R v Frost and Eleven Others

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date11 December 1839
Date11 December 1839
CourtCourt of the Queen's Bench

English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 771

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

Regina
and
Frost and Eleven Others

9 eAE.tr. 130. REGXSA V.FROST 771 [129] MONMOUTH SPECIAL COMMISSION, 1839. Befofe Lord Chief Justice Tindal, Mr. Baron Parke, and Mr. Justice Williams. Dec. llth, 1839. eegina v. frost and eleven others. (To constitute the treason of levying war against her Majesty within the realm, these must be an insurrection, there must be force accompanying that insurrection, and it must be foe an object of a general nature t and if a person act as the leader of an aimed body who enter a town, and their object be neither t&take the town nor attack the military, but merely to make a demonstration to the magistracy of the strength of their party, either to procure the liberation of certain prisoners convicted of some political offence, or to procure for those prisoners some mitigation of their punishment, this, though an aggravated misdemeanor, is not high treason. In a case of high treason the prisoner is not bound of necessity to shew what was the object or meaning of the acts done. The offence charged must be made out by those who make the charge The Court will not order that money taken from a prisoner charged with high trjeaserL be restored to him, unless it be made appear to the Court that the money farms no part of the proof against him. Counsel may be assigned for a pnsomer charged with high treason upon an application made to the clerk of the Crown during an adjournment of the Commission between the finding of the indictment and the arraignment, or the prisoner will be allowed, if he wishes it, to delay naming his counsel till he is brought up to be tried Pmoners charged with high treason will be allowed copies of the depositions against themi on the terms prescribed by the stat. 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 114, s. 3 A person charged with high treason cannot be allowed by the Court before whiek he is tried to have two attornies unless they be partners. The Court before whom a prisoner is charged with high treason will not order that papers taken from his house should be restored to him, neither will they order that he shall be furnished with copies of them. The only counsel in a case of high treason who are recognised by the Court are the two counsel who are assigned by the Court, and the Court will not take notice of any assistant counsel. In a case, of treason where the prisoner's counsel asked that the names of the jurors should be taken from a ballot-box instead of being called over in the order in which they stood in the panel, which was alphabetical, and this proposition wan acquiesced in by the Attorney-General, the Court allowed the names of the jurors to be taken from a ballot-box ; but if the Attorney-General had objected, the Court would not have granted the application. The provisions of the stat. 6 Geo. IV. c. 50, s. 29, with respect to challenging of jurors by the Crown, is a mete re-enactment of the law on this subject as it was before the passing of that statute. The challenge of a juror, either by the Crown or by the prisoner, must be before the oath is commenced. The moment the oath has begun it is too late. The oath is begun by the juror taking the book, having been directed by the officer of the Court to do so ; but if the juror takes the book without authority, neither party wishing to challenge is to be prejudiced thereby In charging a Jtiry with a prisoner in a case of high treason, it is not necessary to read the whole of the indictment at length to the jury unless the prisoner or his counsel wish it; it is sufficient for the clerk of the Crown to state the substance of it. During a trial for high treason, which was expected to last several days, the Court ordered that the prisoner's attorney should have access to kim every day after tie rising of the Court tall 10 p.m., and before the sitting of the Court from 7 a.m., although it was stated by the governor of the prison that the prison was not open for any other purpose till half-past 7 a.m., and was shut for the night at 9 p.m. In a case of high treason a witness was described in the list of witnesses as " S. S., of the parish of St. W., in the borough of N., in the county of M., labourer." N. was a place with 6000 inhabitants, and formed only a part of the parish of St. W., which was a large parish extending beyond the borough of N. ò-Held, sufficient, and that it was neither a misdeacnption ner too general. In a case of higk treason or conspiracy the prosecutor may ei4hei prove the conspiracy which renders the acts of the co-conspirators admissible in evidence, or he may prove the acts of the different persons, and. thus prove the conspiracy ; therefore in a case of high treason, where it appeared 772 REGENA V. FROST 9 CAB. ft P. 129. that a party met, which was joined by the prisoner on the next day, the counsel fa? the prosecution was allowed to ask what directions one of the party gave ob, the day of their meeting as to where they were to go, and for what purpose. Oa a tnal for high treason a witness was described in the list of witnesses as " $f Cross-y-Cylog, in the parish of L." The witness stated that he lived near Cross-y-Cylog (which means Cross-of-the-Cock), and that there were two public-houses, each so called, and that his house was between them and sixty yards from each. It was also proved that there was a cluster of houses at this place, and that a witness had directed invoices to one of them as Cross-y-Cylog :- Held, that the witness was not properly described. In a case of high treason a witness was described in the list of witnesses as " M. J., of P., in the parish of St. W., in the county of M., sometimes abiding at the house of his son J. J., in the pariah of B., in the said county." The witness occupied a house at P., m the parish of St. W , in which his wife resided, he going to work with his son and returning to his house at P. about three days in every two months. The son's house was in the parish of M. and not in the parish of B. -Held, that if the witness had been described as of P., in the parish of St. W., that would have been sufficient, but that, as the latter part of the description was incorrect, it vitiated the whole. In a case of high treason evidence had been given for the prosecution that an armed party attacked the W. hotel, in which the magistrates and troops were stationed. To shew that the intention of the party was not treasonable, but was merely to procure the release of certain prisoners, a witness was called to prove that on the party arriving at the hotel gate, they were asked by a special constable what they wanted, when one of them answered, " Surrender up your prisoners." It was proposed to call evidence in reply to shew that that was not said at the hotel gate ò-Held, that this was properly evidence ia reply. In a case of high treason where the Crown gave evidence in reply, the witness in reply was called before the second counsel for the prisoner addressed the jury, and the leading counsel for the prisoner commented on the evidence in reply also before the second counsel for the prisoner addressed the jury. On a trial for high treason it was objected, after the jury had been charged with the prisoner, but before the first witness was examined, that the prisoner had had no list of witnesses delivered to him under the stat. 7 Anne, c. 21. It appeared that the indictment was found on the llth of December, and that on the 12th of December a copy of it and of the panel of the jurors intended to be returned by the sheriff, were delivered to the prisoner, and that on the 17th of December the list of witnesses was delivered to him. The prisoner was arraigned on the 31st of December. The objection to the delivery of the list of witnesses was, that the copy of the indictment and the lists of jurois and witnesses should have been all delivered at the same time simid el send, -Held, by a majority of the Judges, that the delivery of the list of witnesses was not a good delivery in point of law, but that the objection to the deiiTery ol the list of witnesses was not made in due time, and the Judges agreed that if the objection had been made in due time, the effect of it would have been a postponement of the trial in order to give tune for a proper delivery of the list. If, in a case of high treason, a point be reserved for the opinion of the fifteen Judges, their Lordships, if the point be argued, wdl only hear one counsel on each side; and as the counsel are in the nature of atmci curieE, their Lordships will hear counsel who were not assigned at the trial. If caaes be reserved for two different prisoners on the same point, and both are argued, the Judges will hear each case quite separately unless the counsel consent to some other arrangement. On a trial for high treason any objection to the description of the witness in the list of witnesses must be taken on the voire dire, and conies too late after the witness is sworn in chief.) [Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 2 Mood. C. C. 140, 143 ] The special cooimisaionr which was a commission of Oyer and Ternuner as to all treasons, misprisions ef treasons, insurrections, &c , in the usual form, was directed to Lord Chief Justice Tindal, Mr. Baron Parke, aud Mr. Justice Williams, and the indictment for high treason on which Frost, Zephauiah Williams, and William Jones, were tried, included also the uamea of nine other persons. The 1st count 9 CAB. £ P. 130. REOESTA V. FROST 773 charged that all the twelve persons included in it traitorously did levy and make war against our Lady the Queen within the realm, and being armed did march in a warlike manner through divers towns, &c , and did with 2000 and more with offensive weapons beset houses and force persons to march with them, and did seize arms further to arm themselves to destroy the soldiers of the Queen, and to levy war against the Queen within the realm, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Goldsmith v Sandilands
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 8 August 2002
    ...Litigation: Evidence and Procedure, 6th ed (1998) at 988. 59Shaw (1952) 85 CLR 365 at 379; cf R v Frost (1839) 9 Car & P 129 at 159 [ 173 ER 771 at 784]. 60Shaw (1952) 85 CLR 365 at 378. 61RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620 at 632–633 [27]–[28], 656 [111]. 62State Rail Authority of New Sout......
  • Thomas v Mowbray and Ors
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 2 August 2007
    ...in Joyce v Director of Public Prosecutions [1946] AC 347 at 365. 121 3 Coke's Institutes §§9, 10; R v Frost (1839) 9 Car & P 129 at 161 [ 173 ER 771 at 122R v Lord George Gordon (1781) 2 Dougl 590 at 592 [99 ER 372 at 373]. 123 In the course of the Gordon Riots, Lord Mansfield's house on Bl......
  • Azman Bin Jamaludin v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 18 November 2011
    ...MLJ 202 (refd) R v Day (Harold Norman) (1940) 27 Cr App R 168 (refd) R v Dora Harris [1927] 2 KB 587 (refd) R v Frost (1839) 9 Car & P 129; 173 ER 771 (refd) R v Kansal [2002] 2 AC 69 (refd) R v Mc Mahon (1933) 24 Cr App R 95 (refd) Ramasamy v R [1955] MLJ 95 (refd) Ramli bin Kechik v PP [1......
  • Bridges Christopher v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 6 November 1997
    ...Cr App R 65 (refd) R v Scott (1984) 79 Cr App R 49 (folld) R v Sullivan (1922) 16 Cr App R 121 (refd) Regina v Frost (1839) 9 Car & P 129; 173 ER 771 (folld) Zainal bin Kuning v Chan Sin Mian Michael [1996] 2 SLR (R) 858; [1996] 3 SLR 121 (folld) Official Secrets Act (Cap 213, 1985 Rev Ed) ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Tackling phone searches in Italy and the United States
    • United Kingdom
    • New Journal of European Criminal Law No. 9-3, September 2018
    • 1 September 2018
    ...Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), 392; Dillon v. O’Brien, 16 Cox Crim. Cas. 245, 249–251 (1887)(citing Regina v. Frost, 9 Car. & P. 129, 173 Eng. Rep. 771).7. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), 753–754; and 762–768, commented, among others, by G.M. Dery III and K.Meehan, ......

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