R v Edmund Garbett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 May 1847 |
| Date | 15 May 1847 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 196
QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 1 Den. 236.
196 REGINA V. GARBETT 2 CAR. A K. 474. [474] May Session, 1847, before Baron Alderson. May 15th, 1847 regina v. edmund garbett (If a witness claims the protection of the Court, on the ground that his answer would tend to criminate himself, and there appears reasonable ground to believe that it would do so, he is not compellable to answer , and, if obliged to answer notwithstanding, what he says must be considered to have been obtained by compulsion, and cannot be given afterwards in evidence against him. Whether the mere declaration of a witness on oath, that he believes that his answer would tend to criminate him, would or would not be sufficient to protect him from answering, where sufficient other circumstances did not appear m the case to induce the judge to believe that the answer would tend to criminate the witness- quaere. It makes no difference in the right of the witness to protection, that he had before answered in part, as he is entitled to claim the privilege at any stage of the inquiry, and no answer forced from him by the presiding judge (after such a claim) can be afterwards given in evidence against him ) [Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 1 Den 236.] Forgery.-The first count of the indictment charged the prisoner with forging a bill of exchange for £50, with intent to defraud William Booth ; second count, for uttering it with intent to defraud William Booth ; third count, for forging the acceptance of a bill of exchange with a like intent, fourth count, for uttering a forged acceptance on a bill of exchange for £50 with the like intent, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth counts, four similar counts, laying an intent to defiaud Thomas Blagden ; ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth counts, four similar counts, laying an intent to defraud Thomas Oliver. In the course of the trial, S. 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 Kingston Spring Assizes, 1847. The bill stated in the declaration in that suit was alleged to have been drawn by the prisoner upon " William Booth, Priors Lee, near Oakengates, Salop," payable three months after date to the drawer's order, and purported to be accepted as follows :- " Accepted, payable at Masterman & Co.'s, London. " W. booth." [475] On that trial, the prisoner was called as a witness foi the defendant; and, in his examination m chief, he had said : " This is my 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)." His cross-examination was as follows, as was proved by Mr. Corfield, the shorthand writer, by his shorthand notes ò- The stamp was never out of rny 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 ?-I 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. 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 1- Certainly after the 21st. After the 21st of November, '46 ?-Certainly Bid you communicate with Mr. Booth on the subject ?-Not in any way. Have you never done so ?-Yes, I bebeve last Saturday week I saw Mr Booth. Lord Denrnan.-Was that the first time ?-The first time, 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 vmi know him ?-I do not, but I believe he is a clerk to Mr Stuart. SCAB. &K. 478. REGINA V. GARBETT 197 Where is your office, do you say 'l-My place of business is in King William Street. What are you ?-An attorney and solicitor. 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. [476] Do you mean to say 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 answeied. 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 Philhps -No. Who was present when the bill was filled up ?-Mr. Phillips alone. Were 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's drawing-room Who was present when " William 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. Mr. Chambers.-My Lord, I press the question. Lord Denman. (To the witness) -That other person or you must have written it ?-Precisely so. You knew that when you utteied 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 Lord, it is a proper question. Lord Penman -It must be answered The Witness.-I decline to answer that Where was it " William Booth " was written 2-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 1-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 in 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 , attormes. Were you carrying on the business of an attorney ?-I am carrying [477] 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. Where did you see him ?--He came with that young man standing next to Mr. Stuart. Is he one of his clerks 1-I believe not. When you saw Mr Booth a week ago, did you 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 Black heath Are you now ?-Yes Did Mr. Booth ever authorize you to accept any bill of exchange for him ?-Never. Do you know whether he did any other person ?-I do not. Do you know whether he authorized any other person to write his name for him ? -No. 198 REGINA V. GARBETT 2 CAR. & K. 478. When the signature " William Booth " was written, was it copied from anything ?- No. Axe you sure it was not ?-That is my belief. I strongly believe it was not. Are you not certain it was not ?-I am not. Were you sitting down or standing up ?-Sitting down. How near was anybody to you ?-On the other side of the desk Now, I insist on knowing the name of the party who did it ?-I decline to answer the question. You say you know nothing at all whether the party had authority or not ?-I believe he had not. Were you and he the only persons in the room ?-We were. I ask again the name, and require you to give it me ?-I decline to do it. Lord Denman. -The question must be answered. The Witness.-I have not said any other person was in the room but myself. Lord Denman.-Then are we to take it you did it yourself ?-I decline to answer it. Lord Deuman.-You say the other man did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sociedade Nacional de Combusitveis de Angola UEE and Others v Lundqvist and Others
...that there is reasonable ground to apprehend danger to the witness from his being compelled to answer." 42The same test is to be found in R. v. Garbett [1847] 1 Denison's Crown Cases 236 at page 257, Ex parte Reynolds [1882] 20 Ch.D. 294 at pages 299,301, Lamb v. Munster [1882] 10 Q.B.D. 11......
-
Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Maxwell; Cooper v Maxwell; Mirror Group Newspapers Plc v Maxwell
...is it without significance that the first five of the eight cases referred to were decided before the important decision of 12 judges in Reg, v. Garbett, 2 Car. & Kir. 474 affirming the privilege. In the last three cases listed Garbett's case was not cited." 228Mr Falconer, while accepting ......
- Rank Film Distributors Ltd v Video Information Centre
-
Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart
...155 A Crim R 152 . 57 Rank Film Distributors Ltd v Video Information Centre [1982] AC 380 at 442. 58 R v Garbett (1847) 2 Car & K 474 [175 ER 196] ; R v Coote (1873) LR 4 PC 599; Brebner v Perry [1961] SASR 177 at 181; R v Clyne (1985) 2 NSWLR 59 R v Kinglake (1870) 22 LT 335 ; Markovina......