R v John Eagleton
|England & Wales
|01 January 1854
|01 January 1854
|Court for Crown Cases Reserved
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 766
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND THE COURTS OF ERROR
S. C. post, p. 515; 24. L. J. M. C. 158; 26 L. T. O. S. 7; 19 J. P. 546; 1 Jur N. S. 940; 4 W. R. 17, 3 C. L. R. 1145; 6 Cox C. C, 559. Referred to, R. v Goss, 1860, Bell, C. C. 208; R. v. White, 1910, 4 Cr App Rep 257; r v Robinson,  2 K B. 342, r. v. Cope, 1921, 86 J. P. 78; R v Bentley,  1 K. B. 403.
 1854. kegina v. john eagleton. (The defendant contracted in writing with the guardians of a parish to supply and deliver for a certain term to the out-door poor, at such times as the guardians i should direct, loaves of bread of three and a half pounds weight each. The guardians were, during the said term, to pay the defendant after certain rates DEARS. S77. REGINA V. JOHN EAGLETON 767 and prices for the bread so supplied, and of which a bill of particulars should ha^ve been sent The contract contained a proviso, that in case the defendant broke the terms of his contract in any of the ways therein named, one of which was by a deficiency in the weight stated and charged for in the said bill of particulars, the guardians might employ other persons to supply the bread, and charge the defendant with the costs of such supply above the price contracted for, and might retain any moneys due to the defendant under the contract at the time of such breach towards such costs, or the damages which the board might sustain, and might also put in suit against the defendant a bond which he then executed, and which was conditioned for the due performance of his contract. The indictment contained ten counts, the first seven of which were in substance the same, and charged the defendant with a common law misdemeanor, in supplying as such contractor loaves of bread which were deficient in weight, with intent to injure and defraud the said poor persons, and to cheat and defraud the said guardians The three last counts charged the common law misdemeanor of endeavouring to obtain money by false pretences It was proved in evidence, that on poor persons applying for relief the relieving officer gave the applicant a ticket, the presentation of which to the defendant entitled him. to receive a loaf , that the defendant received these tickets, and gave to the poor persons presenting them loaves of bread which the jury found were deficient in weight, and were so with the knowledge of the defendant. By tie course of dealing, the defendant would return the tickets in the following week, with a statement in writing of the number of loaves he had supplied, and tie relieving officer would credit the defendant in account with the guardians with the amount, and the money would then be paid to him at the time stipulated in the contract. The tickets were so returned by the defendant, with a note in the defendant's handwriting stating the number of tickets sent back, and he was so credited as aforesaid. The ]ury found that the defendant intended to defraud the out-door poor, and that by returning the tickets to the relieving officer he intended to represent that he had delivered the loaves mentioned in them of the weights stated. Quaere, whether the first seven counts disclosed any legal offence, and whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant a conviction on the three last counts, or merely shewed an attempt to obtain credit in account ]) [S. C. post, p. 515 ; 24 L J M C. 158 ; 26 L. T 0. S 7 ; 19 J P 546 ; 1 Jur N. S. 940 ; 4 W. R. 17 ; 3 C L R 1145 ; 6 Cox C. C 559. Referred to, R. v Roberts, 1855, post, p. 539 ; R. v Sherwood, 1857, Dears. & B. 251 , R. v Goss, 1860, Bell, C C. 20&; R. v. White, 1910, 4 Cr App Rep 257 ; R v Robinson,  2KB. 342 , R. v. Cope, 1921, 86 J. P 78 ; R v Bentley,  1 K. B 403.] The following case was stated by the Recorder of Great Yarmouth. The defendant was tried at the Quarter Sessions for the borough of Great Yarmouth, holden on the 1st  day of March 1854, upon an indictment, a copy of which, is annexed.(a) (a) The following are copies of the indictment, contract and bond referred to in the case. Indictment. Borough of "^ The jurors of our Lady the Queen upon their oaths present Great Yarmouth that heretofore to wit on the 3rd day of December in the year of to wit. J our Lord 1853 in the parish of Great Yarmouth in the borough of Great Yarmomtt within the jurisdiction of this Court the guardians of the poor of the said parish of Gieat Yarmouth in the county of Norfolk duly and publickly advertised in a eertain county newspaper to wit the Norfolk Chronicle for tenders for the supply of brfead made from the best household flour at per loaf of three pounds and one half of a pound for out relief from the 24th day of December in the year aforesaid till the 35th day of March then next And the jurors aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid do further present that thereupon John Eagleton of the parish aforesaid in the borough aforesaid baker to wit on the 22nd day of December in the year first aforesaid duly tendered and he then and there duly and in pursuance of the statutes in such' case made and provided and in due and full compliance with the rules orders and regulations made and issued by the Poor Law Commissioners for England and 768 REGTNA V. JOHN EAGLETON DEARS. 378.  The evidence was a contract, dated 27th December 1853, and a bond of the same date (copies of  which are also annexed) ; and it was proved that, on poor Wales became and was the contractor with the said guardians for the bupply to the out-door poor of the said parish at such time and in such man tier as the said guardians or any other person or persons duly authorized by them should from time to time direct of such quantities of bread made from the best household flour lu loaves weighing three pounds and one half of a pound at sevenpence per loaf as should be required by the said guardians for the use of the out-door poor of the said parish. And the jurors aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid do further present that after making the said engagement and undertaking and whilst the said John Eagleton was such contractor as aforesaid to wit on the 21st day of January in the year of our Lord 1854 at the parish aforesaid in the borough aforesaid and within the jurisdiction of this Court William Harbert then being one of the relieving officers of the poor of the saul parish by the orders and authority of the said guardians of the poor then and there gave as and for relief to divers to wit 100 poor persons being out-door poor of the said parish divers to wit 100 orders and tickets signed under the uuthoiity aforesaid by the said William Harbert for the supply of divers to wit t\vo loaves of bread to each of the said poor persons respectively. And that the said William Harbert being dulv authorized in that behalf as aforesaid then and there directed the said poor persons to produce and shew and that the said poor persons did then and there produce and shew to the said John Eagleton the said orders and tickets in order that the said John. Eagleton might supply and deliver to the said poor persons respectively for their sustenance and support the number of loaves specified in the said onleis and tickets respectively And that the said William Harbert thereby then and there being duly authorized in that behalf as aforesaid ordered and directed the said John Eagle-ton to supply and deliver to the said poor persons respectively the number of loaves of bread in the said orders and tickets respectively specified in pursuance of and according to the terms of his said contract and undertaking And the jurors aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid do further present that the said pool persons were not nor was any or either of them authorized by the said guardians or by the said William Harbert or by any or either of them or by any other person whatsoever to obtain and that the said poor persons were and each and every of them was wholly unable to obtain the said loaves of bread or any bread whatsoever by means of the said orders and tickets elsewhere or from any other baker or person whatsoever but only from hiEi the said John Eagleton of all which premises the said John Eagleton then and there had notice. And the jurors aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid do further present that the said John Eagleton then to wit on the day and year last aforesaid at the parish aforesaid in the borough aforesaid and within the jurisdiction of this Court so being such contractor as aforesaid not regarding his duty in that behalf but under colour and pretence of his said contract and contriving and intending to injure and defraud the said poor persons respectively and to deprive them of proper and sufficient food and sustenance and to endanger their healths and constitutions respectively and further contriving and intending to cheat and defraud the said guardians unlawfully and fraudulently supplied and delivered to divers to wit fifty of the said poor persons who then respectively produced and shewed to the said John Eagleton the said orders or tickets as aforesaid divers to wit 100 loaves of bread as ami for loaves of bread weighing respectively three pounds and one half of a, pound each loaf. Whereas the said loaves respectively as he the said John Eagleton then wall knew were not of the weight of three pounds and one half of a pound each loaf buit each of them was of a far less weight to wit of the weight of three pounds and fou ounces and no more, in breach of his duty as such contractor as aforesaid, to the fraud great damage and prej'udice of the said poor persons respectively and to the great danger of their healths and constitutions respectively, in contempt of our said lady the Queen and her laws and to the evil example of others and against the peace of our said lady the Queen her crown and dignity. 2nd Count. And the jurors for our said lady the Queen upon their oaths present that heretofore to wit on the 3rd day of...
To continue readingRequest your trial
- Foord v Whiddett
R v Gullefer (Note)
...As appears from the judgment in that case, there seem to have been two lines of authority. The first was exemplified by the decision in Eagleton (1854/55) Dears C.C. 515. That was a case where the defendant was alleged to have attempted to obtain money from the guardians of a parish by fals......
DPP v Stonehouse
...to commit the complete offence unless involuntarily prevented from doing so. As it was put in the ( locus classius Reg. v. Eagleton (1855) VI Cox c.c. 559); "The mere intention to commit a disdemeanour is not criminal, some act is required; and we do not think that all acts towards committ......
Haughton v Smith
... ... But what is an attempt? The earliest attempt at definition in comparatively modern times is in Eagleton (1855) Dears. C.C. 515 at p. 538 per Parke B. when he said: "The mere intention to commit a misdemeanour is not criminal. Some ... ...
...987 212 R. v. Dashwood (1943) 1 K.B.1. 731 R. v. Domingo (1963) 1 All N.L.R. 81. 212 R. v. Duffy (1949) All E.R. 932n 31 R. v. Eagleton, Dears 515 125 R. v. Electricity Commissioners (1924) 1 K.B. 171, 204-205. 623 R. v. Enweonye (1955) 15 WA CA 1 599 R. v. Gail 30 Cr. App. R. 81 212 R. v. ......
Attempted Justice: Misunderstanding and Bias in Psychological Constructions of Criminal Attempt.
...(25.) M.L. FRIEDLAND, CASES AND MATERIALS ON CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 319 (5th ed. 1978); see R v. Eagleton (1855) 169 Eng. Rep. 826; Dears 515 (affirming a conviction of attempt to obtain money by false pretenses because a baker's misrepresentation of the number of loaves he had given to......
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE
...State Suit No. CA/IL/C.30/2009; (2010) 16 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1218) 65 at 127. (2) "Learned counsel for the appellant had cited R. v. Eagleton, Dears 515, 548; 169 E.R. 826, 835 which has been followed by Nigerian Courts in a plethora of cases, and the dictum of Parke, B., wherein he declared the......
The Police and the Law
...anattempt to obtain money by false pretences. Lord Readingquoted with approval the dictum of Parke B. inR.v. Eagleton 260THEPOLICEJOURNAL(Dears, 515 at p. 538) when he said: "Themere intentionto commit a misdemeanour is not criminal. Some act isrequired and we do not think that all acts tow......