R v William Murdock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1851 |
| Date | 01 January 1851 |
| Court | Crown Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 512
Crown Cases
S. C. T. & M 604; 21 L J. M C 22; 18 L. T. O. S. 144; 16 Jur. 19; 15 J P. 770; 5 Cox C C. 360. Considered, R. v Rogers, 1877, 3 Q B. D. 28.
1851. eegina v. william mubdock. (The prisoner was a travelling salesman, whose duty it was to go into the county of D. every Monday to sell goods and receive money for them there, and return with it to his master in N. every Saturday. He received two sums of money for his master in D., but never returned to render any account of them Two months afterwards he was met by his master in N , who asked him what he had done with the money. The prisoner said he was sorry for what he had done ; he had spent it. Held, that the prisoner was rightly indicted in N , there having been evidence to go to the jury of an embezzlement m N.) [S. C. T. & M 604 ; 21 L J. M C 22 ; 18 L. T. 0. S. 144 ; 16 Jur. 19 ; 15 J P. 770 ; 5 Cox C C. 360. Considered, R. v Rogers, 1877, 3 Q B. D. 28.] The prisoner was tried before Parke B., at the Summer Assizes, for the county of the town of Nottingham, on an indictment for embezzling two sums, the property of his master, James Macqueen. The prisoner was a travelling salesman, and his duty was to go into Derbyshire every Monday, and to sell goods and receive the money for them there, and to return with it to his master m Nottingham on a Saturday. He received the two sums mentioned m the indictment on the 6th of May, in Derbyshire, and did not return the following Saturday, nor at all to his master's. 2 DEN. 299. REGINA V. WILLIAM MUBDOCK 513 There was no evidence of what became of him till two months after, when he was met by bis master in [299] Nottingham, who asked him what he had done with the monsy, and he said, " he was sorry for what he had done , he had spent it." Tlhe prisoner was found guilty, but as the learned Judge doubted whether he could be pjoperly convicted on this evidence of embezzlement in the town of Nottingham, his Lordship did not pass sentence.(a) Qn Saturday, 15th November, a.d. 1851, this case was argued before Lord Campbell C. J., Parke B., Maule J., Talfourd J., and Martin B. Manson for the Crown. The two sums of money were received in Derbyshire , there was no proof of a receipt of money in Nottingham, and the question is, whether there was jurisdiction to try the prisoner in Nottingham for embezzlement. I submit that there was jurisdiction, inasmuch as the prisoner ought to have accounted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial