R v Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 May 1809 |
| Date | 26 May 1809 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1105
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 31 St. Tr. 251. Applied, Castro v. R, 1881, 6 App Cas. 229. Explained, R. v. Baskerville, [1916] 2 K. B. 658. Referred to, R. v. Stubbs, 1855, 7 Cox, C. C. 48; R. v. Royton, 1865, Le. & Ca. 520; R. v. Roberts, 1878, 38 L. T. 690.
[131] Friday, May 26, 1809. rex v. jones. (On the trial of an indictment for a fraud against an agent of government under the control of the Treasury, a letter of instructions addressed to the defendant by the Lords of the Treasury, may be read in evidence, without proving the commission by which they were appointed. There is no objection of any sort to trying a man, upon one indictment, for several distinct misdemeanours of the same nature. A person indicted for a misdemeanour or a felony may be legally convicted upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice ) [S. C. 31 St. Tr. 251. Applied, Castro v. R , 1881, 6 App Cas. 229. Explained, R. v. Baskerville, [1916] 2 K. B. 658. Referred to, R. v. Stubby 1855, 7 Cox, C. C. 48 ; R. v. Boyton, 1865, Le. & Ca. 520 ; R. v. Roberts, 1878, 38 L. T. 690.] This was an indictment against the defendant for frauds committed by him in his office of commissary general in the West Indies. In the course of the trial some points arose worthy of being noticed. The defendant, in the warrant for his appointment under the King's sign manual is directed to obey all orders issued to him by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. On the part of the Crown there was offered in evidence a letter addressed to him, containing certain instructions he was accused of disregarding this letter, signed by Mr. Pitt, and two more of the then Lords of the Treasury, he had received m the West Indies , and it was now produced by his solicitor under a notice to produce all letters, &c. The defendant's counsel contended, that before this letter could be read in evidence, it was necessary to prove, that Mr. Pitt, and the two others who signed it, were Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, and had authority to write it, by producing the commission by which they were appointed.--But Lord Ellenborough held, that this was unnecessary, and the letter wa,s admitted on proof of the hand-writing of the three persons who had signed it as Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. At one stage it was a material question, whether on the [132] part of the Crown they could avail themselves of two counts of the indictment, so as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Ludlow
...charges and proceed only on that. Young v. R. (1789) 3 T.R. 98 per Buller J. at pages 105-6; R. v. Kingston and others (1806) 8 East 41; R. v. Jones (1809) 2 Camp. 131, 132 per Lord Ellenborough; Reg. v. Hinley and another (1843) 2 M. and Rob. 525; Castro v. Reg. (supra). This practice was ......
-
Davies v DPP
...whom the question was referred stressed the discretionary nature of any directions given by the Judge: Lord Ellenborough's observations in R. v. Jones 1809 (2 Campbell 131 and 170 E.R. 1105): R. v. Sheehan 1826 (Jebb's Crown Cases p. 54 at 56): R. v. Farler 8 C. & P. 106 (1837)—where the wa......
-
R v Verelst, Esq
...on these grouaids, Dr. Parson's appointment was a nullity, and that he had no authority to administer the oath (a) Vide Rex v. Jones, 2 Campb. 131. 5, inglis v. vatjx 1437 C4S5] The counsel for the prosecution contended, that Dr. Parson having acted as surrogate for twenty years without his......
-
R v Howlett
...cases of Rex v Addis, ante, vol vi p. 388, and Rejc v. Webb, id p 595 , and also, see ante, vol i. p 88, n (b) In the case of Rex v Jonas, 2 Camp 131, Lord BHenborough says, " No one can seriously doubt that a conviction is legal, though it proceed on the evidence of an accomplice only Judg......