Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

R v George Manning and Maria Manning

State Trials Cited authorities 10 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date07 November 1849
Date07 November 1849
CourtState Trial Proceedings
28 Edw. 3. c. 13. Jury de Medietate
7 & 8 Vict. c. 66. Aliens
11 & 12 Vict. c. 78. The Crown Cases Act, 1848
33 & 34 Vict. c. 14 Naturalization Act, 1870
REG. v. MARIA MANNING. PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF CROWN CASES RESERVED BEFORE WILDE, C.J., POLLOCK, C.B., ROLFE, B., COLERIDGE, J., CRESSWELL, J., ADD PLAT r, B., NOVEMBER 7, 1849. (Reported in 1 Den. C. C. 467, 2 C. & K. 887, 4 Cox C. , C. 31.) In October 1849, Maria Manning, an alien-born, wife of George Frederick Manning, a natural-horn subject, having been indicted with her husband for the wilful murder of Patrick OConnor, claimed to be tried by a jury de medietate. The Court disallowed the claim, but afterwards reserved the point for the Court of Crown Cases Reserved. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 66. s. 16, provided that any woman married to a natural-born subject should be " deemed and taken to be herself naturalized, and have all the rights and privileges of a natural-born subject." Held by the Court of Crown Cases Reserved (a) Trial by a jury de medietate-7 & 8 Vict. c. 66. s. 16.(b) That, after the passing of the above statute, an alien-born woman, married to a natural-born subject was not entitled to a jury de medietate.(c) (a) Established by the Crown Cases Act, 1848, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 78. (b) Rep. 33 Vict. c. 14, the Naturalization Act, 1870. (c) Trial by jury de medietate was abolished by the Naturalization Act, 1870, 33 Vict. c. 14. s. 5. The prisoner was indicted with her husband for wilful murder.(a) Before plea, application was made on her behalf, that a jury de medietate linguae might be empanelled to try her, on the ground that she was an alien. It was objected by the Attorney-General (Sir John Jervis),(b) and ruled by the Court (Pottocx, C.B., MAULS, J., and CRESS-WELL, J.), that no such application could be made, until the prisoner had pleaded. On a plea of not guilty being recorded, the application was rene wed, but, on it being stated by counsel for the prosecution, and not denied by the other side, that she was married to a natural-born subject, after a discussion, the Court decided against the claim. Upon this decision, a suggestion of the claim, and the grounds of it, was entered on the record, to which the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Crown, pleaded (in person) that she was married to a natural-born subject. Her counsel demurred to this plea, and there was a joinder in demurrer. (c) (a) There is a full report of the trial and execution of the prisoners in Ann. Beg. 1849, Chron. 4, 429. One object of the application was to procure that the prisoners should be tried separately, as each desired to throw the guilt of the murder on the other. (b) Afterwards Chief Justice of C.Y. (c) The objection thus being raised on the face of the record, would of course have been the subject of a writ of error, hut the point appearing to be clear, and the judges who presided at the trial being unanimou,s in their judgment, the Attorney-General thought it right to refuse his fiat for the issuing of the Writ of The trial then proceeded, an English jury being empanelled, and the prisoners were both convicted. The following case was reserved for the opinion of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved :- At the last session of the Central Criminal Court, Frederick George Manning, and Maria his wife, were jointly in, dieted for the murder of Patrick OConnor. Both prisoners pleaded " not guilty," but the female prisoner claimed a jury de medietate linguae. She was born at Lausanne, in Switzerland, and in the year 1847 was married to the male prisoner, a natural-born subject of this realm. The prisoners counsel referred to statute 28 Edw. 3. c. 13., and 6 Geo. 4. c. 5W s. 47. The Attorney-General for the prosecution relied upon the statute 7 & 8 Vict. c. 66. s. 16, and Barres case (Moore, 557). The judges the Lord Chief Baron, Mr. Justice Maule, and Mr. Justice Cressuielldecided that the prisoner was not entitled to a jury de medietate linguae, and the trial of both prisoners proceeded in the ordinary course, and both were convicted. The question is, was the female prisoner entitled to a jury de medietate linguce ? Ballantine (with whom was Parry) for the prisoner : The claim of the prisoner to be tried by a jury de medietate linguae is founded on the statute 28 Edw. 3. c. 13. s. 2, which says- " And that in all manner of inquests and proofs which be to be taken or made amongst Error, at least until the opinion of the judges forming the Court of Appeal, should be obtained. Note in 4 Cox C. C. 31. KK 2 1031] .Reg. v. Maria Manning, 1849. [1032 aliens and denizens, be they merchants or other, Edward 3. refers to denizens as well as to aliens ? Ballantine: No. It is the construction he puts upon the Act. From the circumstance that no means exist of trying the fact of alienage, or are suggested in any of the authorities, it would seem that the mere claim, on the part of the prisoner, is sufficient to give him the right to a jury de medietate linguce, and this appears to be supported by Lord Hale, 2 P. C. 271. He says- " If upon an indictment of felony against an alien, he allege that he is an alien, he may challenge the array, &c." Protably it would be taken for granted that an English subject would never seek to be tried by foreigners. 6 Geo. 4. c. 50. s. 47, says, " on the prayer of the alien," but says nothing respecting the proof of alienage. The Attorney-General stated in the court below, that if he acceded to the demand of a jury de medietate linguce...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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