R v Bernard Edward Mullany
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1865 |
| Date | 01 January 1865 |
| Court | Crown Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 1528
Crown Cases
S. C. 6 New Rep. 183; 34 L. J. M. C 111; 12 L. T. 549; 29 J. P 421; 11 Jur. N. S 492, 13 W. R. 726; 10 Cox C. C. 97.
1528 REGINA V. BERNARD EDWARD MTJLLANY LE- & CA. 683. [53] 1865 regina v. bernard edward mullany (The prisoner was sued in the County Court for debt, under the name of '' Bernard Edward Mullany." The Judge came to the conclusion that the debt wan due, but, before finding a verdict for the plaintiff, asked the prisoner what was his name. The prisoner replied " Edward." To questions by the plaintiff's attorney, the prisoner denied that his name was " Bernard," and said that his name was " Edward " only The Judge refused leave to amend the plaint, and struck out the cause. The prisoner was indicted for perjury ; and it was proved that his real name was " Bernard," but that he had latterly been known by the name of " Bernard Edward " Held, that the Judge having acted upon them, these statements were sufficiently material to sustain a conviction for perjury.) [S. C. 6 New Rep. 183 ; 34 L. J. M. 0 111 ; 12 L. T. 549 ; 29 J. P 421 ; 11 Jur. N. S 492 , 13 VV. R. 726 ; 10 Cox C. C. 97.] The following case was stated by Martin B In the beginning of 1864, a person called Robinson sued, in the County Court held at Birmingham, a person named in the proceedings " Bernard Edward Mullany " for a debt of £8, 13s 6cl The suit went to issue, and came on to be tried on the 2nd of February, 1864 The plaintiff was called, and gave evidence in support of his case The defendant was called and sworn in the usual way, and gave evidence , and the Judge came to the conclusion that the debt was due and the plaintiff entitled to recover , and a discussion was taking place as to the times at which instalments of payment weie to be made The Judge then asked the defendant what was his name. He replied, " Edward '' The plamtift's attorney then asked him, was it " Edward " only The defendant answered, " Yes " , and the plaintiff's attorney then asked him whether it was not " Bernard." The defendant answered, " Not Bernard. Only Edward " Application was then made for leave to amend; but it was refused , and the Judge struck out the cause. At the last Warwick Assizes, the defendant v/as indicted before me for perjury in answering the above questions , and evidence wan given which clearly proved that he had wilfully and corruptly sworn falsely in the above answers , that he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial