R v Francis Fretwell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1862 |
| Date | 01 January 1862 |
| Court | Crown Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 1345
Crown Cases
S. C. 31 L J M C. 145, 6 L T 333; 26 J. P. 499, 8 Jur N S 466, 10 W. R. 545; 9 Cox C C 152. Referred to, R. v Lomas, 1913, 78 J P. 152
[161] 1862 eegina v francis fretwell (The prisoner was induced by A , who was pregnant by him, to get for her a dose of corrosive sublimate for the purpose of producing abortion, which he did with a full knowledge of the purpose to which it was to be applied A took the dose m the prisoner's absence, and died in consequence The jury found that the prisoner did not administer the poison to her, or cause her to take it Held, that, even li the woman were felo de se, the prisoner could not be convicted of murder, either as a principal or as an accessory before the fact ) [S, C. 31 L J M C. 145 , 6 L T 333 ; 26 J. P. 499 , 8 Jur N S 466 , 10 W. R. 545 ; 9 Cox C C 152. Referred to, R. v Lontaa, 1913, 78 J P. 152 ] The following case was reserved by Cockburn C. J. Francis Fretwell was indicted and tried before me, at the last Assizes tor the county of Nottingham, for the wilful murder of Elizabeth Bradley The deceased had died from the effects of corrosive sublimate taken for the purpose of producing abortion. Th* poison had been procured for her by the prisoner, with full knowledge of the purpose to which it was to be applied ; but there was ground for believing that the prisoner, in procuring the poison, had acted at the instigation of the deceased and under the influence of threats by her of self-destruction if the means of producing abortion were not supplied to her. She was a married woman, living m service, separately from her husband, and had become pregnant by the prisoner She had endeavoured to purchase corrosive sublimate herself, but the druggists to whom she had applied having refused to fur-malt it to her, she had urged the prisoner to procure it The prisoner was not present when the poison was taken The facts in question occurred in the month of July, 1861, anterior to the coming into operation of the 24 & 25 Viet c. 100 The jury, upon questions specially put to them by me, upon the evidence, expressly negatived the fact of the prisoner having administered the poison to the deceased, or caused it to be taken by her They found, specially, that the prisoner prociiEed the poison, and delivered it to the deceased, with a knowledge of the purpose to which she intended to apply it, and that [162] he was therefore accessory before the fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IL v R
...19Criminal Law Act 1826 (7 Geo IV c 64), s 9. 20R v Russell (1832) 1 Mood 356 at 367 [ 168 ER 1302 at 1306]. 21 (1862) Le & Ca 161 [ 169 ER 1345]; cf R v Gaylor (1857) D & B 288 [ 169 ER 22R v Fretwell (1862) Le & Ca 161 at 164 [ 169 ER 1345 at 1346–1347]. 23 (1862) Le & Ca 258 [ 169 ER 138......
-
R v Creamer
...defendendo. In other cases of manslaughter there seems to be no reason why there may not be accessories". 8 The Court was also referred to Fretwell's case in 9 Cox's Criminal Cases, page 152, but in the opinion of this Court is is unnecessary to refer to that case. More important is the cas......
-
Rex v Longone
...on Crimes (8th ed., vol. 1, p. 121); Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law (p. 86); Reg. v Taylor (L.R. 2 C.C.R. 147); Reg. v Fretwill (Le. & Ca. 161 and at p. 164; 169 E.R. A person who instigates another to commit an offence is not liable as accessory to a different offence deliberately commit......
-
A Cypress is Gone
...22. David W. Robertson, Admiralty Jurisdiction Over One Co-Tortfeasor Cannot Effectuate Admiralty Jurisdiction Over Another, 37 J. MAR. L. & C. 161 (2006). 23. David W. Robertson, The Vocabulary of Negligence Law: Continuing Causation Confusion, 58 LA. L. REV. 1 (1997); David W. Robertson, ......