R v Dantel Flaherty
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1847 |
| Date | 01 January 1847 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 328
QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
liverpool summer assizes, 1847. Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock regina v. daniel flaherty (In a case of bigamy theie ought to be some proof of the first marriage beyond the mere statements of the prisoner while in custody , therefoie, where a man went to a police-station and stated, that he had committed bigamy, and when and where the first marriage took place, and while in custody signed a statement to the same effect, the Judge thought this, though some evidence of the first marriage, was not sufficient, and so told the jury ) Bigamy.-The prisoner was indicted for having, at Ashton-under-L} ne, feloniously married Catherine O'Brien, his former wife being at the time alive Cross, for the prosecution, to prove the first marriage, called Bartholomew Hickey, a policeman, who said that the prisoner had come to him, stating that he wanted to give himself up on a charge of felony,-that he had married two wives, both of whom were now with him, and that he could have no peace or quiet with them Pollock, C. B -So he came to the police-office as a refuge ? [783] The witness.-Yes, my Lord : he said he had been married to the first wife thirty-two years ago, by the Rev John Kmn, parish priest of Leitrvm, in the county of Galway,-that he had lived with her until about thirteen years since, and then left her, with two children, at Kildare, and subsequently, in 1837, married Catherine O'Brien, at the paiish of Ashton-under-Lyne Pollock, C B.-I very much doubt whether this kind of evidence will suffice. Cross referred to Regina v tiinmionsto (&) as shewing that the prisoner's own admission would be sufficient evidence of the first marriage Pollock, C B.-I think you must give some evidence of the first marriage beyond the mere admission of the prisoner Cross -Alter he was in custody lie signed a written statement, in which he asserted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THE QUEEN v THOMAS FANNING. [Crown Cases Reserved.]
...9 C. & P. 80. Regina v. ChadwichUNK 2 Cox Cr. C. 319. Bruce v. Burke 2 Ad. 471. Regina v. OrgillENR 9 C. & P. 80. Flaherty's caseENR 2 C. & K. 782. Darcy's minorsIR 11 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 298. Thelwall v. YelvertonIR 14 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 188. Brawn's case 5 Ir. Law Rep. 549. Regina v. BurkeEN......
-
R v George Gisson and Others
...that the names of the proprietors shall be entered in a book, and that certificates of the shares shall be given 328 EEGINA V. FLAHERTY 2 CAR. & K. 782. Lothenngton, who conducted the prosecution, submitted whether, if a general verdict of acquittal were now taken, the prisoners could again......