R v Owen, Ellis, and Thomas

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHigh Court
Judgment Date01 Jan 1841

English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 751


Owen, Ellis, and Thomas

Subsequent proceedings, post, p. 238. Referred to, R. v. Adams, 1886, 50 J. P. 136.

Before Mr. Justice Williams. regina v. owen, ellis, and thomas. (Three persons were indicted for a rape, and were also indicted for the murder of the party alleged to be ravished Before the trial on the indictment for the rape, the counsel for the prosecution asked to have one of the prisoners acquitted, that he might call him as a witness against the others. This was opposed by the prisoners' counsel:-Held, that in casea of this kind the Court will, if it sees no cause ta the contrary, intrust it to the discretion of the counsel for the prosecution to determine whether he will have a prisoner acquitted before the trial commences to enable him to call such prisoner as a witness against the other prisoners. On the trial of the indictment for the rape, it was proposed to put in the depositions of each of the prisoners taken on oath at the inquest held on the party alleged to have been ravished. It appeared that each of the prisoners was in custody at the inquest , that no inducement to confess was held out, and that each was asked if he wished to make a statement, and said that he did. The Judge received the statements m evidence, but said he would reserve the pomt if it should become necessary The prisoners being acquitted of the rape, the counsel for the prosecution moved to put off the trial for the murder till it could be ascertained whether the Crown would pardon a person convicted erf bigamy, to whom it was alleged that one of the prisoners had made an important statement. The Judge postponed the trial, and would not admit the prisoners to bail.) [Subsequent proceedings, post, p. 238. Referred to, R. v. Adams, 1886, 50 J. P. 136.] Rape.-The 1st count of the indictment charged the prisoner Owen with having ravished (Jhnstina the wife of Robert Collins, and the other prisoners with having aided him in so doing; in the 2nd count the prisoner Thomas was charged as principal, aad the othei two prisoners as aiders ; and in the 3rd count the prisoner Ellis was ckarged a^the principal, and the other two as aiders. As soon as the jury were sworn, Ludlow, Serjt., for the prosecution, asked that the prisoner Owen should be acquitted before the case was gone into, as he proposed to examine Owen as a witness against the other prisoners. Godson, E. YaroUey, and Beadon, for the respective prisoners, objected that the prisoner...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Azzopardi v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 3 May 2001
    ...R v Tubby (1833) 5 C & P 530 [ 172 ER 1084]. 159R v Lewis (1833) 6 C & P 161 [ 172 ER 1190]; R v Owen (1840) 9 C & P 238 [ 173 ER 818]. 160 (1847) 1 Den 236 [ 169 ER 161Dixon v Vale (1824) 1 C & P 278 [ 171 ER 1195]; East v Chapman (1827) 2 C & P 570 [ 172 ER 259]. 162 (......
  • R v Bryan James Turner and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 25 February 1975
    ...Winsor v. R 2 Criminal Appeal Reports 329; or before calling him either (iii) to offer no evidence and permit his acquittal: R. v. Owen, 9 C. & P. 83; or (iv) to enter a nolle prosequi: R. v. Feargus O'Connor 4 St. Tr. (N. S.) 935. This statement of the practice was approved by the Cour......
  • The Queen v Daniel M'Cartie, and Several Others. The Queen v Denis O'Sullivan, and Several Others
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 4 May 1859
    ...84. Rex v. PoynesENR 3 Bulst. 113. Rex v. JacksonUNK 25 How. St. Tr. 783, 794. Regina v. ChapmanENR 8 C. & P. 558. Regina v. OwenENR 9 C. & P. 83. Regina v. GuttridgeENR 9 C. & P. 228, 471. Regina v. BowenENR 9 C. & P. 509. Barronet's case Supra. Re Robinson 23 Law Jour., Q.......
  • Eliza Dillon
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 17 November 1859
    ...equally divided in opinion ; and as to the case of the Kerry prisoners, we are all of opinion that the motion should be refused. (a) 9 Car. & P. 83, 86. M. T. 1859. Nov. 12, 17. Where a pub- APPLICATION for a conditional order, under the 20 & 21 Vic., haat applies to Magistrates, c.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT