R v Edward Gibbon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1861 |
| Date | 01 January 1861 |
| Court | Crown Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 1324
Crown Cases
S C. sub nominee R. v Gibbons, 31 L J. M C 98, 5 L T 805; 26 J P. 149, 8 Jur.
1861 reoina v edward gibbon (Held by eleven Judges (dubitantibus Martin B and Crompton J.), that perjury may be assigned upon evidence going to the credit of a material witness in a cause, although such evidence, being legally inadmissible, ought not to have been received.) [S C. mb nomine R. v Gibbon?, 31 L J. M C 98 , f L T 805 ; 2fi J P. 149 , 8 Jur. (a) In Watson's case the indictment charged an exposure in the presence of one person only, and in Webb's case there was evidence that only one person could have seen the act. The absence of any decision in the present case leaves it uncertain what is the law, where the exposure is in a public place where it is actually seen by one person, and could have been seen by any passer by According to the opinion of Parke B. in the case tried at York (Reqina v Webb 1 Den. C C. 344), it is not necessary that the passers by should actually see the art of indecency, if it is so done that thej could have seen it, had they happened to look Here, however, although it is stated that the act could have been seen without difficulty by other persons on the common and on the public footway or footbridge, yet there was no evidence that theie were any persons on the common or on the footway or bridge at the time. LB. &CA.110. REGINA V. EDWARD GIBBON 1325 N. S. 159 ; 10 W. E. 350 ; 9 Cox C. C. 105. Followed, R v. Miillany, 1865, post, p (593; R. v. Baker, [1895] 1 Q. B. 797. Keferrecl to Gat butt v. Simpson, 1863, 32 L. J. M. C 186 ; R. v. Wheeler, [1917] 1 K B. 283 ] The following case was reserved by Williams J In this ease the defendant was tried before me, at the last Assizes for the county of Sussex, for perjury [110] in having falsely sworn that, in September, 1860, he had carnal knowledge of the person of Ann Bishop. She was delivered of a bastard child on March 29th, 1861. On the 28th of June following, an application made by her for an order of affiliation on one Harmer came on to be heard before the magistrates ; and she made a deposition in support of such application. She was then cross-examined on the part of Harmer, as to whether she had not had connexion with the defendant in the previous September. She denied it. The defendant was afterwards called as a witness on behalf of Harmer, and swore that he had bad connexion with her, as imputed by the question put to her. On the trial before me, at the close of the case for the prosecution, it was objected by Mr Atldison, the counsel for defendant, that the evidence given by the defendant, on which the perjury was assigned, was not material to the issue raised on the application for the affiliation order, inasmuch as the question put to Ann Bishop, as to having had connexion with the defendant, went merely to her credit, and therefore her answer ought to have been regarded as conclusive, and the evidence of the defendant in contradiction of her was inadmissible and illegal, and not material to the question raised before the magistrates. The defendant was convicted ; but I reserved the point for the consideration of this Court, whether the objection made on his behalf was well founded. This case was argued, on the 16th of November, 1861, before Pollock C. B., Wight-man J., Williams J., Chaunell B. and Keating J. C. G. Addison for the prisoner. The conviction is wrong, because the perjury assigned was not material to the issue The question was as to the paternity of the child, which was barn in March, a full-grown child. [Ill] It is clear, therefore, that it must have been begotten in June , and connexion with the mother in September, when she was three months gone with child, could not affect the paternity. In the earliest stage of the law of perjury, the false evidence must have been dirert to the issue. Subsequently it was held that, if a witness who gives evidence direct to the issue goes also into collateral matters, in order to obtain credit for his assertions in the principal matter, and gives false evidence upon such collateral matters, he may be indicted for perjury. The 5 Eliz. c. 9 is the first statute relating to perjury Pollock C B -Perjury was always an offence at common law, but only punishable by imprisonment. It is a remarkable feature in our common law, that perjury, by which the innocent may be convicted, and the guilty escape, was accounted no greater offence than knocking a man down. The statute of Elizabeth defined the offence, and increased the punishment. Addison. Coke (3 Inst c 74), m commenting upon this statute, observes that the perjury must be " in a matter material to the issue or cause in question For, if it be not material, then, though it be false, yet it is no perjury, because it concerneth not the point in suit, and therefore in effect it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial