R v George Manning and Maria Manning
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 October 1849 |
| Date | 25 October 1849 |
| Court | Assizes |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 372
QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
October Sessions, 1849, befote Pollock, C B , Maule, J , and Ciesswell, J Oct 25th, lcS49. regina v frederick george manning and maria, his wife (An alien woman, who has married a British subject, is not entitled, on her trial for a felony, to be tried by a juiy de tnedietate iinguce Whether an alien, who is indicted jointly with a British subject for a, felony, thereby loses the privilege of being tried by a jury de medtetate hnguce-qutere. [But held, in Swendsen1 s case (14 St. Tr 559), that he did not; Barrels case, Mooie, 557, setnb cont.}) [Subsequent proceedings \\ith annotations, 1 Den. 467.] Murder.-The prisoners were jointly indicted for the murder of Patrick O'Connor by shooting him with a pistol . m other counts the death was charged to have been by fracturing his skull by a crowbar, and by suffocation Both- prisoners pleaded not guilty , but Ballantine, for the prisoner Maria Manning, claimed a jury de medietate liny me. 2 CAR. & K. 888. REGINA V. MANNING 373 It appeared that 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. Ballantine and Parry, for the prisoner Maria Manning, [888] referred to the stat 28 Edw. 3, c. 13, and 6 Geo. 4, c. 50, s 47, which give to aliens the right of being tried by a jury de medietate hng-iuB , and submitted, that the htat. 7 & 8 Viet c. 66, was intended to confer new privileges, create new rights, and not to take away any privilege which existed before ; and they cited the case of Doe d. Thomas v Acldam (2 B. & C. 779), as shewing that an alien cannot divest himself of that status, without the consent of the government to which he or she belongs Jervis, A G., for the Crown, contended, first, that the female prisoner having married a natural born subject, she was herself naturalized, under the stat. 7 & 8 Viet. c. 66, s. 16, by which it is enacted, " That any woman married or who shall be married to a natural born subject or person naturalized, shall be deemed and taken to be herself naturalized, and have all the rights and privileges of a natural born subject " ; and, secondly, that, even if she were an alien, she was not entitled to be tried by a jury de medietate linquce, she being indicted jointly with a British subject, and had thereby lost the privilege And for this he cited Barre s case (a) [889] Pollock, G B -It appears to me that the statute of Victoria is an answer to the application. I forbear going into the other answer offered on the authority of the decision in the Exchequer I should not like to adopt hastily, and without much more consideration, the decision there given as applicable to the present case, and, if it rested upon that alone, I should certainly desire further time to consider ; but it appears to me that the statute of Victoria is a complete answer to the application. By that statute the wife of a natural bom subject becomes naturalized. The expression of the statute is, " any woman married," that is, already married, " or who shall be married to a natural born subject, or person naturalized, shall be deemed and (a) Moore, 557, Mich 40 & 41 Ehz The report of that case is to the following effect:- The Attorney of the Queen filed an information in the Exchequer against Barre, and divers other merchants, of whom some were aliens, others English. After issue the aliens prayed trial per medietatem hnqiiCB The Court advised with all the Justices of England ; and, in the end, it was adjudged that they should not have trial per medietatem hngucs, for the English who are defendants with them cannot have thia trial ; but the aliens can have trial by all English, as they had before the statute, and as they now will have if they demand not this per medietatem hnguw , and it seems, in the case of privilege, where one defendant demands privilege, and the Court, as to his companion, cannot hold the plea, there he shall be ousted of his privilege sic hie. The case of Haagen Swendsen and Others (14 St Tr. 559), tried at bar in the Court of Queen's Bench, in 1702, before Holt, C J . and Powell, Powis, and Gould, Js , appears to be much more nearly in point. The indictment there charged Haagen Swendsen, Sarah Baynton, John Hartwell, and John Spurr, jointly, with the then capital felony of having feloniously, violently, and against her will, taken away Pleasant Ptawlins, an heiress, with intent to procure her marriage with Haagen Swendsen. This prisoner, being a foreigner, " claimed as his right" a jury de medietate lingufB (here called a party jury), which was allowed him , and a jury consisting of half aliens was sworn The other prisoners were English " Solicitor-General (Sir Simon Hatcourt) -Is it not your Lordship's pleasure to call the other jury 2 The facts are so twisted together, and have such a dependence one upon another, that there will be an inconvenience to us, if it be otherwise " Serjt. Darnell.-They may stand at the bar themselves. " Mr. Montague -Or else it will break our evidence They may stand on the other side. " L C. J. Holt -He must be tried single." (Id p. 561 ) The trial of Haagen Swendsen then proceeded, and he was tried by a jury of half aliens ; but the learned counsel before mentioned must have been all engaged for the prosecution, for the prisoner says (id p. 561), '' Pray, my Lord, let me have pen and ink , I am not allowed counsel." The prisoner Haagen Swendsen was found guilty ; and the next trial is that of Sarah Baynton, John Hartwell, and John Spurr (id p. 597), who were tried on the same indictment by a jury of all Englishmen Mrs Baynton was convicted, and the others acquitted; but Mrs Baynton was found enceinte by a jury of matrons It appears that Haagen Swendsen was executed, and Mrs Baynton reprieved (Id p 634 ) 374 REGINA V. MANNING 2 CAB. & K. 890. taken to be herself naturalized, and have all the rights and privileges of a natural born subject." The obvious, plain, and natural inference from that appears to [890] me to be, that she should be considered exactly as if she had been naturalized by Act of Parliament, or as if she had been a natural born subject; and the question is, whether she can now claim a jury de medietate lingucs for herself, it being clear that her husband, who is a natural born subject, cannot be tried by a jury so constituted. There is in Bacon's Abridgment an authority to this extent: " It hath been holden that denizens so made by letters patent, are denizens within the meaning of this statute " (Bac. Abr. tit. ""Juries," E. 8, p. 569) [of Edward the Third] It appears to me a fortiori, that a person made a denizen, or rather, naturalized by Act of Parliament, would be, within the intent of the statute, a natural born subject. The language of the statute of Edward the Third (and all the modern statute does, is to leave the rights created under that statute unimpaired) is, " that in ah1 manner of inquests and proofs which be to be taken or made amongst aliens and denizens," " although the king be party," the one half of the inquests or proof shall be denizens, the other half aliens. The question therefore is, whether there be an issue to be taken between our sovereign Lady the Queen and two persons, one of whom is a denizen, or natural born subject, and the other an alien. The statute says, that persons in the situation of Maria Manning are to be deemed and taken to be naturalized ; and I find it laid down in Hawkins (2 Hawk P. C , ch. 43, s. 39) in these words : " It is holden, that by ' denizens' in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v George Manning and Maria Manning
...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 indict......