John Young, S. Randal, W. Mullins, and J. Osmer, against the King
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1789 |
| Date | 1789 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
24 cases
-
R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., (2000) 138 B.C.A.C. 218 (CA)
...against the public welfare seems to have the necessary elements of a crime." See also Young v. R. (1789), 3 Term. Rep. 98, at p. 104; 100 E.R. 475, at p. 478-479, per Buller, J. (K.B.); Jeffreys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H.L. Cas. 814; 10 E.R. 681 (H.L.), at p. 728-9 per Baron Pollock, L.C. (H.L.......
-
R v Ludlow
...indictment or put the prosecution to their election, requiring them to select one of the charges and proceed only on that. Young v. R. (1789) 3 T.R. 98 per Buller J. at pages 105-6; R. v. Kingston and others (1806) 8 East 41; R. v. Jones (1809) 2 Camp. 131, 132 per Lord Ellenborough; Reg. v......
-
Connelly v DPP
...forbidding the prosecution to include more than one felony in any indictment. It is best put in the words of Buller J. in Young v. R. (1790) 3 T.R. 98. He said: "If it appear before the defendant has pleaded, or the jury are charged, that he is to be tried for separate offences, it has been......
-
R v John Mattcocks Chapman
...as it is a matter affecting the public The cases of Rex v Wheatley (2 Burr 1125), Rex v Osborn (3 Burr. 1697), Young v. The King (3 T. R 98), Rex v. Mawbey (6 T R. 619), Rex v De Beauvoir (7 C. & P 17), Rex v. Smith (2 Doug 441), are all authonties on this matter ; and in the case of Rex v.......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Money for nothing, cheques for free? The meaning of 'financial advantage' in fraud offences.
...by False Pretences, etc Act 1757, 30 Geo 2, c 24, although it was not seen as such until the decision in Young v The King (1789) 3 Term 98; 100 ER 475. The 19th century form (see, eg, Larceny (England) Act 1827, 7 & 8 Geo 4, c 29, s 53) remains substantially unchanged in the Crimes Act ......
-
Taking possession: the defining element of theft?
...(1892) 6 Harvard Law Review 244; Turner, above n 52, vol 2, 921-6, 931, 934, 941-2. (90) In Young v The King (1789) 3 TR 98, 102-3; 100 ER 475,478 (Lord Kenyon CJ), the King's Bench reinterpreted the Statute of 30 Geo II to amount to a general false pretences offence. This widened the offen......