R v Longhurst
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1866 |
| Date | 01 January 1866 |
| Court | Assizes |
English Reports Citation: 176 E.R. 870
Nisi Prius
Guildford Crown Court, Surrey Summer Assizes, 1866, coram Channell, B regina v. longhurst. (The trial of a prisoner for murder, he having been only committed for trial about a week before the assizes, postponed upon his own application to the ensuing assizes, upon affidavits by a near relative of the prisoner, of various facts, which, it was suggested, might sustain the defence of insanity, supported by an affidavit of the attorney that there had not been time to obtain witnesses for the defence.) The prisoner was indicted for the murder of a little girl in the neighbourhood of this town, where the prisoner lived. The trial commenced on the 8th August. Robinson, Serjt., appeared for the prosecution. Ribton, on the part of the prisoner (the trial having already been twice put off at these assizes), applied to have the trial postponed till the next assizes, on the ground that there had not been sufficient time to get up a defence, the defence suggested being insanity, in support of which the learned counsel made certain statements. Channell, B , however, declined to entertain the application upon unsworn statements, and required an affidavit. Some delay ensued, during which an affidavit was prepared, and sworn by the attorney who had been engaged for the defence. The affidavit stated that he had only [70] recently been authorised by the prisoner's mother to undertake the defence ; that he had been informed by her (and had no reason to doubt her sincerity) that she was prepared to give evidence of various acts done by the prisoner from time to tinie, which had forced her to believe that he was not in a sound state of mind, and that he had several times committed acts which showed that he was not at all tames accountable for his actions ; that he had also been informed by the mother, and believed, that there were several persons who had been acquainted with the prisoner fbj a long period of time, and who would give important evidence to show that he was not in a sound state of mind, but that from the extreme poverty of the prisoner's family he had been unable to provide the funds necessary for the defence, and that being without means it had been found impossible to procure the necessary attendance of the witnesses ; that he had been informed also that a farmer, by whom the prisoner was employed for a considerable time, could give important evidence to (a) The ruling in this case...
To continue reading
Request your trial