R v William Dring and Mary his Wife
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 1027
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND THE COURTS OF ERROR
S. C. 30 L. T. O. S. 158; 21 J. P. 742; 3 Jur. N. S. 1132; 6 W. R 41; 7 Cox C. C. 382. Considered, R. v. Woodward, 1862, Le. & Ca. 122. Followed, R. v. Pritchard, 1913, 109 L. T. 11. Referred to, R. v. Orris, 1908, 1 Cr. App. Rep. 199.
[329] 1857. regina v. william dring and mary his wife. (The two prisoners, husband and wife, were jointly indicted for receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen. The jury found both the prisoners guilty, and that the wife received the goods without the controul or knowledge of and apart from her husband, and that he afterwards adopted his wife's receipt. Held that, upon this finding, the conviction of the husband could not be sustained. Qumry, whether section 14 of 14 & 15 Viet. c. 100 applies to successive receipts of the same goods by different receivers ?) [S. C. 30 L. T. 0. S. 158 ; 21 J. P. 742 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1132 ; 6 W. R 41 ; 7 Cox C. C. 382. Considered, R. v. Woodward, 1862, Le. & Ca. 122. Followed, R. v. Pntchard, 1913,109 L. T. 11. Referred to, R. v. Orris, 1908,1 Cr. App. Rep. 199.] The following case was reserved and stated by the Chairman oi the Nottinghamshire Sessions, held at Newark. At the last Nottinghamshire Quarter Sessions, held at Newark, William Bring and Mary Ann his wife were jointly indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 22nd of February last, at South Cotlingham, ten pecks of potatoes of the value of 7s., and two sack bags of the value of 3s., oi the goods of Richard Wallhead. A second count in tie indictmeat charged the prisoners jointly with receiving the said potatoes and sack l ags, they weO knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen. They both pleaded not guilty. The jury found both the prisoners guilty on the second count, (a) The following is the entry as to this application in the Minute Book of the Court for the Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved :- "This case having been reserved for the consideration of this Court from Mr, Baron Martin last Trinity Term, it is now stated by Brett, counsel for the Crown, that the Court at which the trial took place had made the usual order for the costs of the prosecution to be allowed under the 7th Geo. IV. c. 64 ; that after the determination of the ease application had been made to the clerk of the Crown for Lancaster to tax and a"llow the^costs incurred here, but that he had refused to do so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v Thomas Byrne and Catherine Byrne
...BYRNE R. v. SmithENRUNK 1 Dears. 494; 24 L. J. M. C. 135. R. v. WileyENRUNK 1 Den. C. C. 37; 20 L. J. M. C. 4. R. v. DringENR 1 Dears. & B. 329. R. v. Dunn 1 Moo. C. C. 146. R. v. DavisENR 6 Car. & P. 177. R. v. Messingham 1 Moo. C. C. 257. R. v. Archer 1 Moo. C. C. 143. R. v. LangmeadENR L......