R v Cheverton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1862 |
| Date | 01 January 1862 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 1308
QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
[833] Lent Assizes, 1862. regina v. cheverton. (Although it is necessary, in a case of murder, that there should be evidence that the body found is the body of the murdered person, the circumstances may be sufficient evidence of identity. Admissions by the prisoner, elicited by questions of a police officer, with an admonition to tell all she knew, &c., held inadmissible. But a subsequent statement by the prisoner to another police officer is not necessarily so far under the same influence as to exclude it (a)). The prisoner was indicted for the murder of her infant (illegitimate) child, on the 4th of July last, by drowning it in the Colne, at Colchester. Walford for the prosecution. Philbrick for the defence. One Baxter, a policemen, had said to the prisoner, " You had better tell all about it ; it will save trouble " ; and had then put certain questions to her, in answer to which she had made a statement, which it was proposed to prove on the part of the prosecution. Philbrick objected that it was inadmissible, as having been made under the influence of a land of threat or inducement by a person in a position of power and authority ; and Erie, C. J., so held, and the evidence, therefore, was excluded. A police superintendent, named Down, had afterwards, about the same time, December, gone to the prisoner, and without cautioning her, or explaining the object of his inquiries, put certain questions to her, and it was proposed to give her answers in evidence. It did not appear that he had referred to her statements to the other officer, Baxter, but she had said, when she saw him, " Ah ' I expected you." And his questions were as to the number of her children, and especially what had become of the [834] youngest (the ojie mentioned in the indictment), and in particular whether she had been at Colchester on July 4th (b). Philbrick objected that the statements were inadmissible, because made by the murder. It would have been clearly murdei if there had been clear evidence that, after taunts had passed, the prisoner drew his knife, and, in order to provoke the deceased to strike him, tripped him twice, with intent then to use his knife. But then all the facts, and especially the last, would have to be found by the jury, for although, denuded of all circumstances, the bare fact of using a knife implies, m law, an intent to kill, when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General v Kirwan
...have endeavoured to explain. (1) 2 Hale P. C. 290. (2) 2 Leach, C. C. 569. (3) 13 Cox, C. C. 184. (4) [1917] 2 I. R. 557, at p. 592. (1) 2 F. & F. 833. (1) [1935] A. C. (2) [1927] I. R. 129. (3) [1934] I. R. 166. (4) [1894] A. C. 57. (1) [1906] 2 K. B. 389. (1) [1911] 1 K. B. 149. (2) Befor......
-
R v Nhleko
...If a body has been found, it must furthermore be shown to be the body of the person alleged to have been murdered; see R v Cheverton, 2 F. & F. 833; R v Hopkins, 8 Car. & Payne, 591. The question 1960 (4) SA p714 whether the evidence of an accessory after the fact requires corroboration for......
-
R v Johnston
...1 Moo. C. C. 27. Rex v. Gilham 1 Moo. C. C. 186. Rex v. Wild 1 Moo. C. C. 452. Regina v. KerrENR 8 C. & P. 176. Regina v. ChevertonENR 2 F. & F. 833. Rex v. Ellis Ry. & Moo. 432. Regina v. Devlin 2 Cr. & Dix. Cir. C. 151. Regina v. Toole 7 Cox. C. C. 244. Baldry's case Ubi supra. Regina v. ......
-
Attorney-General v Elizabeth Edwards and Rose Edwards
...we fix Friday, May 31st, as the day for the carrying of the sentence into execution. (1) Before FitzGibbon , Johnston and Hanna JJ. (1) 2 F. & F. 833. (2) 8 C. & P. (3) 20 L. R. (Ir.) 550. (4) [1917] 2 I. R. 557. (5) 25 Cr. App. R. 21. (6) Jebb, Crown Cas. 66. (7) 9 Cr. App. R. 189. (8) [18......