R v Wright
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1866 |
| Date | 01 January 1866 |
| Court | Assizes |
English Reports Citation: 176 E.R. 869
Nisi Prius
[967] Ghiildford Crown Court, Surrey Summer Assizes, 1866, coram Channell, B. regina v. weight (On a charge of rape, there having been to some extent assent, and it being doubtful whether the act has been completed, it is necessary that the jury should be satisfied, before they convict, either of a rape, or of an assault with intent to commit a rape, that the prisoner intended, not only to commit the act, but did commit it, notwithstanding any resistance on the part of the prosecutrix. On her cross-examination, she cannot be contradicted from the depositions, unless they are put in.) The prisoner was indicted, for that he feloniously and violently assaulted one Ann Hitchman, and forcibly and against her will feloniously did ravish, and carnally know. He was also indicted for feloniously assaulting her with intent to commit a rape. Underdown for the prosecution Parry, Serjt., and Oppenheim for the defence. The prosecutrix admitted that on the occasion in question she had allowed the prisoner to take extreme liberties with her person, though she swore he had connection against her will; and he, on the other hand, in certain statements he had made, admitted having attempted to commit the act, and that she then resisted ; but declared that he had then desisted. The medical evidence was inconclusive ; and the case rested, mainly, on the cross-examination of the prosecutrix Parry, Serjt., cross-examined her as to her depositions, and in the course of his address to the jury, stated that in certain respects they were at variance with her evidence, as she stated now what she had not stated then. Channell, B.-You cannot say that ; and if you want to contradict her by her depositions, or to show that they do not contain something in her evidence, you must put them in. You can cross-examine her upon them-taking [968] her answers- but you cannot refer to the contents without putting them in. $f the witness into his hand for the purpose of refreshing his memory, without giving it in evidence. Reg. v. Ford, 20 L J 171, M. C ; 17 L. T. 135 ; 5 Cox's Cnm. Gas. 184. With, regard to statements made by the prisoner, it is presumed that if material, they would have been taken down-that it was not necessary to show, clearly, that they were-in order to exclude parol evidence (R McGowan, 5 Cox's Cnm Gas. 506). But the prisoner's counsel might ask a witness for the prosecution whether he did not make a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Morgan, ; DPP v McDonald, ; DPP v McLarty, ; DPP v Parker,
...of direct statements by successive judges charging juries of speaking of rape which bear out the appellants' contention. Thus in Wright 4 F. & F. 967, 176 E.R. 869, Channell, B., who had to deal with charges of rape and assault with intent to commit rape, charged a jury: "Both charges requi......
-
R v Olugboja
...on a number of cases going back to the middle of the last century: R. v. Hallett (1841) 9 C. & P. 748; R. v. Day (1841) 9 C. & P. 722; R. v. Wright (1866) 4 F. & F. 967; R. v. Mayers (1872) 12 Cox 311; and by analogy Latter v. Braddell (1881) 50 L.J. (N.S.) 166, where a domestic servant who......
-
R. v. Leary, (1977) 13 N.R. 592 (SCC)
...a long line of notable authority; it will be sufficient to refer to one or two cases only. "In Regina v. Wright (1866), 4 F. & F. 967, 176 E.R. 869, Channell B. charged the jury that rape "required an intention on his (accused's) part to commit the act by force against her will". And se......
-
KING v. KADIRGAMAN et al.,
...From a perusal of the English cases of Regina v. Hallett [173 E.R. 1036. ]; Regina v. Riley and another [176 E.R. 868.]; Regina v. Wright [176 E.R.869.]; and Regina v. Hearn [174 E.R. 431.], it would appear that English law requires the proof of a deposition if the defence proposes by such ......