The King against J. S. S. Cooke

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of the King's Bench
Judgment Date01 January 1826
Date01 January 1826

English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 201

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

The King against J. S. S. Cooke

S. C. 7 D. & R. 673. Referred to, R. v. Manning, 1883, 122 Q. B. D. 243; R. v, Plummer, [1902] 2 K. B. 344.

the king against J. S. S. cooke. 1826. Indictment against four for a conspiracy; two pleaded not guilty, one pleaded in abatement, to which plea there was a demurrer, and the fourth never appeared. Before the argument of the demurrer, the record was taken down to trial; one of those who pleaded not guilty was acquitted, and the other was found "guilty of conspiring with him who pleaded in abatement." The demurrer was afterwards argued, and judgment of respondeat ouster given, whereupon a plea of not guilty was pleaded : Held, that the Court might, before the trial of that defendant, pronounce judgment upon the one that had been found guilty. [S. C. 7 D. & R. 673. Referred to. B. v. Manning, 1883, 12 Q. B. D. 243; .B. v. Plummer, [1902] 2 K. B. 344.] This was an indictment against James Stamp Button Cooke, Richard Stafford Cooke, James Russell Miles, and Richard Jenkinson for a conspiracy to disquiet and disturb Sir George Jerningham, Bart., in the possession of certain estates, by unlawful means and devices; to molest his tenants, and to obtain money from his tenants by falsely pretending that the title of Richard Stafford Cooke to the estates had been admitted by Sir George Jerningbam to be valid. To this indictment which was found at the Summer Assizes, 1823, and removed into King's Bench at the instance of the prosecutor; James Stamp Sutton Cooke, and Richard Jenkinson pleaded, nob guilty; and [539] Miles never appeared. The defendant Richard Stafford Cooke pleaded in abatement. To this plea there was a demurrer and joinder. While the demurrer was pending, viz., at the Spring Assizes, 1824, for the county of Gloucester, the issue joined between the Crown and the two defendants who had pleaded the general issue, came on to be tried, when the jury returned a verdict, which was recorded in the following terms: "J. S. S. Cooke guilty of conspiring with his brother Richard Stafford Cooke; Jenkinson not guilty." The demurrer was argued before three of the Judges of this Court at their sittings after Easter term, 1824, when judgment was given for the Crown, and R. S. Cooke required to answer over to the charge; and in the following Trinity term he pleaded the general issue. The record was not taken down for the trial of R. S. Cooke ; but judgment was in Trinity term moved for against J. S. S. Cooke on the conviction; and was postponed from term to term on affidavits of the defendant's illness, until Michaelmas term, 1825, when Campbell obtained a rule nisi for staying the judgment, on the ground that the verdict of the jury negatived all the conspiracy charged, except with R. S. Cooke, who was still to be presumed innocent, who had pleaded not guilty, and whose acquittal, if he should be tried hereafter, would be a virtual acquittal of J. S. S. Cooke, and render any judgment passed on him erroneous. Against this rule in last Hilary term...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Department of Public Prosecutions v Shannon
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 19 June 1974
    ...an indictment for conspiracy there was no mis-trial when, B having died, the trial proceeded of A alone and led to his conviction. 27 In R. v. Cooke (in 1826) 5 B. & C. 538: 108 E.R. 201 it was held that there was no reason why judgment should not be pronounced upon J. S. S. Cooke who had ......
  • R v Darby
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • The Queen v John Ahearne
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 14 April 1852
    ...Appeal. THE QUEEN and JOHN AHEARNE. King v. Sudbury 1 Lord Ray. 484. Thody's caseENR 1 Vent. 234. The King v. CookeENR 5 B. & C. 538. Rex v. Kinnersley and Moore 1 Stra. 193. The King v. NicolsENR 13 East, 412 (in note.) Lord Sanchar's caseUNK 9 Rep. 119. Marsh v. Vauhan Cro. Eliz. 701. COM......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT