The Case of Alexander Kinloch and Charles Kinloch
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 October 1746 |
| Date | 28 October 1746 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 168 E.R. 9
THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 18 St. Tr. 395; 1 Wils. 157 Considered, R. v Charlesworth, 1861, 1 B. & S. 460. Referred to, R v. Grainger, 1765, 3 Burr. 1617; R. v. Johnson, 1805, 6 East, 583; R. v. O'Connell, 1843, 2 L. T. (O S) 193; Conway & Lynch v R, 1845, 5 L T. (O. S) 458; R. v. Duffy, 1846, 7 L. T. (O S) 9; R. v. Newton, 1849, 18 L. J. M. C. 201; R. v. Davison, 1860, 2 F. & F. 250; R v Winsor, 1866, 10 Cox C. C. 276.
[16] the case of alexander kinloch and charles kinloch October 28, 1746. [S. C. 18 St. Tr, 395; 1 Wils. 157 Considered, R. v Charlesworth, 1861, 1 B. & S. 460. Referred to, R v. Graitiger, 1765, 3 Burr. 1617 ; R. v. Johnson, 1805, 6 East, 585; R. v. O'Connett, 1843, 2 L. T. (0 S ) 193 ; Conway & Lynch v R , 1845, 5 L T. (O. S ) 458 ; R. v Duffy, 1846, 7 L. T. (O S ) 9 ; R. v. Newton, 1849, 18 L. J. M. C. 201 ; R, v. Damson, 1860, 2 F. & F. 250 ; R v Wtnsor, 1866, 10 Cox C. C. 276.] Present Lord Chief-Justice Willes, Mr. Justice Foster, and Mr. Baron Chve , Alexander Kinloch and Charles Kinloch, who were the first of the prisoners concerned in the paper delivered the 2d of September that were brought to trial, were set to the bar, and they agreeing in their challenges, one jury was sworn and charged with them by the clerk of the arraignments. The junior counsel for the crown opened the indictment, and the solicitor-general in a few words opened the evidence. When the counsel for the crown had proceeded thus far, the Chief-Justice, before any evidence whs given, told the prisoners' counsel, that he was informed they had some objection feo make in behaH of their clients, grounded on the Act of Union. Whieh objection, he said, was proper to be ipoke to before the counsel for the crown went into then evidence. Whereupon Mr Jodrell, one of the prisoners' counsel, stated his objection, and spake largely to it. The Chief-Justice then said, that the objection, being in nature of a plea to the jurisdiction of the Court, could net be made on the issue of not guilty ; nor could any evidence in support of the objection be received upon that issue ; and therefore proposed that a juror should be withdrawn ; aad that the prisoners should have leave to withdraw their pleas of not guilty, and to plead this matter specially; and that the attorney-general might demur , and so the point would come regmlarly before the Court. Mr. Justice Foster said on this occasion, that when he assured the prisoners they would have the full benefit of thk objection on their plea of not guilty, he had no intention of leading them into a difficulty, which they could not get clear of, without it* indulgence of the Court. He thought they would be mtitled ex mero jure to the fuR benefit of the objection, without such indulgence , and added, that the principle he went upon was this, If there be a-ny weight in the objection, it must be that tie ease of the prisoners is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Charlesworth
...716), p. 717-725. [They referred to Co. Litt. 227 b.; Doctor and Student, Dial. 2, ch. 52; 2 Hale, P. C. 294, 295, c. 41 ; Kinloch's Case (Fost. 16, 22); Ferrar's Case (T. Raym. 84).] The position in Co. Litt. 227 b. that "a jury sworn and charged in case of life or member, cannot be discha......
-
Attorney General of Our Lady the Queen for the Colony of New South Wales, - Appellant; Henry Louis Bertrand, - Respondent
...of one of the jurors, or otherwise, without giving a verdict, as in Rex v. Edwards (3 Camp. 208; S.C. 4 Taunt. 309), Kinlock's Case (Foster, 16), even if it constituted such an irregularity as to have occasioned a miscarriage of justice, yet the remedy in a Criminal suit is not by a new tri......
-
The King against The Hon. Robt. Johnson
...... as reported to the Court by the same Master in Layer's case (c); " That in prosecutions for misdemeanors two four-day ......
-
R v William Edwards
...the second jury, when ,1 former jury had been charged to try hinij-relying chiefly upon the authorities collected iti the Kinlockf,' case, Foster, 16 But the Judges, without hearing the other side, were unanimously of opinion that the conviction was right, and they mentioned a case before M......
-
Undercover Sting Operations in Money‐Laundering Cases
...to launderers, and who are thereby enabling the proceeds of crime to enter into the financial system. For example, in United States v Foster,16 undercover agents of the IRS visited the defendant, a Michigan lawyer, who had been referred to them as willing to launder up to $1m through a clie......
-
Current developments in partners and partnerships.
...court cases involving TEFRA issues; however, there were not as many as in the past. Two cases dealt with a statute-of-limitation issue. Foster (16) and Rock (17) were cases related to American Agri-Corp (AMCOR) partnerships from the 1980s. These partnerships were found to be tax shelters th......
-
Act 99, HJR 104
...accomplished career; and 14 WHEREAS, in all aspects of his dedicated tenure, Mr. 15 Murfee remained steadfast in his resolve to provide and foster 16 a quality education for the youth of Marion County resolute in all his efforts on their behalf; and 18 WHEREAS, left to cherish the memory of......