The King against Sir Nicholas Poynes and his Son
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1688 |
| Date | 01 January 1688 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 81 E.R. 97
COURT OF KINGS BENCH
the king against sir nicholas poynes and his son. 1 Bo. Eep. 268. Endictment for murder. Who were indicted for murder, and committed to the Marshalsey, without bail or mainprize. Trotmati moved the Court to have them bailed, because they were not indicted but by the coroners inquest, and no verdict as yet given up by them, and that as he urged, it was se defendendo. Coke Chief Justice. If one do kill another, it is not known at the first, whether this be murder or not. By the Statute of Westminster the First, cap. 15. for the death of a man, in such a case he is not to be bailed, by the statute of 1 & 2 Philip and Mary, cap. 13. a man is to be bailed in case of man-slaughter, if he be bailable by the law. But in ease of man-slaughter he is not bailable in all cases. If he confess the same, he is not bailable. For the death of a man, I will not bail any one, (unless it be by the command of the King). We may bail one here for treason, but this we will not do. [114] Haughton Justice. If he do confess this to a justice of peace, that he did the fact, he is not to be bailed. Coke. So shall it be for a notorious man-slaughter, he is not to be bailed. The Court refused to bail him, and so by the rule of the Court they were sent back again to the Marshalsey. Nota, that one having a judgment in this term, upon which judgment a writ of error brought, bearing teste the last term, returnable in this term, the which had the judgment, came to the clerk to have out his execution ; the clerk upon view of the roll, and finding no mark thereon for a writ of error, took out the execution, after execution granted, the roll was then marked for the writ of error, with an antedate and a supersedeas delivered before execution done, the sheriffs deputy makes his warrant out for doing of execution. Coke Chief Justice & Curia. We will nob allow of these antedates. This is a very great abuse to the Court, for to enter a writ of error with a recipitur of the last term; this course cannot but be very much disliked by us : this is the second we have known of this kind, take heed of the third, for this is a very great abuse, and not to be suffered; for the preventing of which hereafter, by the rule of the Court an order waa entred, that the clerks do mark the roll presently, (s) that is to say, the same day that the writ of error was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v Daniel M'Cartie, and Several Others. The Queen v Denis O'Sullivan, and Several Others
...Law Rep. 93. Regina v. GallagherIRIR 7 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 19; S. C., 8 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 93. Rex v. MorganENR1 Bulst. 84. Rex v. PoynesENR 3 Bulst. 113. Rex v. JacksonUNK 25 How. St. Tr. 783, 794. Regina v. ChapmanENR 8 C. & P. 558. Regina v. OwenENR 9 C. & P. 83. Regina v. GuttridgeENR 9 C.......
-
Lord Mohun's Case
...mohun's case. [Mich. 9 Will. 3, B. E.] H. found guilty of murder by the coroner's inquest, bailable; otherwise if indicted. 1 Bulst. 85. 3 Bulst. 113. 1 Roll. Eep. 268. 1 Sid. 316. Skin. 683, S. C. Holt 84. If a man be found guilty of murder by the coroner's inquest, we sometimes bail him, ......