R v William Berry
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1859 |
| Date | 01 January 1859 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 1181
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND THE COURTS OF ERROR
S C. 28 L. J M. C. 70, 32 L T O S 323, 23 J P 117, 5 Jur. N S 228; 7 W R 240; 8 Cox C C 117 Referred to, R v Avery, 1859, post, p 150
1859 regina v william berry (The prisoner was convicted of stealing articles of furniture the property of R. E , of the value of 5 and more, in his dwelling-house at Manchester It appeared that the prisoner was a lodger in the house of the prosecutor at Manchester , that the prisoner procured a horse and cart, and he and the prosecutor's wife put the articles in question in the cart and had them conveyed to the railway station, from whence the prisoner, the prosecutor's wife and her three children, left by train for Leeds A fortnight afterwards the prisoner and the prosecutor's wife were found living together in Leeds in a house which she had taken in h--i own name, and in the house were all the articles so taken from the prosecutor s house at Manchester. On the trial the prosecutor's wife was called as a witness on behalf oi the prisoner, and swore that they had not gone away for the purpose of carrying on an adulterous intercourse, and never had committed adultery together The Judge directed the jury, that if they were satisfied that, when the prisoner and prosecutor's wife so took the property, they went away together for the purpose of having adulterous intercourse, and had afterwards ertected that criminal purpose, they ought to find the prisoner guilty ; but, that, if they believed the evidence of the wife, the prisoner was entitled to an acquittal Held, that the direction was right.) [S C. 28 L. J M. C. 70, 32 L T O S 323, 23 J P 117 , 5 Jur. N S 228; 7 W R 240; 8 Cox C C 117 Referred to, R v Awry, 1859, pott, p 150 ] The following case was reserved and stated by M B Armstrong, Esq , Q. C , the Recorder oi Manchester William Berry was indicted at the General Sessions for the city of Manchester held at Manchester on the 2nd dav of August, 1858, and was found guilty of stealing one bed, two boxes, four pairs of blankets, six sheets, two dresses and two carpets, the property oi Robert Elliott, of the value of 5 and more, in his dwelling-house On tie 5th of June, and for six months previous, the prisoner lodged at the house of the prosecutor, and knew that the prosecutor would [96] have to go out very early that morning. On the 4th of June prisoner engaged a porter to be near the prosecutor's house...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v James Rowton
...This case is important, as shewing more clearly than any other the prineaple upon which the law proceeds The case of Regina v Berry (Bell, C. C. 95) presents no feature of interest, the facts again falhng within the principles laid down in Rex v. Tol/ree and Regina v Tollett, which thus onc......
-
R v John Mutters
...be understood the intention to take, not a partial and temporary, but the entire dominion over the chattel." The case oi Reqina v. Berry (Bell, C. C. 95), which was similar to the present, and which may be cited on the other side, was not argued, and was probably decided in consequence of t......
-
In re un renvoi re des employés de Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.,
...filiale de Telecom. Bell achète 90% de son matériel de commutation et de transmission à Telecom Canada qui installe pour Bell 95% de tout le matériel de ce genre acheté par celle-ci. Le travail d'installation effec-tué pour Bell compte pour 80% du travail ......
-
Under pressure: no closely held company wants to go where Conbraco has been. This family beat long odds to bring it back.
...Jr. 92 -- Sports Endeavors Inc. Hillsborough Mike Moylan 93 -- CT Group Inc. Claremont John R. Pope 94 97 Carotek Inc. Matthews J. Addison Bell 95 82 Southern Foods Group Greensboro Mark A. Nussbaum Inc. 96 -- Camco Manufacturing Greensboro Donald R. Caine Inc. 97 100 Dubose Steel Inc. of R......
-
Maximizing opportunities under the new research and experimentation regulations.
...with an outside accounting firm were covered by both the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. United States v. Bell, 95-1 U.S.T.C. (CCH) [paragraph] 50,006 (N.D. Cal. These decisions highlight the importance of a clear expression of purpose to protect communications with......