R v Pedro De Zulueta the Younger
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 October 1843 |
| Date | 27 October 1843 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 174 E.R. 781
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, AND EXCHEQUER, AND ON THE NORTHERN AND WESTERN CIRCUITS.
S. C. 2 L. T. (O. S.) 76, 1 Cox, C. C. 20. Referred to, Santos v. Hudge, 1859, 6 C. B. (N. S.) 841.
[215] October Session, 1843, before Mr. Justice Alaule and Mr. Justice Wightman. Oct 27th, 1843. rbgina y. pedro de zulueta the younger. (A merchant of London was indicted for an offence against the Act of Parliament prohibiting slave-trading. His counsel appbed to the Court to allow the prisoner to sit by him, not on the ground of his position in society, but because he was a foreigner, and several of the documents in the case were in a foreign language, and it would, therefore, be convenient for his counsel to have him by his side, that he might consult him during the trial -Held, that the application was one which ought not to be granted. The provisions of the stat. 5 Geo. IV. c. 113, are not confined to acts done by British subjects in furtherance of the slave trade in England or the British colonies, but apply to acts done by British subjects in furtherance of that trade in places not part of the British dominions In order to convict a party who is charged with having employed and loaded a vessel for the purpose of slave-trading, it is not necessary to shew that the vessel which carried out the goods was intended to be used for bringing back slaves in return ; but it will be sufficient if there was a slave adventure, and the vessel waa in any way engaged in the advancement of that adventure. Where a party living in London was charged with having chartered a vessel and loaded goods on board for the purposes of slave-trading, it was Held, that slave-trading papers found on board the vessel when she was seized in foreign parts, but not traced in any way to the knowledge of such party, were not admissible in evidence against him.) [S. C. 2 L. T (0 S.) 76 . 1 Cox, C. C. 20. Referred to, Santos v Ilhdffe, 1859, 6 C. B (N S.) 841.] The first count of the indictment stated in substance, that the prisoner and two other persons, one named Jennings and the other Bernardos (a), on the 1st of November, in the fourth yeur of her Majesty's reign, to wit, at London, and within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, did illegally and feloniously fit out, r$an, navigate, equip, despatch, use, and employ a certain ship or vessel, to wit, a ship or vessel called the " Augusta," in order to accomplish a certain object, which in and by a certain Act of Parliament made and passed in the fifth year of the reign of his late Majesty king George the Fourth, entitled, " An Act to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to the abolition of the Slave Trade," was and is declared unlawful, that is to say, " to deal and trade m slaves '' contrary to the form of the statute, &c. (fe)2. bearer on demand, on any banker, or person acting as such, which shall be dated on any day subsequent to that on which issued," &c., unless duly stamped, as a bill of exchange, shall forfeit £100 ; and every person, knowingly receiving such in payment, ifcc., shall forfeit £20, and any banker who shall pay such, knowing it to be postdated, shall forfeit £100, and not be allowed the money so paid in account. (6)1 A man may be indicted for forging an instrument, which, if genuine, could not be made available, by reason of some circumstances not appearing on the face of the instrument, but to be made out by extrinsic evidence R v Mclntosh, 2 Leach, 883 ; 2 Bast, P. C. 942. (a) Neither of these persons was in custody. (&)* The statute referred to is the 5 Geo. IV. c. 113, and the section on which the indictment was framed is the 10th, by which persons dealing in slaves, or exporting or importing slaves, or shipping slaves in order to exportation or importation, or 782 REGINA V. ZULTETA 1 CAB. & K. 218. [216] The second count was similar to the first, except that it stated the unlawful object to be " to purchase slaves." The third count stated the object to be " to deal and trade in persons intended to be dealt with as slaves." The fourth count expressed it thus '" to purchase persons intended to be dealt with as slaves." The fifth count stated, that the prisoners did illegally and feloniously, and against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, ship on board a certain ship or vessel called the " Augusta,' divers goods and effects, to wit, 29 hogsheads of tobacco, 6 cases of arms, 1 case of looking-glasses, 10 casks of copper ware, 134 bales of merchandize, 1600 iron pots, and 2370 kegs of gunpowder, to be employed in accomplishing a certain object, &c , as in the firat count. The sixth, seventh, and eighth counts stated the meant* employed as in the fifth, and the unlawful object as in the second third, and fourth countt. The accused, who was a merchant carrying on a very extensive business, had been admitted to bail by consent of the prosecutor, and on his surrendering himself to take his trial, Kelly, as the leading counsel tor the defence, applied to the Court that his client might sit near him during the trial instead of going into the dock. He stated that he did not make the application on the ground ot the station in life of the party accused, but in order that he, as his counsel, might communicate with him personally for the purposes of his defence, and especially as the accused was a foreigner, and many of the documents which would be given in evidence were in a foreign language The case of Mr. Home Tooke (25 State Trials, p 6), who was allowed to sit by his counsel, was referred to in support of the application. The case of R v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawlor v District Judge Hogan
...J. - 3/3/93) - [1993] ILRM 606 |Lawlor v. Hogan| Citations: ARCHBOLD CRIMINAL PLEADING EVIDENCE & PRACTICE 36ED PARA 546 R V ZULUETA 1 C & K 215, 174 ER 781 RYAN & MAGEE THE IRISH CRIMINAL PROCESS 258 LAWRENCE V R 1933 AC 699 PEOPLE V MESSITT 1972 IR 204 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1951 S2(2)(a) H......
-
Santos v Illidge and Others
...a plausible argument in favor of the more limited construction. Indeed, the very point was decided in the case of The Queen v. Ziduela, 1 Car. & K. 215, where the prisoner was indicted upon the same sections of the act of 5 G. 4 upon which the present case depends, for a felony in fitting o......
-
Santos v Illidge and Others
...For the plaintiff in error,-Le Louis, "2 Dods. Adm. Rep. 210, 24fi, 252, Hubbard v. Johnstone, 3 Taunt. 177, 220, The Queen v. Zulueta, 1 Car. & K. 215, 5 G. 4, c. 113, 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 73, and 6 & 7 Viet, c. 98, ss. 5, 6. For the defendants in error,-5 G. 4, c. 113, s. 2, and 6 & 7 Viet. c. ......