R v Davis and another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHigh Court
Judgment Date01 Jan 1835

English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 1196

IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER

Rex
and
Davis and another

Referred to, R. v. Wiley, 1850, 2 Den. 37; R. v. Laurent, 1898, 62 J. P. 250.

[177] rex v. davis and another. (II prisoners be charged by several indictments with receiving stolen goods :-Sembte, that, in strict law, any receiving that was before the one in the indictment which is being tried may be given in evidence, although itself the subject of another mdietEieait; but, if given in evidence, the other indictment ought, as matter of eandaur, to be given up. Wrhen, beiore the committing magistrate, one of * See the cases of Rex v. Hearne, ante, vol. iv p 215 ; Rex v Clewes, id. 221 ; and Rex v. Fletcher, id. 250. (a) See the case of Rex v. Savage, ante, vol. v. p. 143 ; and see ante, p. 165. 6 CAB. & P. 178. REX V. BENNETT 1197 the prisoners was examined as a witness against the other, and, after being examined, was charged as a prisoner :-Held, that what the prisoner said before the magistrate as a witness could not be given in evidence against her on her trial for the offence. It makes no difference whether a receiver receives for the purpose of profit or advantage, or whether he does it to assist the thief.) [Referred to, R. v. Wiley, 1850, 2 Den. 37 ; R. v. Lament, 1898, 62 J. P. 250.] The prisoners, who were father and daughter, the former being a pawnbroker at Cheltenham, were indicted as receivers on several indictments, which charged them with receiving sheets and various articles of linen, the property of Thomas Liddell, the proprietor of Liddell's Hotel, at Cheltenham. It appeared that the goods laid in the first indictment were found, together with many other goods of the prosecutor, at the house of the elder prisoner, marked with his mark. Gurney, B.-A particular line is now fixed upon All is evidence with a view to the ^cienter. There is no excluding the evidence of the other articles being found ; but I do not think you should go farther. As far as you have now gone, it is regular, that is, that a number of other things with the prosecutor's marks upon them were found. It was then proposed to prove that the two prisoners had received the articles into pawn, at various times Gurney, B.-Any pawnings that were before those laid in the indictment are evidence. It was proposed to give evidence of the pawning of another article which was the subject of another indictment Gurney, B.-I hestitate very much...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • The Queen v John Wiley
    • United Kingdom
    • Crown Court
    • 1 January 1850
  • The Queen v Thomas Byrne and Catherine Byrne
    • Ireland
    • Court for Crown Cases Reserved (Ireland)
    • 16 January 1869
    ...R. v. WileyENRUNK 1 Den. C. C. 37; 20 L. J. M. C. 4. R. v. DringENR 1 Dears. & B. 329. R. v. Dunn 1 Moo. C. C. 146. R. v. DavisENR 6 Car. & P. 177. R. v. Messingham 1 Moo. C. C. 257. R. v. Archer 1 Moo. C. C. 143. R. v. LangmeadENR L. & C. C. C. 427. R. v. HughesUNK B. C. C. 242......
  • The Queen v George Gillis
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 7 June 1866
    ...60. The Queen v. M'HughUNK 7 Cox Cr. C. 483. Rex v. Berrigan Ir. Cir. R. 177. The Queen v. LewisENR 6 Car. & P. 161. Rex v. DavisENR 6 Car. & P. 177. Rex v. WheelyENR 8 Car. & P. 250. Rex v. OwenENR 9 Car. & P. 238. Rex v. BentleyENR 6 Car. & P. 148. Rex v. Lamb 2 Leach ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT