R v Hewgill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1854 |
| Date | 01 January 1854 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 742
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND THE COURTS OF ERROR
S. C. 18 J. P. 137; 18 Jur 158, 2 W. R. 278, 2 C. L. R. 600. Followed, R. v. Lince, 1873, 28 L. T. 570
74$ REGINA V. HEWGILL DEARS. 316. [315] 1854. reoina v hewgill (In an indictment for obtaining money under false pretences, the only pretence charged was that the defendant falsely pretended to one T W that he had received an order for payment of money from W M C. for the payment of a quarter's salary then due and owing to the defendant. It was proved that the defendant was curate to the said W M C. and that the defendant, after telling T, W. that he had received an order to go and receive his quarter's salary of L , and that L was very ill, and could not do it for him , asked T. W. to let him have the money, and shewed him a paper to this effect " Received of L. the sum of 25 for the Rev W. M C 's note " T W. gave him 15, and the defendant gave him the following receipt " Received from T W. 15 on account of Rev. W. M. C 's order for 25 " T W , in his evidence, stated that he had no doubt the paper produced by the prisoner was genuine, and that he rested on that as mnch as on the other part of the transaction , that it contributed to produce confidence, and that it was in consequence of what he saw, and what the prisoner said, and what the prisoner gave him that he was induced to let the prisoner have the money T W also said that the defendant first told him that he had received a letter from W. M. C. that morning, wishing him to go to L and draw his quarter's salary, and that that was part of the inducement to T W to let the prisoner have the money. The points left to the jury were, 1 Did the defendant make use of the pretence alleged in the indictment ? 2 Did T. W part with his money in consequence of his belief in that pretence ? 3. Was that pretence false ? 4 Did the defendant obtain the money with intent to defraud ? The ]ury returned a verdict of Guilty Held, 1 That there was no variance between the pretence laid and the pretence proved 2. That the actual substantial pretence on which T. W. parted from his money was the pretence of the order 3 That the manner in which the case was left by the Court to the jury was right ) [S. C. 18 J. P. 137 ; 18 Jur. 158 ; 2 W. R. 278 ; 2 C L R 600. Followed, R. v. Lmce, 1873, 28 L. T. 570 ] At the Epiphany Quarter Sessions for the county of Southampton, holden at Winchester on the 2nd January 1854, H. F. Hewgill, clerk, was indicted for obtaining the sum of 15 under false pretences. The indictment was as follows " County of Southampton, to wit The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their oath, present that Henry Frederic Hewgill, late of the parish of Titchfield in the county aforesaid, clerk, on the 17th day of November 1853, was curate of Crofton, in the said parish of Titchfield in the county aforesaid, and being such curate on the day and year aforesaid, at the parish and county aforesaid, unlawfully and knowingly did falsely pretend to one Thomas Waters that lie the said Henry Frederic Hewgill had received an order for the payment of money, to \vit, the sum of 25, from one Walter Maude Cosser (he, the said Walter Maude [316] Cosser...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cases referred to in 1963
...E.R. 150 29 Re Mayfair Property Co. (1898) 2 Ch. 28, 35 102 Regal (Hastings Ltd.) v. Gulliver (1942) 1 All E.R. 378 40 Regina v. Hewgill (Dears 315). 9 Roast v. Roast (1938) P.17; (1937) 4 All E.R. 423 272 Ross v. Ellison (1930) A.C. 1, 7, 21 272 Rossiter v. Langley (1925) 1 K.B. 741 175 Ro......
-
FED. BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE V. ADENUBI
...as a tradesman is generally more or less influenced by the profit he expects to make upon the transaction. The case of Reg. v. Hewgill (Dears. 315) is an authority in support of this 20 view. I therefore think this conviction ought to be affirmed." That makes it plain that the conviction un......