Oliver Waterloo King against The Queen, in Error
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1849 |
| Date | 01 January 1849 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 117 E.R. 13
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
wq. b. 32. kino 1). the qtjp.en 13 in the exchequer chamber. oliver waterloo king against the queen, in error. 1849. By the Court of Exchequer Chamber: 1. An affidavit to hold to bail, under stat. 1 & 2 Viet, c. 110, s. 3, may be aworn before a writ of summons has been taken out; and therefore, in an indictment for perjury in such an affidavit, it is not necessary to shew that an action had commenced before the affidavit was sworn. 2. Where an indictment contains several counts, and a defendant is convicted on each, a judgment, that the defendant, "for the offence charged upon him in and by each and every count of the indictment aforesaid, be imprisoned in," &c. " for the space of eight calendar months now next ensuing," is correct, and means that the defendant shall be imprisoned for the same eight months upon the charge in each count. 3. After a verdict of guilty, on an indictment, and prayer of judgment, the record stated that it appeared to the Court " that the verdict was unduly given," and the Court " vacated and made void " the verdict, and all other process against the first jury, and ordered that a new jury should come, because the coroner and defendant had put themselves on the last mentioned jury. A second verdict of guilty was found ; and judgment passed thereon. Such entry is sufficient on writ of error, though no reason be assigned on the record for holding the first verdict to have been unduly given. The defendant was indicted in the Central Criminal Court. The record in this Court stated that " it was presented as follows ; that is to say : Central Criminal Court to wit: the jurors," &c. " present [32] that, before the commission of the offence in the first count of this indictment mentioned, a certain action of debt had been commenced in the Court of Queen's Bench at Westminster, by writ of summons duly issued," &c., in which action defendant was plaintiff and George Felthouse defendant: " And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that," &c. : the first count then charged that the present defendant, for the purpose of having Felthouse held to bail, and obtaining a capias against him, swore to the truth of an affidavit: and perjury was assigned upon this. The second count charged that defendant, wilfully, &c. intending unjustly to aggrieve Felthouse, &c., " and also unjustly and maliciously to cause him," " to be arrested for the sum of 461. by virtue of a" "capias, to be sued out and prosecuted at the suit of him the said O. W. King, afterwards," to wit on, &c., " at the liberty of the rolls aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, came in hia proper person before Sir Cresswell Cresswell, Knight," &c., " and then and there produced a certain affidavit in writing of him, the said 0. W. K., and then and there, before the said Sir C. C., was in due form of law sworn, and took his corporal oath,"&c., "concerning the truth of the matters contained in the said affidavit in this count mentioned, he, the said Sir C. C." (averment of the Judge's competency to administer the oath); "and that the said O. W. K., being so sworn," &c., "then and there, upon his oath aforesaid before the said Sir C. C." (averment of competency), "falsely, corruptly, knowingly," &c., "in and by his said affidavit in writing in this count mentioned, [33] did depose and swear (amongst other thinga) in substance and to the effect following, that is to say : that the above named defendant (meaning thereby the said r, Felthouse) then was justly and truly indebted to the then deponent (meaning thereby himself, the said O. W. K.), in the sum of 461. for goods sold and delivered by the then deponent (thereby meaning himself the said 0. W. K.) to the said defendant (meaning thereby the said G. F.) at his request, and for money lent by the then deponent (meaning himself the said 0. W. K.) to the said defendant (meaning thereby the aaid G, F.) at his request; whereas, in truth and in fact," &o.: averment that Felthouse was not indebted to King in 461., but in a sum below 201., to wit 101. only, " as he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General v Oles
...S17 EXTRADITION (EUROPEAN CONVENTIONS) ACT 2001 S37(1) O'CONNORS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE 1911 920 R V HUGHES 1844 1 CAR & KIR 519 KING V R 1849 14 QB 31 AG V OLDRIDGE 2000 4 IR 593 2001 2 ILRM 125 18 USC PAR 3146 EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S25(B) EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S29 EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S29(1......
-
Rex v Beukman
...an ex parte motion or swearing a petition in a divorce cause or an affidavit to support a summons to hold bail. (See H King v The Queen (117 E.R. 13); Rex v White (173 E.R. 1156); Russel on Crimes and Misdemeanours (8th ed., Vol. I, p. 463 and 7th ed., Vol. I, pp. 457, 458)). Now as I have ......
-
Rex v Beukman
...an ex parte motion or swearing a petition in a divorce cause or an affidavit to support a summons to hold bail. (See H King v The Queen (117 E.R. 13); Rex v White (173 E.R. 1156); Russel on Crimes and Misdemeanours (8th ed., Vol. I, p. 463 and 7th ed., Vol. I, pp. 457, 458)). Now as I have ......