Fisher v Ronalds
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 1852 |
| Date | 23 November 1852 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 138 E.R. 1104
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 22 L. J. C. P. 62; 17 Jur. 393; 1 W. R. 54. Observed upon, Sidebottom v. Adkins, 1857, 5 W. r. 743. See R. v. Boyes, 1861, 1 B. & S. 327.
fisher v. ronalds. Nov. 23, 1852. [S. C. 22 L. J. C. P. 62; 17 Jur. 393; 1 W. K. 54. Observed upon, Sidebottom v. Adkins, 1857, 5 W. E. 743. See E. v. Boyes, 1861, 1 B. & S. 327.] A witness is not bound to answer a question, where his answer may have a tendency to render him amenable to a criminal charge : and it is no ground of complaint that the judge cautions the witness, without waiting for him to claim his privilege. -And, semble, that it is for the witness, and not for the judge, to determine whether or not the answer to the question may tend to criminate him. Assumpsit on a bill of exchange for 2451. drawn by one Chappell upon and accepted by the defendant, and indorsed by Chappell to the plaintiff. Plea, amongst others, that the bill declared upon was accepted by the defendant for the purpose of securing to Chappell, the drawer, a sum of money won by him of the defendant by gaming, contrary to the statute; and that the bill was indorsed to the plaintiff with full knowledge of the circumstances under which it was given. The cause was tried before Cresswell, J., at the second sitting in London in this term. It appeared that the defendant was an officer of the 77th regiment, stationed at Plymouth; that, during the Plymouth races, in August, 1851, certain persons calling themselves " The Bath and Bristol Club," of whom Chappell was one, went down to Plymouth; that a room was hired for them there at the house of one John Hix, a livery-stable keeper, where roulette was played, and Ronalds, the defendant, was a considerable loser. The defence attempted to be set up was, that the bill in question was given by the defendant for part of the money so lost by him to Chappell. [763] To prove this, Hix was called. He said he knew a set of persons called "The Bath and Bristol Club;" that, in August, 1851, he was applied to by some officers of the 77th, to let them a room ; that some of the members of the club, among whom was Chappell, came there ; that he was in the room on the night the money was alleged to have been lost by the defendant; that he saw the defendant there; but that he saw no gaming. He was then asked, " Was there a roulette-table in the room?" Byles, Serjt., for the plaintiff, interposed, and asked the learned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v Kitchin
...They referred to Short v. Mercier (2 De G. & Sm. 635 ; 3 Mac. & Gor. 205); Hobinson v. Lanwrul (15 Jur. 240), Fisher v. Ronalds (12 C. B. 762); Parkhurst v. Lowten (2 Swanst. 194); Maccalium v. Turton (2 Y. & J. 183); Gh-een v. (leaver (1 Sim. 404); The East India Company v. Atkins (1 Stran......
-
Bunn v Bunn
...bind us. [317] They referred to With v. Parker (22 Beav. 59) ; Short v. Herder (2 De G. & Sm. 635 ; 3 Mac. & G. 205) ; Fisher v. Ronalds (12 C. B. 762, 765, per Maule, J.) ; Oslorn v. The London Dock Company (10 Exch. 698, 701, per Alderson, B.) ; Rey. v. Smith (6 Cox, Grim. Cas. 31) ; and ......
-
Adams v Lloyd and Another
...without subjecting himself to a criminal prosecution, it would seem that the Judge is bound by his [358] oath. In Fisher v. Ronalds (12 C. B. 762), Maule, J., expressed an opinion to that effect.] Reyndl v. Spn/e (1 De Oex, M'N. & Gr 656) is an authority that the oath of the party is conclu......
-
R v Boyes
...declare whether a question put to him will criminate him, provided that^ in making that declaration, he acts bona fide. Fisher v. Ronalds (12 C. B. 762, 765) is an authority on the point. Maule J. there says: " The witness might be asked, ' Were you in London on such a day ?' and, though ap......