R v Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 216
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Approved, R. v. Holmes, 1843, 1 Car. & Kir. 248. Considered, R. v. Laugher, 1846, 2 Car. & Kir. 225 Referred to, R. v. Baldry, 1852, 2 Den. 430; R. v. Thompson, [1893] 2 Q. B. 12.
eex v. Ck)UET. (On a. prisoner being taken before a magistrate on a charge of forgery, the prosecutor said, in the hearing of the prisoner, that he considered the prisoner as the tool of G-., and the magistrate then told the prisoner to be sure to tell the truth . upon thi&the prisoner made a statement -Held, that this statement was receivable m evidence.) [Approved, R. v. Holmes, 1843, 1 Car. & Kir. 248. Considered, R. v. Laugher, 1846, 2 Gar. & Kir, 225 Referred to, E. v. BaUry, 1852, 2 Den. 430; R. v Thompson, [1893] 2i Q. B. 12.] Forgery.-Indictment for forging a premissory note, with intent to defraud Nathaniel Hartland, he then being a public registered officer of the Gloucestershire Banking Company under the stat 7 Geo. IV c. 46. There were also several other counts, charging the prisoner with uttering the note, &c. The note was m the following form :- " £98, 15s. 6d. Liverpool, Feb. 11, 1836. " Four months after date I promise to pay to the order of Mr. James Watson the sum of ninety-eight pounds and fifteen shillings, for value received. " At Messrs. Jones, Lloyd, & Co , william williams." " Bankers, London." Tie trust-deed of the Gloucestershire Banking Company was proved and put in, and by that it appeared that Mr. Hartland held shares in that company ; and examined copies, of two returns made to the Stamp Office, under the stat. 7 Geo. IV. c. 46, were also put m, to shew that Mr. Hartland was returned as manager It appeared that Mr. Hartland had discounted the note for a person named Gardiner, who had since absconded , and evidence was given that the note was m the prisoner's [4S7] hand-writing ; but it was stated by Mr. Hartland, on his cross-examination, that he believed the prisoner to have been the tool of Gardiner, and that the prisoner had no intent to defraud anyone. It was proposed, on the part of the prosecution, to give in evidence the examination of the prisoner before Dr. Beale Cooper, the committing magistrate. Dr. Beale Cooper said, tf No inducement was held out to the prisoner to confess Mr HartLand had said, in the presence of the prisoner, that he considered the prisoner as the tool of Gardiner. I then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tofilau v The Queen
...1 Leach 263 at 263 [ 168 ER 234 at 234]. 321 (1783) 1 Leach 263 at 263–264 [ 168 ER 234 at 234–235]. 322 (1836) 7 C & P 486 at 487 [ 173 ER 216]. 323 (1852) 2 Den 430 at 444 [ 169 ER 568 at 324 (1856) Dears & Bell 47 at 58 [ 169 ER 909 at 914]. 325 Commissioners of Customs and Excise v ......
- Sinclair v R
-
R v Edmund Garbett
...; the other, where, from inducement held out, a person charged with a crime might be led to accuse himself falsely : Regina v. Court (7 C. & P. 486). M. Chambers, in reply.-If a witness answer incautiously to other questions tending to criminate himself, and when he finds that he is getting......
-
R v William Baldry
... ... But as doubts had been entertained by learned Judges whether a confession, after aueh a caution, might [431] lawfully be given in evidence, his Lordship reserved the question for the Court of Criminal Appeal The prisoner was convicted, and sentence of death was passed upon him On the 24th April, A D 1852, this case was argued before Lord Campbell C J , Pollock C. B , Parke B , Erie J , and Williams J. H. Mills for the prisoner. It is proposed, on behalf of the prisoner, to ... ...