreigners ignorant of the law and believing that they were bound as men of honour to act as they did, and that acting as seconds was not punishable in their own country; and they pledged themselves, in the event of being admitted to bail, to abide their trial.-Held that, assuming these facts to be accurate, they afforded no ground for the Court interfering to bail persons proved by their own confession to be guilty of a capital offence.-An application was afterwards made in favour of the two other prisoners, who had not made any such confession. This application was made on an affidavit containing a copy of the depositions before the coroner's inquest, and the committing magistrates, the prisoners making no affidavit, The Court took time to 88T 338 barronet's case iel. & bl. 2. examine the depositions; and, being satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to authorize sending the prisoners to trial, refused to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Iannella v French
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Ryan v DPP
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 Enero 1989
    ...BILL 1975, IN RE 1977 IR 129 AG V KERVICK UNREP SUPREME 29.7.71 KING V AG 1981 IR 233 R V SCAIF 9 DOWLING'S PRACTICE CASES 553 R V BARONET 1 E & B 1 MACKINTOSH V MCGLINCHEY 1921 SC 75 SMITH V M 1982 SLT 421 JOHN JONES, IN RE 1843 V2 LTOS R V RUSSELL 1919 3 WWR R V PHILIPS 1947 111 JP 333 R ......
  • Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Akili Charles (No 2)
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • 28 Julio 2022
    ...144. The test should be applied by reference to the following considerations: (1) The nature of the accusation. R. v. Barronet and Alain 1 E. & B. 1; (2) The nature of the evidence in support of the accusation. Re Robinson (ante); (3) The severity of the punishment which conviction will ent......
  • Beneby v Commissioner of Police
    • Bahamas
    • Supreme Court (Bahamas)
    • 15 Mayo 1995
    ...considered when deciding whether to grant or refuse bail were as follows:– “(1) The nature of the accusation. R. v. Barronet and Allain, 1 E. & B. 1; (2) The nature of the evidence in support of the accusation. Re Robinson (1854) 23 L.J.Q.B. 286. (3) The severity of the punishment which con......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT