R v James Rowton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1865 |
| Date | 01 January 1865 |
| Court | Crown Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 1497
Crown Cases
S. C. 5 New Rep. 428; 34 L J M. C. 57, 11 L T 745; 29 J P. 149; 11 Jur. N. S 325, 13 W R. 436, 10 Cox C C 25
LE.&CA.5M. REGINA V. JAMBS EOWTON 1497 [520] 1865 regina v james rowton (If evidence of good character is given on behalf of a prisoner, evidence of bad character may be given in reply (h(.et itante Martin B.). But (dissentientibus Erie C. J and Willes J.) in either case the evidence must be confined to the the subject, where it appeared that the prisoner had taken away the husband's property to a house, to which he immediately afterwards brought the prosecutor's wife, with whom he lived there till he was apprehended, the learned Judge was telling the jury that, if they believed the prosecutor's wife, who had sworn there was none of the property but what she had herself taken or given to the prisoner to take, they must acquit the prisoner, when a copy of Russell on Crimes containing the above cited passage from Dalton was shewn to him Upon the authority of that passage the jury were directed to find the prisoner guilty ; and the case was afterwards argued before all the Judges by Mr. Clarksou on behalf of the prisoner. No one appears to have argued on behalf of the Crown , and, from the unsatisfactory system which then prevailed, we are only told that " The Judges held that this was laiceny ; for, though the wife consented, it must be considered that it was done mmto domino." In Regina v Tollett (Car & M. 112) the law was carried a little farther by Coleridge J , who is reported to have said, " An adulterer can be properly convieted of stealing the husband's goods, though they be delivered to him by the wife. On this evidence it does not appear that the criminal purpose had been carried into effect ; but, if that criminal purpose had not been completed, and these goods were removed by the wife and the prisoner with an intent that she should elope with him and bve in adultery with him, I shall direct you, in point of law, that the taking of them was a larceny." The case of Regina v Thompson (I Den C C 549) fell clearly within the principle laid down in Rex v. Tolfiee and Regina v. Tollett, as the jury found that there was a joint taking by the prisoner and the prosecutor's wife on their going away from the husband's house for the purpose of an adulterous intercourse. Featherstone'f* case (Dears C C 369) was very similar The jury there found that the prisoner received the husband's property from the wife, knowing that she took it without her husband's authority , and Lord Campbell C. J., in giving judgment, says, " The general rule of law is that a wife cannot be found guilty of larceny for stealing the goods of her husband , and that [518] is upon the principle that the husband and wife are m the eye of the law one person But this rule is properly and reasonably qualified, when she becomes an adulteress She thereby determines her quality of wife , and her property in her husband's goods ceases." This case is important, as shewing more clearly than any other the prineaple upon which the law proceeds The case of Regina v Berry (Bell, C. C. 95) presents no feature of interest, the facts again falhng within the principles laid down in Rex v. Tol/ree and Regina v Tollett, which thus once more received the sanction of the Court, as they did again mferentially in Regina v Avert/ (Bell, C. C. 150), and directly in Regina, v Deer (ante, p 240). In Regina v. Tollett (Car. & M. 112) Coleridge J. is reported also to have remarked, 'cMr. Carrington has said that, if the wife eloped with an adulterer, it would be no larceny in the adulterer to assist in carrying away her clothes I do not agree with ham j for I think that, if she elopes with an adulterer who takes her clothes with them, it is larceny to steal her clothes, which are her husband's property, just as much as it would be a larceny to steal her husband's wearing apparel or any thing else that was his property However, the evidence in this case goes further than that," &c. This opinion, which it will be observed was not necessary to the decision of the case, was tested in Reyina v. Fitch (Dears & Bell, C. C 187), in which the prisoner and the prosecutor's wife went away together, but were at once followed, when the prisoner was found to be carrying a bandbox containing goloshes and boots, the wearing apparel of the wife Upon a case reserved, however, the Judges were all of opinion that, as the prisoner was only assisting in carrying away the necessary wearing apparel of the wife, the conviction could not be sustained. Jji Rex v. Tolfree (1 Moo C. C. 243) the prisoner himself carried away the boxes containing the husband's property, which consisted of £150 in monev and plate, together with wearing apparel and goods to the amount of £70, and in Regina v. 1498 REGINA V. JAMES ROWTON LE. & CA. 519. prisoner's general reputation ; and the individual opinion of the witness as to his disposition, founded upon his own experience and observation, is inadmissible.) [S. C. 5 New Rep. 428 ; 34 L J M. C. 57 , 11 L T 745 ; 29 J P. 149 ; 11 Jur. N. S 325 , 13 W R. 436 , 10 Cox C C 25 ] Tollett (Car. & M 112) the wife delivered to the prisoner Taylor two boxes containing two= watches, six handkerchiefs, eleven sovereigns, seventeen half sovereigns and six crown pieces, which he took away in the prisoner Tollett's cart. But in Regina v. Rosenberg (1 Car. & Kir. 233), it became necessary to decide what possession of the property was required to render the adulterer liable to be convicted En that case the prosecutor's wife went to the prisoner's lodgings in a coach, with property of her husband to the value of £62 The property, which did not consist of female apparel or of articles exclusively for female use, was taken into the lodgings ; and the prisoner and the prosecutor's wife lived there as man and wife The circumstances were considered by Lord Denman C. J. and Parke B , who concurred in thinking that, as no distinct possession on the part of the prisoner was shewn, there was. not enough to convict him , and he was acquitted. In Regina v. Avery (Bell, C. C. 150) the prisoners were the uncle and cousin of the wife, and, with the wife's privity and consent and in her presence, earned away the husband's property ; but, as it was not shewn that the wife had committed adultery or went away [519] with the intention of doing so, the conviction was quashed. In the judgment in that case a point is mooted which does not appear to have been yet determined. Cockburn C. J there says, " It is not necessary to lay it down as law that, supposing a stranger stole the goods of a husband, and the wife was privy to it and consenting, such privity and consent on the part of the wife would, if there were animus furandi in the stranger, exonerate him from what would otherwise be larceny." A question might be raised whether, m such cases as that of Rex v Tolfiee (1 Moo. C. 0. 243), or Reg^na v Tollett (Car & M 112), where the adulterer was convicted, the wife also could have been found guilty of larceny The passage from Dalton refers only to the adulterer , and Male's argument, that it is no felony in the man, proceeds on the assumption that it is no felony in the woman So arguendo, in. Tolfrees case, Mr Clarksou says, " It clearly is not felony in her." In Reg v. Featherstone (Dears C. C 369), however, Lord Campbell C J , in giving judgment, states that the rule, that the wife cannot be guilty of stealing her husband's goods because she and her husband are in the eye of the law one, is qualified when she becomes an adulteress, and that she thereby " determines her quality of wife, and her property in her husband's goods ceases " It would seem to follow that she thua assumes the position of a mere stranger, and can no longer invoke the protection of tlat quality which she has herself determined Again, in Reg. v Avery (Bell, C. C. 150), Cockburn C J. says, " We take it to be clear that a wife cannot be guilty of larceny in simply taking the goods of her husband ; and, if a stranger do no more than merely assist her in the taking, inasmuch as the wife, as principal, cannot be guilty of larceny, the stranger, as accessory, cannot be guilty " Surely, e convetso, if the stranger merely assists the wife in the taking ammo adultem, and is therefore guilty of larceny, it can only be on the principle that the wife is equally guilty In Deer's case (ante, p. 240) the prisoner was lodging m the prosecutor's house, and disappeared under circumstances not disclosed by the evidence The prosecutor's wife| afterwards left her home , and the prisoner was subsequently found living with her is his wife and in possession of a large quantity of the prosecutor's property, some part being actually upon his person. The jury found the prisoner guilty of receiving the property knowing it to have been stolen ; and the Court upheld the conviction. The verdict, that the adulterer was guilty of receiving, implied the existence of a principal felon who was guilty of stealing Now, upon the evidence, this could be none other than the wife , and therefore this decision also would seem to countenance the opinion that the wife is liable to be convicted equally with her adulterer, when she takes part in removing her husband's property. The point, however, is not of much practical importance ; as the effect of including the wife in the indictment would be to exclude the evidence of the husband, which in most cases would entail the failure of the prosecution. LE. & CA. 581. REGINA V. JAMES BOWTON 1499 Tie following case was stated by the Deputy Assistant Judge of the county of Middlesex. James Rowton was tried before me, at the Middlesex Sessions, on the 30th of September, 1864, on an indictment which charged him with having committed an indecent assault upon George Low, a lad about fourteen years of age. On the part of the defendant, several...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General v O'Leary
... ... The Queen v. Rowton, 34 L.J.M.C. 57, distinguished. Cur. adv. vult. The judgment of the Court was delivered by Kennedy ... ...
-
DPP v Ferris
... ... The People (Attorney General) v. Bond [1966] I.R. 214 considered. R. v. Rowton (1865) Le. & Ca. 520 approved. Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1944] A.C. 315 not followed. 3. That the discretion of ... ...
-
R v Redgrave
...to tell the Court what his character was. By the time Mr. Still made that decision, his attention had been drawn to the well known case of R. v. Rowton (1866) Leigh and Caves Crown Cases 520. As a result Mr. Still decided that all he could do was to ask that witness what the appellant's rep......
-
R. v. O'Brien (M.D.), (2010) 293 N.S.R.(2d) 78 (CA)
...to. [para. 38]. R. v. Matthews (B.J.) (2008), 264 N.S.R.(2d) 276; 847 A.P.R. 276; 2008 NSCA 34, refd to. [para. 38]. R. v. Rowton (1865), 169 E.R. 1497 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. Michelson v. United States of America (1949), 69 S.Ct. 213 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 41]. United States of Amer......
-
Character Evidence: Primary Materiality
...v United States , 335 US 469 (1948). See People v Laudiero , 192 NY 304 (Ct App 1908) for an interesting illustration. 235 R v Rowton (1865), 169 ER 1497 (CCR). 236 Close , above note 213. 237 The Canada Evidence Act , RSC 1985, c C-5, s 12. See the discussion in Chapter 10, Section 6, “Cro......
-
Table of cases
...667 R v Rowe (2006), 208 CCC (3d) 412 (Ont CA) .................................................. 442 R v Rowton (1865), 169 ER 1497 (CCR) ............................................................. 109 R v Roy (2003), 15 CR (6th) 282 (Ont CA) ...................................................
-
Character Evidence: Primary Materiality
...States , 335 U.S. 469 (1948). See People v. Laudiero , 192 N.Y. 304 (Ct. App. 1908) for an interesting illustration. 189 R. v. Rowton (1865), 169 E.R. 1497 (C.C.R.). 190 R. v. Close , above note 169. 191 See the discussion in chapter 10.6.6 “Cross-examination on Prior Convictions,” dealing ......
-
Character Evidence: Primary Materiality
...States , 335 U.S. 469 (1948). See People v. Laudiero , 192 N.Y. 304 (Ct. App. 1908) for an interesting illustration. 165 R. v. Rowton (1865), 169 E.R. 1497 (C.C.R.). 84 The law of Evidence 14.3) Section 666 of the Criminal Code This provision allows the previous convictions of the accused t......