R v Edmund Garbett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1847 |
| Date | 01 January 1847 |
| Court | Crown Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 227
Crown Cases
S. C. 2 Car. & Kir. 474; 13; 13 J. P 602, 2 Cox C C 448 Considered, Short v Mercier, 1851, 3 Mac. & G. 205; R. v Coote, 1873, L R 4 P C 599. Approved. King of Two Swilies v. Willcox, 1851, 1 Sim. N. S. 301. Referred to, R. v. Bickerton, 1847, 11 J. P. 664; R. v. Darby, 1847, 2 Cox C. C 316; Fisher v Ronalds, 1851, 12 C. B. 762, Volant v. Soyer, 1853, 13 C B. 231; Philps v. Prew, 1854, 23 L. J. Q. B. 140, Osborn v. London 'Doch Co., 1855, 10 Ex. 698; R. v. Scott, 1856, 7 Cox C C 164; Bickford v. Darcy, 1866, L R 1 Ex. 354; R. v. Robinson, 1867, 36 L. J. M. C. 78; R. v. Buttle, 1870, 22 L. T. 728; R. v. noel, [1914] 3 K. B. 848
[236] CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, 1847. rkoina v. edmund gtarbett. (1. If a witness claims the protection of the Court on the ground that the answer would tend to criminate himself, and there appears reasonable ground to believe that it would do so, he is not compellable to answer 2 If compelled notwithstanding, what he says after such claim must be considered to have been obtained by compulsion, and cannot be given in evidence against him. 3 He is entitled to protection at whatever stage of the inquiry he chooses to claim it; and he is equally entitled to protection, whether he has already answered the question in part, or not at all ) [S. C. 2 Car. & Kir. 474 ; 13 J. P 602 , 2 Cox C C 448 Considered, Short v Meraer, 1851, 3 Mac. & G. 205 ; R. v Coote, 1873, L R 4 P C 599. Approved, Kmg of Two Stcdtes v. WMcox, 1851, 1 Sim. N. S. 301. Referred to, R. v. Bwkerton, 1847, 11 J. P. 664 ; R. v. Darby, 1847, 2 Cox C. C 316 ; Fusher v Ronald*, 1851, 12 C. B. 762, Volant v. Soyer, 1853, 13 C B. 231; Philps v. Prew, 1854, 23 L. J. Q. B. 140 , Osborn v. London Dock Co., 1855, 10 Ex. 698; R. v. Scott, 1856, 7 Cox C C 164; StcJcford v. Darcy, 1866, L R 1 Ex. 354 ; R. v. Robmson, 1867, 36 L. J. M C. 78 ; R. v. Buttle, 1870, 22 L. T. 728 ; R. v Noel, [1914] 3 K. B. 848 1 The prisoner was tried and convicted before Mr. Baron Aldersou, at the Old Bailey Sessions, in May, 1847, ol the crime of forging the acceptance of William Booth to a bill of exchange 228 BEGINA V. EDMUND GABBETT 1 DEN. 237. In the course of the trial Mr Martin for the prosecution proposed to give in evidence the examination of the prisoner on the trial of the civil action of Blagden v. Booth at the last Kingston Assizes The bill stated in the declaration in that suit was drawn by the prisoner upon William Booth, Priors Lee, near Oakin Gate, Salop, payable three months after date to the drawer's order and purported to be accepted as follows -" Accepted, payable at Masterman and Co.'s, London. William Booth." The prisoner was called as a witness for the defendant. Hus examination in chief was as follows '-This is uiy signature to the bill as drawer. The bill is made payable to my order. The acceptance was on it when I handed it to Mr. Phillips (the second indorser). Then the cross-examination was as follows - The stamp was never out of my possession till it was handed to Mr Phillips Had you Mr Booth's authority to accept it ? I had not Where did you get the stamp ? T purchased it at a shop in London, and from that time the stamp has never been out of my possession I never received a penny for it. [237] Never mind what you received for it,-when was the " William Booth " put upon it ? Between the Friday and the Sunday What Friday and what Sunday ? I believe it was between the last Friday and the last Sunday in November. After the 21st ? Certainly after the 21st After the 21st of November, 1846 Certainly. Did you communicate with Mr Booth on the subject 'l Not in any way. Have you never done so ? Yes, I believe last Saturday week I saw Mr Booth Lord Denman.-Was that the first time ? The first tune, my Lord Mr. Chambers. Why ' did he not write you a letter ? Never, I never heard of his writing me a letter until I came into this Court by accident Until you came by accident,-what do you mean ? I came into Court in pursuance of a subpoana served three hours ago. Who served you three hours ago ? A gentleman Where were you three hours ago ? At my office in King William Street, in the City Who is the man,-do you know him ? I do not, but I believe he is clerk to Mr. Stuart. Where is your office do you bay 'l My place of business is in King William Street What are you '? An attorney and solicitor [238] Did you. know what you came here to prove ? I did not until I came into the box. Do you know what you are attempting to prove '' I do Do you mean to aay it is a forgery ? It is not his handwriting. Not in his handwriting. Who accepted it then ? I am in the hands of the Court. Lord Denman -It must be answered The Witness.-I state, my Lord, that I filled the bill up at Mr Phillips's request in his own drawing-room, and handed it to him, and have never received a penny for it Mr. Chambers. I ask you who did that ? (pointing to the bill) Not Mr. Booth. Did Mr. Phillips 1 No. Who was present when the bill was filled up ? Mr. Phillips alone Wrere there only you two present ? Mr Phillips was not present when '' William Booth " was written. William Booth had been written before I filled it up in Mr, Phillips' drawing-room. Who was present when " W'llhain Booth " was written ? I won't say-only myself. Was any one else ? I cannot say. I ask you to tell me whether any other person was present when ' William Booth " was written besides yourself ? I believe a clerk What clerk ? That I decline to say. [239] Mr. Chambers My Lord, I press the question Lord Denman (To the witness).-That other person or you must have written it. Precisely so. I dei. 240. REGINA V. EDMUND QARBETT 229 You knew that when you uttered it ? When I handed it to Mr. Phillips I did know it and Mr. Phillips knew it too By Mr. Chambers. Who was the other person ? I ask the question, and I submit, my Lard, it is a proper question. Lord Denman.-It must be answered. The Witness.-I decline to answer that. Where was it " William Booth " was written ? I believe in King William Street. Try and recollect-was it in King William Street or where was it, was it or not, you must know the fact ? Somewhere in London. Is the signing of a bill of exchange a circumstance so unimportant that you cannot tell whether it was in King William Street or Old Broad Street ? It was either at one or the other. Some days I was at one place, and some days at the other. If it was in King William Street, where ia King William Street ? No. 78 , it is used as an office for myself and others who were transacting business with me Is your name there ? No. Who permitted you to use the office ? Messrs. Miller and M , attorniea. Were you carrying on the business of an attorney ? I am carrying on business as an attorney, and answering letters and correspondence, and so on. Have you seen Mr. Booth to-day ? I have not seen Mr. Booth since Saturday week. [240] WTiere did you see him ? He came with that young man standing next to Mr. Stuart. Is he one of hia clerks ? I believe not When you saw Mr. Booth a week ago, did vou talk about this bill of exchange to him ? Yes. What did Mr. Booth say to you ? He said he had been served with a writ and had been exceedingly angry about it I told him it was about the bill, he said " you well know I never accepted it," and he said he must go into other hands for protection. Have you had any money transactions with Mr. Booth ? Not money transactions No bills of exchange ? Never. Where were you living in 1846 ? At Blackheath. Are you now ? Yes. Did Mr. Booth ever authorize you to accept any bills of exchange for him ? Never. Do you know whether he did any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation v Westinghouse Electric Corporation; Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contract Litigation M.D.L. Docket No. 235 (No. 1) and (No. 2)
-
Magmoed v Janse van Rensburg and Others
...will not be admissible in subsequent criminal proceedings against him (see Coote's case supra at 591, quoting R v Garbett (1847) 169 ER 227 ((1847) 1 Den 234); Hoffmann and Zeffertt (op cit at After that digression concerning the law, I return to the facts of this case. Each of the responde......
-
Magmoed v Janse van Rensburg and Others
...will not be admissible in subsequent criminal proceedings against him (see Coote's case supra at 591, quoting R v Garbett (1847) 169 ER 227 ((1847) 1 Den 234); Hoffmann and Zeffertt (op cit at After that digression concerning the law, I return to the facts of this F case. Each of the respon......
-
Salinas de Gortari v Smithwick (No 2)
...v. Harnett [1998] 4 I.R. 426; [1998] 2 I.L.R.M. 304. Quinlivan v. Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1998] 2 I.R. 113. Reg. v. Garbett (1847) 1 Den. C.C. 236. Re Westinghouse Uranium Contract (No. 2) [1978] A.C. 547; [1977] 3 W.L.R. 492; [1977] 3 All E.R. 717. Judicial review. The facts have be......
-
The Privilege against Self-Incrimination from Early Origins to Judges' Rules: Challenging the ‘Orthodox View’
...on this point, R. Jaeger, ‘The Right to Counselduring Police Interrogation: The Aftermath of Escobedo’ (1965) 53 Cal L Rev 337 at 34.57 (1847) 169 ER 227.58 Above n. 54 at 175.59 Ibid. at 257–8; such a statement was held inadmissible on the same line of authority as Warickshallthat it was c......