The King against William Stone
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1796 |
| Date | 1796 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 684
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
the king against william stone. Jan. 28th and 29th, 1796. Indictment for high treason in compassing the King's death and adhering to his enemies. Overt act, conspiring with others to send intelligence to the enemy concerning the disposition of the King's subjects in case of an invasion. The prisoner was tried at the Bar of this Court on the 28th and 29th days of January, in this term upon an indictment for high treason on two branches of the 25 Ed. 3, st. 5, c. 2, for compassing the death of the King, and for adhering to his enemies. The overt acts were the same in each count, being eleven in number; but that to which the evidence chiefly applied was the conspiring with John Hurford Stone William Jackson and others unknown to collect intelligence within [this kingdom and the kingdom of Ireland of the disposition of the King's subjects in case of an invasion of Great Britain or Ireland, and to communicate such intelligence to the persons exercising the powers of Government in France, enemies of our lord the King, for their aid, assistance, direction, and instruction, in their conduct and prosecution of the war, &c. Evidence having been given to connect the prisoner with John Hurford Stone who was during the transaction resident in France and domiciled there and Jackson ()2, and to shew that they were engaged in a conspiracy for the above stated purpose ; Lord Grenville the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department was called to prove that a letter of Jackson's containing treasonable information had been transmitted to him from abroad, but in a confidential way, which made it impossible for him to divulge by whom it was communicated. Adair Serjt. and Erskine objected, on behalf of the prisoner to the reading of this letter as it had not been proved to have [528] come to the hands or knowledge of the prisoner; and insisted that nothing could be received to affect the-prisoner bat his own acts. The Attorney General answered that, as the overt act charged was a conspiracy of which proof was before the Court, the act of each conspirator in the prosecution of such conspiracy was evidence against all: that it had been so determined by Buller J. in the case of The King v. Bowes and Others, 30th May, 1787, who were convicted for a conspiracy to carry away Lady Strathmore; and that the same principle had been also settled in The King v. Hardy, and The King v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AG v Garland
...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 199 R v HORNE TOOKE 1794 25 ST TR 1 EAST A TREATISE OF THE PLEAS OF THE CROWN 1803 VOL 1 60......
-
Brownlee v R
...(Q) (1991) 173 CLR 289. 167 Constitution, s 80 (emphasis added). 168Trial of John Horne Tooke (1794) 25 St Tr 1 at 131–132; R v Stone (1796) 6 TR 527 [ 101 ER 169 See Goby v Wetherill [1915] 2 KB 674. 170 R v Taylor [1950] NIR 57 at 71–73. 171 Cornish, The Jury (1968) at 145; R v Chaouk [......
- Webb v R
-
You Xin v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
...134 (folld) R v Logan [1974] Crim LR 609 (refd) R v Kevin John Moran (1985) 81 Cr App R 51 (refd) R v William Stone (1796) 6 Term Rep 527; 101 ER 684 (refd) R v Thomson Newspapers Ltd, Ex parte Attorney-General [1968] 1 WLR 1 (folld) Ram Goswami v PP [1983-1984] SLR (R) 694; [1984-1985] SLR......