R v William Gaylor
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 1011
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND THE COURTS OF ERROR
S. C. 21 J. P. 119; 7 Cox C. C. 253
1857. regina v. william gayloe (The prisoner was convicted of manslaughter. It appeared that the prisoner procured sulphate of potash and gave it to his wife intending her to take it for the purpose of procuring abortion ; and that she, believing herself to be pregnant, although in reality she was not, took the sulphate of potash in the absence of the prisoner, and died from its effects. Held, that the conviction was right.) [S. C 21 J. P. 119 ; 7 Cox C. C. 253 ] The following case was reserved and stated for the consideration and decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal by Erie J The prisoner Gaylor was indicted before me at the last November Session of the Central Criminal Court [289] for manslaughter The facts were, that his wife's death was caused by swallowing sulphate of potash for the purpose of procuring abortion, she believing herself to be pregnant, although in reality she was not The prisoner purchased this sulphate of potash, and gave it to his wife m order that she might swallow it for the above mentioned purpose, but he was absent at the time when she so swallowed it. For the prosecution it was contended that the wife committed a ielony in so swallowing the sulphate of potash, and, as death ensued therefrom, she also committed murder (Rex v Russell, 1 Moo. C. C. 356) ; that the prisoner was an accessory before the fact to this felony and to the consequent murder, and might be tried as if the principal had been convicted under 11 & 12 Viet. c. 46, s 1 ; and that, although, the evidence shewed his offence was murder, yet that would support an indictment for manslaughter. Under my direction the jury convicted. The prisoner was discharged on recognizance, and I reserved for the opinion of the Court the following questions :- 1st. Was the deceased guilty of felony in administering sulphate of potash to herself for the purpose of procuring abortion, she not being pregnant ? 2nd. Was the husband by his act guilty of felony, or an accessory thereto, he having been absent when she swallowed the drug ? 3rd. If the husband was an accessory to the felony, was an indictment for manslaughter supported, it being laid down that there cannot be an accessory to manslaughter ? (2 Hale, P. C. 246). 4th. Can the indictment be supported under 11 & 12 Viet, c 46, s. 1 ? (a) (a) That section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IL v R
...s 9. 20R v Russell (1832) 1 Mood 356 at 367 [ 168 ER 1302 at 1306]. 21 (1862) Le & Ca 161 [ 169 ER 1345]; cf R v Gaylor (1857) D & B 288 [ 169 ER 1011]. 22R v Fretwell (1862) Le & Ca 161 at 164 [ 169 ER 1345 at 23 (1862) Le & Ca 258 [ 169 ER 1387]. 24R v Burgess (1862) Le & Ca 258 at 260 [ ......
-
R v Creamer
...Patteson, he stated that that learned Judge inclined to a different opinion, and, if necessary, therefore, he would reserve the point. 7 In Gaylor's case, reported in Volume I Dearsly & Bell's Crown Cases at page 288, and also in 7 Cox's Criminal Cases page 253, views similar to that expres......
-
Cochrane v Green
...cannot sue G., if he retains the right to sue A.: Gttxm v. Chulley, 3 B. & 0. 591, 5 D. & R. 417 ; l-Htartun v. tYalkn; 4 B. & C. 163, 6 D. & B. 288." That necessary ingredient is altogether wanting here: there is nothing on the face of the plea to shew that the plaintiff intended to discha......