Kingston's (Duchess of) Case
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1776 |
| Date | 01 January 1776 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 168 E.R. 175
THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S C. 1 East, P. C. 468, 20 St. Tr. 355 Referred to, Galbraith v. Neville (1789), 1 Doug. K. B. 6n., Wilson v. Rastall (1792), 4 Term Rep 753, Kennell v Abbott (1799), 4 Ves. 802; White v. Hall (1806), 12 Ves. 321, R v Knaptoft (1824), 2 B. & C. 883; Stafford v. Clark (1824), 9 Moore, C. P. 724, Bland v Lynam (1827), 5 L. J. (O. S) C. P. 87, Martin v. Nicolls (1830), 3 Sim. 458; Thompson v. Blackhurst (1833), 1 Nev. & M. K. B. 266; Bandon v. Becher (1835), 9 Bli. (N. S.) 532, Doe d Peter v. Watkins (1837), 3 Bing (N. C.) 421: R v. Wye (1838), 7 Ad & El. 761; R. v. Caley (1841), 5 Jur. 709; Hill v. Barry (1842), 7 Jur 10; R v Sow (1843), 4 Q B. 93, Meddowcroft v. Huguenin (1844), 4 Moo. P. C. D. 386; Robertson v. Struth (1844), Dav & Mer. 772, Barrs v. Jackson (1845), 11 Ph 582, Tarry v Newman (1846), 15 M. & W. 645; R. v. Smith O'Brien (1848), 7 St Tr (N S) 1, Barley v. Harris (1849), 13 Jur. 341, de Bode v. R (1849), 13 Q. B. 364; R v. Basingslake (1851), 14 Q. B. 611, Bank of Australasia v Nias (1851), 16 Q B 717, R. v. Haughton (1853), 1 E. & B. 501, Shedden v. Patrick (1854), 23 L. T. (O S.) 194, R. v. Harlington Middle Quarter (1855), 4 E. & B 780, Cammell v Sewell (1858), 3 H. & N. 617; Routledge v. Hislap (1860), 2 E. & E 549, Accidental Death Insurance Co. v Mackenzie (1861), 5 L. T. 20; Howlett v. Tarte (1861), 10 C. B (N. S.) 813; Hunter v. Stewart (1861), 4 De G. F. & J. 168; "The Justyn" (1862), 6 L. T. 553; Swan v. North British Australasian Co. (1862), 7 H & N 603; Rogers v. Hodley (1863), 9 Jur. (N. S.) 898; Simpson v. Fogo (1863), 8 L. T. 61; Nawab Sidhee Nazur Ally Khan v. Ojoodhyaram Khan (1866), 10 Moo Ind. App. 540, R. v. Fanning (1866), 10 Cox. C. C 411; Patch v Ward (1867), 3 Ch. App. 203; Finney v. Finney (1868), L. R. 1 P & D. 483; Ochsenbern v Papeher (1873), 8 Ch. App. 695; Flitters v Alfrey (1874), L. R 10 C. P 29, Dover v Child (1876), 34 L. T. 737; Leggott v Great Northern Railway Co. (1876), 1 Q. B. D 599, R. v. Hutchings (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 300; Abouloff v. Oppenhermer (1882), 10 Q B D 295; Priestman v. Thomas (1884), 9 P. D. 210, Caird v Moss (1886), 33 Ch. D. 22; Seton v. Lafone (1886), 18 Q B D 139, Borough v Collins (1890), 15 P. D. 81; Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation v. Harding (1892), 62 L J. Q. B 55, A -G. for Trinidad and Tobago v. Eriche, {1893] A C. 518; Boswell v. Coaks (No. 2) (1894), 86 L. T. 365 n.; Ballantyne v. Mackinnon, [1896] 2 Q. B. 455, Dalton v Fitzgerald (1897), 66 L. J. Ch. 604; North-Eastern Railway Co v. Dalton Overseers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Richland Trade & Development Sdn Bhd and Others v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd
- Chee Seng & Company Sdn Bhd; Seng Huat Hang Sdn Bhd and Others
- Perumahan Farlim (Pg) Sdn. Bhd. and Others v Cheng Hang Guan and Others
- Dato Chong Kok Lim; Government of Malaysia
-
Legal Privilege in Criminal Cases Generally, and Money‐Laundering Cases in Particular
...Authority website: www.fsa.gov.uk (11) Berd v Lovelace [1577] Cary 62; Dennis v Codrington [1579] Cary 100; Duchess of Kingston's Case [1776] 20 St Tr 355; Wilson v Rastall [1792] 4 Durn & E 753. (12) [1833] 1 My & K 98. (13) [1996] 1 AC 487 at p. 505C-D. (14) Subject to the rule in R v Cox......