R v Bartlett
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 01 January 1837 |
Date | 01 January 1837 |
Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 362
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
[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-
R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), (1996) 96 O.A.C. 81 (SCC)
...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)
...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
...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
...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.......