R v Chapman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 617
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Referred to, R. v. Guttridge, 1840, 9 C. & P. 228; R. v. Scaife, 1841, 10 L. J. M. C. 144; R v Andrews, 1844, 13 L. J. M. C. 113.
Oxford Assizes, before Lord Abinger, C. B. regina v. chapman (If on the tual of a charge of murder a witness for the prosecution shews any unfair bias, the counsel who calls him may cross-examine him It is, therefore, no objection to a witness's name being put on the back of an indictment for murder, that he is the brother of the prisoner ; and if he was present at the time the wound was given, and was examined at the inquest, and that not at the instance of the prisoner, it seems that his name should be on the back of the indictment. Where it was stated by the grand jury, on their returning a true bill for murder, that an important witness was too ill to give evidence in Court, the Judge directed two surgeons to see the witness, and on their stating on the wire dire that the witness was too ill to give evidence in Court, the Judge ordered the trial to be postponed to the next assizes, and the prisoner to be detained in custody. A Judge will not admit a prisoner to bail after the grand jury have returned a true bill against him for murder.) [Referred to, R. v. Guttndge, 1840, 9 C. & P. 228 ; R. v. Scaife, 1841, 10 L. J. M. C. 144 ; R v Andrews, 1844, 13 L. J. M. C. 113.] Murder.-A bill of indictment was presented against the prisoner, who was a gamekeeper of Lord Viscount Dillon, for the wilful murder of James Trotman, by shooting him with a gun. Before finding the bill, the Grand Jury came into Court, and their foreman, W. H. Ashmst, Esq., said .-" The [559] Grand Jury wish to ask the Court whether the name of the prisoner's brother should remain on the back of this bill of indictment ; Jor if his name remains on the bill, and the counsel for the prosecution call him as their witness, they would not be entitled to cross-examine him, in case he shews any Unfair bias towards the prisoner in giving his evidence on the trial." Lord Abinger, C. B.-If, on the trial, he shews any unfair bias, the counsel who calls kim may cross-examine him (a) Ludlow, Serjt, for the prosecution -As the prisoner's brother was present when the unfortunate occurrence took place, and was examined before the coroner, and that not at the instance of the prisoner, I think I shall best discharge my duty by calling him as a witness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beneby v Commissioner of Police
...sweep. At common law it was also unusual to grant bail after the grand jury had presented a signed bill of indictment - R. v. Chapman 8 C & P 558 and a justice who admits a defendant to bail upon insufficient sureties is responsible if the defendant does not appear. 84 I turn now to conside......
-
The Queen v Daniel M'Cartie, and Several Others. The Queen v Denis O'Sullivan, and Several Others
...Law Rep. 93. Rex v. MorganENR1 Bulst. 84. Rex v. PoynesENR 3 Bulst. 113. Rex v. JacksonUNK 25 How. St. Tr. 783, 794. Regina v. ChapmanENR 8 C. & P. 558. Regina v. OwenENR 9 C. & P. 83. Regina v. GuttridgeENR 9 C. & P. 228, 471. Regina v. BowenENR 9 C. & P. 509. Barronet's case Supra. Re Rob......
-
R v Roberts (John Marcus)
...object of the proceedings is to make certain that justice should be done as between the subject and the State. The cases of R. v. Chapman 8 C. & P. 558 and R. v. Holden 8 C. & P. 606 establish the proposition that the presiding judge at a criminal trial has the right to call a witness not c......
-
The Queen, at the prosecution of John Quinlan, v John Danaher and Others
...Bench THE QUEEN, at the prosecution of JOHN QUINLAN, and JOHN DANAHER and others. Regina v. ChapmanENR 8 C. & P. 558, 560. T. T. 1857. Queen's Bench MORRIS V. HARTLEY. 18 COMMON LAW REPORTS. goods supplied for plaintiff's use, to which the defendant pleaded ; and on these pleadings the issu......