R v Wheater
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 18
LINCOLN's INN
S C. 2 Lew C. C. 157 Considered, R. v. Owen, 1840, 9 C. & P. 238. Distinguished, R. v. Swan, 1849, 14 J P. 161 Referred to, R v Scott, 1856, Dears. & B. 47
[45] 1838 hegina v. wheater (The examination of a person taken on oath as a witness before Commissioners of Bankruptcy, is admissible against him on a charge of forgery, he having been cautioned and allowed to elect what questions he would answer ) [S C. 2 Lew C. C. 157 Considered, R v. Owen, 1840, 9 C. & P. 238. Distinguished, R. v. Swan, 1849, 14 J P. 161 Referred to, R v Scott, 1856, Dears. & B. 47 ] The prisoner was tried before Mr Justice Coleridge at the Spring Assizes for the county of York 1838, on an indictment charging him in various counts with having forged, uttered, and disposed of the acceptance of a bill of exchange. The intent in each count was charged to have been to defraud Joshua Wheater. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and the learned Judge passed sentence of imprisonment on him, informing him, at the same time, that he had doubts as to the admissibihty of some evidence which he had received, on which point the learned Judge requested the opinion of the Judges The prisoner had been agent in London for the bale of cloths to his father Joshua Wheater, a cloth manufacturer near Leeds : Joshua became embarrassed, and ultimately a bankrupt The bill in question, which with other forged bills was found in the prisoner's possession, and had been paid after dishonour, had been remitted by him to his father, as alleged, by way of return for cloths The prisoner bad been examined by the commissioners under the fiat touching all these bills, after the solicitor of the assignees had failed in making out such a case on a direct charge of forging them before the Lord Mayor as would, in his Lordship's opinion, warrant the committing him for trial His examination before the commissioners was tendered in evidence on the part of the prose-[46]-tution and objected to It appeared that he had been attended before them by his solicitor, and been informed by them that he was at liberty to decline answering any question which he thought might criminate himself , 8 MOOD. 17. BEGIN A V. WHEATBR 19 that to some questions he had demurred on this ground, and those had been passed over ; to others he had made objections on other grounds, which had not been allowed, and he had been compelled to answer. The examination was upon oath The learned Judge received the examination in evidence, and if he did so improperly, the conviction ought not to have taken place This case was argued before all the Judges except Park J. and Uurney B., in Trinity term 1838 Dundas for the prisoner The evidence was madnussible, inasmuch as it was a compulsory answer upon oath. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial