The King v George Hindmarsh
| 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. 387
THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
case CCLV. the king t . george hindmarsh. (On the trial of an indictment for murder, the death of the person charged to have been killed, may be collected from the circumstances, if incapable of being proved by other evidence.) At the Admiralty Session held at the Old Bailey on the 7th June 1792, George Hindmarsh was tried before Mr. Justice Ashhurst, present Mr Baron Hotham, Sir James Marriott, &c. for murder. The indictment consisted of twa counts.-The First Count stated, " that George Hindmaish, late of London, manner, not having the fear of God before his eyes, &c. on the 28th October 1791, with force and arms, upon the high sea, within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, to wit, about the distance of one league from AnBamaboe, on the Coast of Africa, in and upon one Samuel Burne Cowie, then and there being, &e. &c. n board of a certain sloop called the " Eolus," feloniously, wilfully, and of his mahce aforethought, did make an assault, and that the said George Hindmarsh then and there, &c. with a certain large piece of wood of the value of one penny, which he the said George Hindmarsh then and there had and held, him the said Samuel Burne Cowie, in and upon the head, &c feloniously, wilfully, [570] and of his malice aforethought did strike and beat, giving him, fcc. by such striking and beating, &c. divers mortal braises and contusions in and upon the head, &c. of which said mortal bruises and contusions he the said Samuel Burne Cowie did instantly die ; and so- the Jurors, &c. do say, that the said George Hindmarsh, him the said Samuel Burne Cowie in manner and by the means aforesaid, then anoVthere, &c. feloniously, wilfully, and of malice aforethought, did kill and murder, against the peaeet &e "-The Second Count charged, " That the said George Hindmarsh, &e m and upon the said Samuel Burne Cowie, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did make another assault, and that the said George Hindmarsh then and there, &c feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did cast and throw statute at the Lent Assizes for Cambridge, 16 Car II. and it appeared, that he had taken plate out of a trunk in which it was contained, and laid it on the floor; but before he carried it away he was surprised and apprehended , and it was agreed by all the Judges, that this amounted to a stealing in the house within the meaning of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General v Kirwan
...am also in agreement upon the second point, but for the one reason only, which I have endeavoured to explain. (1) 2 Hale P. C. 290. (2) 2 Leach, C. C. 569. (3) 13 Cox, C. C. (4) [1917] 2 I. R. 557, at p. 592. (1) 2 F. & F. 833. (1) [1935] A. C. 309. (2) [1927] I. R. 129. (3) [1934] I. R. 16......
-
R v Nhleko
...v Sikosana, 1950 P.H. H.148; R v Thuantha, 1922 S.W.A. Appendix; R v Tshinwayo and Uzulu, 1914 E.D.L. 472; The King v George Hindmarsh (1792) 2 Leach 569; R v Onufrejczyk, 1955 (1) A.E.R. 247, discussed by Neve in 33 Canadian Bar Review at p. 603, and by Coaker in 73 S.A.L.J. D at p. 181; R......
-
R v PATRICK McNICHOLL [Cr. Ca. R]
...282. (1) Russell on Crimes, 7th ed., p. 2156, note. (2) I. R. 8 C. L. 50. (3) 20 L. R. Ir. 550. (4) 2 Leach C. C. 552, at p. 554. (1) 2 Leach C. C. 569. (1) 20 L. R. Ir., at p. (1) 8 C. & P. 591. ...
-
Patrick O'Brien, in Error, v The Queen
...1574. Rex v. KeateENR Comb. 408. The Queen v. Servia and others 1 Cox, C. C. 292. Rex v. ClarkeENR 1 Br. & B. 473. Rex v. HindmarshENR 2 Leach, 569. CASES AT LAW. 337 H. T. 1847. Queen'sBench. PATRICK O'BRIEN, in Error, v. THE QUEEN. Witxp of error, brought by the prisoner Patrick O'Brien, ......