R v Bartlett

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1837
Date01 January 1837
CourtHigh Court

English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 362

IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER

Rex
and
Bartlett

[832] Before Mr Baron Bolland. rex v bartlett. (What the wife of a person charged with felony says in his presence and hearing, is admissible in evidence on the trial. It is no objection to a prisoner's statement (a) The first count of that indictment states the pretence to be, that W. H. was a gentleman of fortune, and that large sums were due from W. H to the prisoner, and that W. H. would accept and pay a certain bill of exchange drawn on him by the prisoner. The second count stated that W. H. was a gentleman of fortune, and would accept and pay the bill. The whole of these, pretences were negatived in the counts, 7 GAB. & P. 8S3. REX V. JONES 363 made before the magistrate being received, in evidence, that a part of it was in answer to questions put by the magistrate.) Murdei.^The prisoner was indicted for the murder of Mary Lewis. It appeared that, after the prisoner was in custody, his wife came into the room. Greaves, for the prosecution, was proceeding to ask what she said in his presence,- W. J. Alexander, for the prisoner. ^[ submit that this is not receivable. The wife could not be examined on oath against the prisoner, arid what she says cannot be used as evidence against him. Greaves.-Whatever a wife says in the presence of the prisoner, although he ck es not reply to it, in admissible. That was held in the case of flex v. Hwtthies (ante, vol. v. p. 332). Here, however, he does answer. Bolland, B.-I have no doubt the evidence is admissible. The evidence was as follows ò-" Oh, Bartlett, how could you do it ? " He...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), (1996) 96 O.A.C. 81 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 28 November 1996
    ...to. [para. 127]. R. v. Smithies (1832), 5 C. & P. 332; 172 E.R. 999, refd to. [para. 127]. R. v. Bartlett (1837), 7 C. & P. 832; 173 E.R. 362, refd to. [para. 127]. R. v. Czipps (1979), 48 C.C.C.(2d) 166 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 135]. R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. ......
  • R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), (1996) 204 N.R. 241 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 28 November 1996
    ...to. [para. 127]. R. v. Smithies (1832), 5 C. & P. 332; 172 E.R. 999, refd to. [para. 127]. R. v. Bartlett (1837), 7 C. & P. 832; 173 E.R. 362, refd to. [para. 127]. R. v. Czipps (1979), 48 C.C.C.(2d) 166 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 135]. R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. ......
  • R. v. Hawkins, [1996] 3 SCR 1043
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 28 November 1996
    ...Prosecutions, [1962] 3 All E.R. 256; R. v. Smithies (1832), 5 C. & P. 332, 172 E.R. 999; R. v. Bartlett (1837), 7 C. & P. 832, 173 E.R. 362; R. v. Czipps (1979), 48 C.C.C. (2d) By La Forest J. Referred to: R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; R. v.......
  • People (Attorney General) v Coleman
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 30 November 1945
    ...R. 91. (8) 8 Cr. App. R. 249. (9) 12 Cox C. C. 177. (10) 10 State Trials 555, at p. 627. (11) 5 C. & P. 332. (12) 6 C. & P. 540. (13) 7 C. & P. 832. (1) [1935] A. C. (2) [1943] I. R. 279, at p. 299. (3) [1944] 2 All E. R. 229. (4) [1934] I. R. 166. (5) [1910] 2 K. B. 746. (6) [1939] 1 K. B.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT