R v Ann Lavey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 1850 |
| Date | 05 December 1850 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 448
QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Subsequent proceedings, 17 Q B 496, 2 Den 504 (with annotations). Fol. R v Baker (1895), Q. B. 797
[26] Dec 5, 1850. kegina v. ann lavey. (In an action in the County Court by an executrix, for goods sold, she falsely swore, on cross-examination, that she had never been tried at the Old Bailey and had never been in custody at the Thames Police Station : Held, on the trial of an indictment for perjury, that this evidence was material. Semble, that whether the evidence be material or not, is a question to be left to the jury ) [Subsequent proceedings, 17 Q B 496 , 2 Den 504 (with annotations). Fol. R v Baker (1895), 1 Q B. 797 ] Perjury The indictment charged, that a cause was depending in the White-chapel County Court, in which the present defendant, as the executrix of Hyam Lavey, was the plaintiff,'and John Hannah, the defendant, and that on the trial of that cause, the present defendant was sworn to give evidence, and that it was a material question whether she had ever been tried at the Central Criminal Court for any offence, and a material question whether she had ever been in custody at the Thames Police Station charged with any offence The indictment then stated, that the present defendant falsely swore that she had never been tried at the Central Criminal Coutt for any offence, and had never been in custody at the Thames Police Station, as to both of which statements perjury was assigned (a] (a) The indictment in this case was held good in the Exchequer Chamber on writ of error, see 21 Law J. (M C ) 10. The indictment was in the following form : " Central \ The jurors for our lady the queen, upon their oath present, that here-Criminal I tofore, and at the time of the committing the offence hereinafter Court, ( mentioned, to wit, on the 9th day of April, a d 1850, in the Whitechapel to wit. J County Court of Middlesex, holden at the Court House in Osborne Street, Whitechapel, in the parish of Saint Mary, Whitechapel, in the county of Middlesex, and within the jurisdiction of the said Central Criminal Court, before James Manning, serjeant-at-law, then and there being the judge of the said court, a certain action on contract then pending in the said] County Court between Ann Lavey. suing as widow and executrix of the last will and testament of Hyam Lavey, deceased, plaintiff, and Robert Hannah, defendant, came on to be tried, and was then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Millward (Neil)
...particular distinction in the case he was deciding. 24 The matter in our judgment was correctly stated by Lord Campbell, Chief Justice, in R. v. Lavey 3 C. & K. 26, where he directed the jury as follows (it should be noted that this was of course before the provisions of section 1 subsectio......
- Mellifont v Attorney-General (Q)
-
R v Edward Gibbon
...a strong opinion that a man is guilty of perjury who swears falselv as to what might have been objected to. Addison. In Regina v. Lavey (3 Car. & K. 26 See also Regina v. Goddard, 2 Fast. & Fin. 361, which is to the same effect) the question of materiality was left to tie jury. [114} Channe......
-
Kennedy v Hilliard (1859)
...C., 4 Cro. Eliz. 230, 248. Gwinne v. PooleENR 2 Lutw. 1571. Lake v. KingENR 2 Keble, 832. Buckley v. Wood Moore, 705. Regina v. LaveyENR 3 C. & K. 26. Lessee of Lord Trimlestown v. Kemmis 1 Jebb & Sym. 587. Rex v. Skinner Lloft, 55. Astley v. Young 2 Bur. 811. Harding v. BodmanENR Hutt. 11.......