The King against Brisac and Scott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 1803 |
| Date | 29 June 1803 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 792
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, Mulcahy v. R., 1868, L. R. 3 H. L. 317; R. v. Oliphant [1905], 2 K. B. 73.
the king against brisag and scott. Wednesday, June 29th, 1803. An information at common law for a conspiracy between the captain and purser of a man of war for planning and fabricating false vouchers to cheat the Crown, (which planning and fabrication were done upon the high seas,) is well triable in Middlesex, upon proof there of the receipt by the Commisioners of the Navy of the false vouchers 4 EAST, 165. THE KING V. BRISAC 793 transmitted thither by one of the conspirators through the medium of the post, and the application there by a third person, a holder of one of such vouchers (a bill of exchange) for payment, which he there received. [Eeferred to, Mulcahy v. B., 1868, L. E. 3 H. L. 317; R. v. Oliphant [1905], 2 K. B. 73.] The defendant Captain Brisac was brought up on a former day of the term to receive judgment, after verdict, upon an information filed against him and the other defendant Scott; the first count of which stated in substance, that the defendant Brisac was captain, and the defendant Scott purser of His Majesty's ship " Iris," then at sea, and lying in Brassa Sound, That it was the duty of Scott as purser to procure provisions for the supply of the ship's company, and to draw bills of exchange on the Commissioners of the Navy for payment: also to procure true receipts from the persons of whom he bought such provisions, witnessed by two of the commission or warrant officers of the ship, to express the quantity and prices of such provisions: also to procure true certificates from two of the principal merchants and inhabitants of the place where such provisions had been bought, that the prices charged in such account were only the then current prices of such articles at that place : also to procure true certificates from the commander, master, and boatswain of the ship, specifying the several species and quantities of such provisions, and that the same had been actually received on board at the times therein mentioned : and also to procure true certificates from the captain that such bills of exchange were drawn by his order and for the purpose of paying for such provisions, and to send the same to the Commissioners for Victualling the Navy for vouchers, &e. That the defendant Brisac as captain was in a place of. great trust, and that it was his duty as such [165] to sign true certificates to the commissioners that the bills drawn by Scott on them were drawn by his order, and in payment for the provisions therein mentioned : and also certificates specifying the several species and quantities of provisions, &c. and that the same had been actually received on board the ship at the times therein mentioned. That both defendants not regarding their duties, but fraudulently and deceitfully contriving and intending to cause it to be believed that the defendant Scott, as such purser, had bought of one J. Boss a much larger quantity of fresh beef, &c. at higher prices than he actually had, for the use of the ship, in order thereby to defraud the King, with force and arms, on the 17th of October 1800, at Brassa Sound (ss. at Westminster) did conspire, &c. together,"to charge His Majesty with the payment of more money than was really due or payable for any provisions, &c. in fact procured for the use of the ship's company. That the defendant Scott in pursuance of such conspiracy then falsely and fraudulently signed a paper writing purporting to be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AG v Garland
...ILRM 346 1990/9/2619 DPP v DOOT & ORS 1973 AC 807 1973 2 WLR 532 1973 1 AER 940 R v BEST & ORS 91 ER 160 1705 1 SALK 174 R v BRISAC & SCOTT 102 ER 792 1803 4 EAST 164 R v BOWES UNREP 30.5.1787 (TRANSCRIPT NOT AVAILABLE) R v STONE 101 ER 684 1796 6 TERM REP 527 R v HARDY & ORS 1794 24 ST TR ......
-
DPP v Doot
...was then within the jurisdiction a conspiracy to import cannabis resin to which they were parties. 34In R. v. Brisac (1803) 4 East 165: 102 E.R. 792, where the captain and purser of a man-of-war were charged with conspiracy to cheat the Crown by the use of false vouchers, the planning and f......
- Samuels v Readers' Digest Association Pty Ltd
-
Pinkstone v R
...(1978) 140 CLR 342 at 353–354. 37 vol 1, (1803) at 228. 38 Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part, 2nd ed (1961) at 352. 39 (1803) 4 East 164 [ 102 ER 40 (1803) 4 East 164 at 172 [ 102 ER 792 at 796]. See also R v Girdwood (1776) 1 Leach 142 [ 168 ER 173]. 41 6 Geo IV, c 50. S......
-
Preliminary sections
...112, 378 Quo Vadis Hotels v. Commissioner of Lands and 2 Ors. (1973) 3 E.C.S.L.R. 430…........………112 R R v. Brisac 4 East 164, 171……...........................................................................................……….836 R v. Resident, Ijebu Province, in Re. I.A.C. Osunlaja, 4 F.S......
-
CONSPIRACY CHARGE
...evidence the circumstances from which the Court would consider it safe and reasonable to infer or presume the conspiracy. In R. v. Brisac 4 East 164, 171 which was cited with approval by the House of Lords in England in Mulcahy v. R.L.R. 3 H.L. 306, 317, it was laid down as a matter of law ......