R v Lovett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1841 |
| Date | 01 January 1841 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 912
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
S. C. 3 St. Tr. (N. S.) 1177.
[462] regina v. lovbtt (If the manuscript of a libel be proved to be in the handwriting of the defendant, and it be also proved to have been printed and published, this is evidence to go to the juiy that it was published by the defendant, although there be no evidence given to shew that the printing and publication were by the direction of the defendant. If a paper, published by the defendant, has a direct tendency to cause unlawful meetings and disturbances, and to lead to a violation of the laws, it is a seditious libel; and with respect to the intent every one must be taken to intend the natural consequences of what he has done A and B. were separately indicted for publishing the same libel. Both indictments containing this same prefatory allegations. A was tried first, and on the trial of B such of the witnesses as had been also examined on the trial of A. had (by consent) their evidence read over to them from the Judge's notes, B being allowed to further cross-examine them. A defendant, who surrenders to take his trial on a charge of misdemeanor, need not stand at the bar to be tried, but may be allowed a place at the table of the Court.) [S. C. 3 St. Tr. (N. S.) 1177.] 9MB,&P. 461. BEGIN A V. LOVETT 913 Libel.-The indictment, which was in precisely the same form as that in the preceding case of Regina v. Collins (ante, p. 456), charged that the defendant did " write and publish, and cause and procuie to be written and published," a seditious libel. The libel was the same handbill which was the subject of the indictment, in the preceding case ol Regina v. Colhns. The defendant surrendered in discharge oi his bail, and was arraigned at the bar. Campbell, A. G., for the Crown.-As Mi. Lovett defends himself, it would be probably more convenient to him to come to the table rather than stand at the bar. I can have no objection. The defendant left the bar and took a seat at the table (a)1. Campbell, A. G., in his opening, suggested that if the defendant had no abjection, the witnesses who were called in the case of Regina v Colhns, to prove the introductory [463} averments in the indictment in that case, should be now called, and their evidence read over to them, from the learned Judge's notes , the defendant putting any additional questions to them on cross-examination. The defendant assented to this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pope v Coates. Coates, Plaintiff in Error; Pope, Defendant in Error
...Error; POPE, defendant in Error. Sandwell v. SandwellENR Holt, 296. Rex v. BearENR 2 Salk. 417; S. C. 1 Lord Ray. 414. Reg v. LovettENR 9 Car. & P. 462. Ward v. WeekesENR 7 Bing. 211. Parker v. Scott 31 Law Jour., Exch. 331. Smith v. WoodENR 3 Camp. 323. R. v. Burdett 4 B. & Add. 95. Johnso......