The King v Fearshire
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1815 |
| Date | 01 January 1815 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 168 E.R. 203
THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
case CI. the king v fearshiee (Pirole evidence cannot be received of the information given before a Magistrate, either in felony or misdemeanor, unless evidence be given that it was not reduced into writing. See Rex v Jacobs, post, p. 309, Old Bailey February Session 1784.) At the Sittings of the King's Bench in Middlesex after Trinity Term 1779, John Fearshire was tried before Lord Mansfield on an indictment for a misdemeanor. The Counsel for the prosecution attempted to give parole evidence of the information, which had been given against the defendant before a Justice of the Peace, and on which the Justice had granted a warrant to apprehend the defendant Dunning, for the defendant, objected to the admission of this evidence, on the gromnd, thmt as it was the duty of the Magistrate to take informations in writing, (a) In the same Term the Co art referred an indictment for perjury against B|ay, which had been removed from Httks's Hall, to the Master, to see what part cd the record was unnecessary (1 Mod. 249); and made an order that the Clerk of the Peace should pay the expense incurred by such unnecessary part. N.B.--It was drawn to an exorbitant length, by statimg all the continuances on the former prosecution^ &Ç. which is rendered unnecessary by the express words of the 23 Geo II c. 11, a. 1. 204 the apprentice's case the presumption of law was, that he had taken the information in writing m the present ease ; and that as the written information, which was the best evidence, was not produced, no parole testimony eould be admitted to supply the want of it (see 1 and 2 PhiL & Mar. c. 13, s 4, and 2 and 3 Phil. & Mar c. 10) ' The Counsel for the Crown replied, That neither the practice of Magistrates, nor the statutes of Phihp...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v Thomas Galvin Jun., Thomas Galvin Sen., and Michael Farrell
...Regina v. Langbridge 1 Den. C. C. R. 448. The Queen v. LangbridgeENR 1 Den. C. C. 448; S. C., 2 Car. and Kir. 973. Fearshire's caseENR 1 Leach, 202. The Queen v. LangbridgeENR 1 Den. C. C. 448. 452 COMMON LAW REPORTS. E. T. 1865. Crim. Appeal. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL. THE QUEEN v. THOMAS G......