R v Goldshede and Sidney
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 1844 |
| Date | 05 December 1844 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 174 E.R. 979
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, AND EXCHEQUER, AND ON THE NORTHERN AND WESTERN CIRCUITS.
Applied, R v. Coote, 1873, L. R. 4 P. C. 599.
[657] Dec. 5, 1844 regina v goldshede and sidney. (On the trial of an indictment for a conspiracy, the answers in Chancery of the defendants, made on oath by them in a suit instituted against them by the prosecutor, are receivable in evidence on the part of the prosecution.) [Applied, R. v. Coote, 1873, L. R. 4 P. C. 599.] Conspiracy.-The first count of the indictment charged, that the defendants did conspire, &c. to pretend that Richard Bmgham was indebted to the defendant Sidney in the sum of £250, and to commence an action to recover it, and to cause Richard Bingham to be arrested and imprisoned until he gave bail or paid that amount, whereas in truth Richard Bingham was not indebted to either of the defendants in that sum. Second count, that the defendants did conspire, &c. to obtain £250 from the said Richard Bingham, by falsely pretending that Richard Bingham was indebted to the defendant Sidney in that amount, and by wrongfully causing Richard Bingham to be arrested; whereas in truth Richard Bingham was not indebted to the defendant Sidney in the said sum or any other sum. Third count, that, on the 20th of November, 1843, Richard Bingham, for the accommodation of Richard Shiel, had accepted a bill of exchange for £250, drawn by R. Shiel payable to his own order, which bill of exchange was discounted by the defendant Goldshede for R. Shiel, and was then indorsed by R. Shiel to the defendant Goldshede ; and that, after that bill became due, and while the defendant GoldsLede was the holder of it, he received another bill of exchange, for £275, in satisfaction of and for the first-mentioned bill of exchange, and that afterwards the defendants conspired, &c. to pretend that the defendant Sidney was the lawful indorsee and holder of the first-mentioned bill of exchange, and entitled to receive from the said Richard Bingham the sum of £250 in respect of it Fourth count, that Richard Bingham, for the accommodation of R. Shiel, accepted a bill of exchange for £250, which was discounted by the defendant Goldshede, and that R. Shiel, after that bill of exchange became due, and while the defendant Goldshede was the holder of it, indorsed to the [658] defendant Goldshede another bill of exchange, for £275, in satisfaction of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Edmund Garbett
...the same position as though he had been under examination before a magistrate' The cases of R. v Haioorth, 4 C. & P. 254 ; R v. Goldshede, 1C & K 657 , R v Whealer, 2 Mood. C1 C 45, shew that the mere fact of the statement being made on oath is no objection to its admissibihty Secondly. The......