R v Blake
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 May 1844 |
| Date | 30 May 1844 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 115 E.R. 49
QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 13 L. J. M. C. 131; 8 Jur. 145, 666. Referred to, Mulcahy v. R., 1868, L. R. 3 H. L. 321; R. v. Watkinson, 1872, 26 L. T. 855.
the queen against denis john blake and john chamberlain tye. Wednesday, May 30tb, 1844. A count for conspiracy charged that T. and B, conspired to cause certain goods which had been and were imported and brought into the port of London from parts beyond the seas, and in respect whereof certain duties of Customs were then and there due and payable to the Queen, to be carried away from the port and delivered to the owners without payment of a great part of the duties, with intent thereby to defraud the Queen ; not further describing the goods or the means of effecting the objects of the conspiracy. Held sufficient, on motion in arrest of judgment. T. did not appear; B. pleaded not guilty. On his trial it was proved that T. was agent for the importer of the goods, B. a landing waiter at the Custom House; that it was T.'s duty (under stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 52, s. 24), to make an entry describing the quantity, &c. of the goods; that a copy of such entry was delivered to B., who was to compare this copy with the goods, and, if they corresponded, to write "correct" on T.'s entry; whereupon T. would receive the goods on payment of the duty according to his entry. It was further proved that T.'s entry was marked "correct" by B., and corresponded with B.'s copy; that payment was made according to the quantity there described, and that the goods were delivered to T. Evidence was then offered of an entry by T., in his day book, of the charge made by him on the importer, shewing that T. charged as for duty paid on a larger quantity than appeared by the entry and copy before mentioned. Held admissible evidence against B. It was proved that B. received the proceeds of a cheque drawn by T. after the goods were passed. The counterfoil of this cheque was offered in evidence, on which an account was written by T., 50 THE QUEEN 7). BLAKE Q. B. 127. shewing, as was suggested, that the cheque was drawn for half the aggregate proceeds of several transactions, one of which corresponded in amount with the difference between the duty paid and the duty really due on the above goods. Held, not evidence against B. [S. C. 13 L. J. M. C. 131 j 8 Jur. 145, 666. Eeferred to, Mukahy v. R., 1868, L. R. 3 H. L. 321; B. v. WatUnson, 1872, 26 L. T. 855.] Information by the Attorney General for a misdemeanor. The first count charged that the defendants, wickedly, &c., intending to cheat and defraud the Queen, heretofore, to wit on, &c., at, &c,, "did unlawfully and fraudulently conspire, combine, confederate and agree together, and with divers other persons," &c., " to [127] cause and procure certain goods, wares and merchandizes, which had been and were theretofore imported and brought into the port of London from parts beyond the seas, and in respect whereof certain duties of Customs were then and there due and payable to our said lady the Queen, to be taken and carried away from the said port, and to be delivered to the respective owners thereof without payment to our said lady the Queen of a great part of the duties of Customs so then and there due and payable thereon as aforesaid; with intent thereby then and there to defraud our said lady the Queen in her said Revenue of the Customs. In contempt," &c. The second count charged the defendants with conspiring, "by false and fraudulent representations and statements of and concerning the numbers, measures, weights and values, respectively, of certain foreign goods, wares and merchandizes, which had been and were theretofore imported and brought into the said port of London from parts beyond the seas, and in respect whereof certain duties of Customs were then and there due and payable to our said lady the Queen according to the numbers, measures, weights and values, respectively, of the said foreign goods, wares and merchandizes respectively, to deprive and defraud our said lady the Queen of a great part of the said duties of Customs so due as aforesaid. In contempt," &c. The third count charged the defendants with having conspired, "by fraudulently and unlawfully omitting and neglecting to make and give a true, full and correct declaration and description of the particulars of the numbers, measures, weights and values, respectively, of certain foreign goods, wares and merchandizes, respectively, whiah had been and were theretofore imported [128] and brought into the said port of London from parts beyond the seas, and in respect whereof certain duties of Customs were then and there due and payable to our said lady the Queen according to the numbers, measures, weights and values, respectively, of the said foreign goods," &c., "respectively, to deprive and defraud our said lady the Queen of a great part of the said duties of Customs so due as aforesaid. In contempt," &c. The fourth count described the conspiracy to be "to cheat and defraud our said lady the Queen of divers large sums of money then being due and payable to our said lady the Queen in respect of the duties of Customs of this realm. In contempt," &c. Tye did not appear : Blake pleaded not guilty. On tbe trial, before Lord Denman C.J., at the London sittings after Michaelmas term. 1843, il appeared that Tye was a Custom House agent, and Blake a landing waiter. Evidence was given...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Chung Kwong Huah; PP
-
R v Devonport
...admissibility. In support of his argument Mr. Bright drew our attention to a number of authorities. The first of these was the The Queen v. Blake [1844] 6 QB 126. Detailed analysis of the decision is unnecessary. However, Blake was alleged to have been a conspirator with a man called Tye. T......
- Ooi Sim Yim; PP
- Lim Kit Siang v PP
-
The Common Enterprise Exception to the Hearsay Rule
...Cox CC 499, per Hawkins J. Agency wassubsequently endorsed in RvGovernor of Pentonville Prison, ex p. Osman (1990) 90 Cr App R 281.30 (1844) 6 QB 126 at 135.31 J. C. Smith, ‘Proving Conspiracy’ [1996] Crim LR 386–92; [1997] Crim LR THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 113THE COMMON......