R v Henry Warringham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1851 |
| Date | 01 January 1851 |
| Court | Crown Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 575
Crown Cases
S. C. 15 Jur. 318. Referred to, R. v Baldry, 1852, post, p. 430; R v. Thompson, [1893] 2 Q B. 12.
regina v. henry wareingham. Cor am-Parke B. Surrey Spring Assizes, 1851 (1. In order to render a confession by a prisoner admissible the prosecution must shew affirmatively, to the satisfaction of the Judge, that it has not been made under the influence of an improper inducement : if this appear doubtful on the evidence the confession ought to be rejected 2 On an indictment for stealing the goods of two persons in partnership, a confession made after an inducement (jo confesfi has been held out in their absence by the wife of one of them, who assisted in the management of their business, is inadmissible ) [S. C. 15 Jur. 318. Referred to, R. v Baldry, 1852, post, p. 430 ; R v. Thompson, [1893] 2 Q B. 12 ] The prisoner was indicted for stealing a quantity of brown duck, the property of two persons, carrying on business in partnership, m whose shop he served. The first witness was one of the prosecutors : [Luke Blakemore. Waterproof clothes manufacturer in Tooley Street. My brother is in partnership. Prisoner was in my employ 24th January. In evening he had charge of the goods in the shop. On the llth March I missed a piece of duck, thirty-six yards in length, worth 14s. (it was taken 25th February). I accused prisoner and he made no answer. I went to the station-house ; I heard something then spoke to prisoner again. I said, it is of no use to deny ; I have seen the piece of gdods at the station-house. He said, he would not have done it, if he had not been persuaded to it I told him, it would be the best for him, if he would tell how it was transacted-this not till some time after I did not say I would nob prosecute him ; I did not say he should not lose his situation. My brother was present, he did not say anything. Cross-examined I have not been in Horsemonger Gaol; never in any prison ; never had a key turned on me for a day. I was taken to a police station for selling cherries,-a night. It was because I would not move on I got out at twelve ; I was let off. I decline to answer the question as to another time. I was not locked up more than twice. I was not pun-[448]-ished I do not recollect what it was for;-three years ago for the cherries ; the other six or seven years ago for an 576 REGINA V. JOHN SMITH 3 DEN. 449. assault. I received no punishment. I don't know what kind of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v Gobin; State v Griffith
-
Mcintosh v R
... ... [A paradigm of earlier intellectual leadership is to be found in Baron Parke's ruling in R. v. Warringham (1851) 169 E.R. 575 .] This principle developed as a result of the unfair and barbarous methods employed in early times to wring “confessions” ... ...
-
The State v Allan Woila [1978] PNGLR 99
...228.) The course of decision on the point in England is as follows. The earliest decision is perhaps R v Warringham (1851) 2 Den CC 447n; 169 ER 575 though Parke B was there really concerned only with the question of where the onus of proof lay. Addressing counsel for the Crown he said: "Yo......
- Macpherson v R