R v Jackson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 March 1844 |
| Date | 01 March 1844 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 174 E.R. 857
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, AND EXCHEQUER, AND ON THE NORTHERN AND WESTERN CIRCUITS.
Attornies-Ward, and F. M. Slocombe.
[384] (Crown Side) before Mr. Justice Coleridge. March 1st, 1844. regina v. jackson (It was the duty of a servant, authorized to receive money for his employer, to account to his employer on the evening of every day for the money received during the day by him for his employer, and to pay over the amount. He received three sums for his employer on three different days, and neither accounted for those sums, nor paid them over. He never denied the receipt of them, or rendered any written account in which they were omitted -Held, that, if the servant wilfully omitted to account for these sums, and pay them over on the respective days on which he received them, these were embezzlements, and that such wilful omissions to account and pay over were equivalent to a denial of the receipt of them.) Embezzlement.-The first count of the indictment charged, that the prisoner, being the servant of Elizabeth Dolby, received for her, by virtue of las employment, the sum of £3, 9s. 6d. on the 4th of November, 1843, and feloniously embezzled the same ; second count, for embezzling a sum of £4, 9s. 8d on the 29th of September, 1843 ; third count, for embezzling a sum of £1 on the 18th of December, 1843 ; fourth count, for a larceny. It was proved that the prisoner was, at all the times mentioned in the indictment, 858 DOE V, FREEMAN 1 OAR. * K. 886. the servant of Mrs. Dolby, who was a baker at Winkfield ; and that the prisoner was authorized to receive money due to her from her customers. It was also proved that, on the 4th of November, 1843, the prisoner received the sum of £3, 9*. 6d. of Mary Taff, the servant of Mr. Briant, a customer of Mrs. Dolby, in payment for bread supplied to him by her ; that the prisoner also received the two other sums mentioned in the indictment, at the respective times mentioned in the indictment, of Mr. Strickland, and of Harriet Rowlinson, the servant of Mr. Thomas Ward, in payment for bread supplied by the prosecutrix It was further proved by Mrs. Dolby, that the prisoner had never...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v William Murdock
...in Nottingham, and did not do so. It has been laid down by Coleridge J., that non-accounting is equivalent to denial. (Reg. v. Jackson, 1 Car. & K. 384 , Rex v. Hobson, Russ. & R. 56 ; Reg. v. Norman, Car. & M. 501.) Lord Campbell C. J.-Both parties, I suppose, were living in Nottingham. Ma......
-
The Queen v William Murphy
...2 Cox, 245. Regina v. NorvalENR 1 Cox, 95. Rex v. WillisENR 1 Mood. 375. Regina v. WelchENR 1 Den. C. C. 199. Regina v. JacksonENR 1 Car. & Kir, 384. Rex v. WilliamsENR 7 C. & P. 338. Regina v. CainENR 2 Mood. C. C. 204. Regina v. MillerENR 2 Mood. C. C. 249. Rex v. HallENR 1 Mood. C. C. 47......