R v John Turner
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 168 E.R. 1298
LINCOLN'S INN
S C 1 Lew C C. 119 Referred to, R. v Pym, 1846, 1 Cox C C 339, R v. Clark, 1853, 6 Cox C C 210
1832. rex t john turner (On an indictment against an accessary, a confession by the principal is not admissible in evidence to prove the guilt of the principal, it must be pro\ed uliundc, especially if the principal be alive Semble, a conviction of the principal upon a plea of guilty will not be evidence against the accessary to prove the principal guilty. Nor, semble, will a conviction on a plea of not guilty ) [S C 1 Lew C C. 119 Referred to, R. v Pym, 1846, 1 Cox C C 33(J , R v. Clark, 1853, 6 Cox C C 210 ] The prisoner was tried before Mr. Justice Patteson, at the Spring Assizes for the county of York, in the year 1832, upon an indictment which charged that the said John Turner, sixty sovereigns of the value of £60, of the goods and chattels of one Martha Clarke, by one Sarah Rich then lately before feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away, of the said Sarah Rich feloniously did receive, &c Mrs. Clarke proved that above 200 sovereigns had been stolen out of her box, on Monday 22d or early in the morning of Tuesday 23d of August, and that Sarah Rich then lived with her as a servant The counsel for the prosecution then proposed to prove a confession of Sarah Rich made before a magistrate, in the presence of the prisoner, in which she stated various facts implicating the prisoner and others as well as herself The counsel for the prisoner objected that the- confession of Sarah Rich, not upon her oath, was not evidence against the prisoner , and cited Rej v Appfehi/, cot ant Holroyd J , 3 Stark. Rep. 33, and insisted that Sarah Rich should herself be called [348] The learned Judge refused to receive as evidence any thing that was said by Sara'. Rich respecting the prisoner, but admitted what she said respecting herself only ; and it was this :- " I had taken the key out of my mistress's pocket, and opened the box as we nent to bed, the night before. From one of the bags of sovereigns 1 had taken out forty for myself, and about noon about fifty or sixty more " It was then proved that the prisoner, who was a poor man, had between fifty and sixty sovereigns in his pocket on the 25th of August, and that he had been 1 MOOD. 349. REX V. GEORGE PRO WES 1299 talking at his own door with Saiah Rich on the morning of the 23d , that he was taken, up on the 31st, and told the constable that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hui Chi-ming v The Queen
-
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow
...17) as "greatly in point". Later, he added: "…it is the irrelevance of the outcome of the earlier trial, as illustrated by cases such as R v Turner (1832) 1 Mood. 347, that makes evidence of that outcome inadmissible." 20 In Land Securities plc v Westminster City Council [1993] 1 WLR 286 t......
-
Public Prosecutor v Liew Kim Choo
... ... In R v John Turner [1832] 1 Mood 347 , one Sarah Rich confessed to stealing 200 sovereigns from her employer. John Turner was charged with felonious receipt ... ...
-
S v Mhlongo; S v Nkosi
...to R v Rhodes (1960) 44 Cr App Rep 23: referred to F R v Spinks [1982] 1 All ER 587 (CA) ((1981) 74 Cr App R 263): referred to R v Turner 168 ER 1298 ((1832) 1 Mood CC 347): Surujpaul (called Dick) v R [1958] 3 All ER 300 ([1958] 1 WLR 1050): referred to. Legislation cited Statutes G The Co......
-
REFLECTIONS ON S 2(2) OF SINGAPORE EVIDENCE ACT AND ROLE OF COMMON LAW RULES OF EVIDENCE
...Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd [2005] 2 SLR(R) 509 at [42]–[44]. 184 [1997] 2 SLR(R) 716 at [65]–[76]. 185 (1832) 1 Mood 347. 186 [2006] 4 SLR(R) 807 at [22]–[28]. 187 [1989] AC 1280. 188 [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 at [42]–[43]. 189 [1916] 2 KB 658. 190 ARX v Comptroller of Inc......