The King v Thomas Hayes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1790 |
| Date | 01 January 1790 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 92 E.R. 485
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
[1518] easter term, 1 georgii 2, regis, B. E. 1727. the king vers. thomas hayes. Intr. Pasch. 13 Qeo. 1, n. 14, B. E. Upon an indictment if the defendant's clerk in Court makes out the Nisi Prius roll, any variance he may make from the plea roll shall after a special verdict to give the defendant the benefit of the variance, be amended. S. C. Str. 843. 1 Barnard. B. E. 31, 32. No judgment can be given on a verdict which leaves undecided any part of the matter put in issue. E. ace. ante, 324. 3 Lev. 55. Str. 1089. Hardr. 166, d. ace. Gilb. C. B. 3d ed. 156. Com. Pleader S. 19, 2d ed. vol. 2, p. 161. If a special verdict upon an indictment for three offences finds facts which prove the defendant guilty of two, and refer it to the Court whether he is guilty of the offences in the indictment, it shall be considered as finding him guilty of the two, and not guilty of the other. S. C. Str. 843. 1 Barnard. B. E. 48. Quidam imports alius. E. ace. ante, 119. D. ace. Dyer, 70 b. Hardr. 178, on an indictment for forging and publishing a bond, the distringas may be to make a jury between the King and the defendant de quibusdam transgressionibus, contemptibus & falsia fabricationibus, S. C. 1 Barnard. B. E. 142. If a statute directs that a person convicted of an offence either by action on the statute, or otherwise according to law shall pay the grieved double costs and damages to be assessed by the Court in which he shall be convicted. Q. Whether a person convicted in B. E. upon an indictment is liable to pay such costs and damages. S. C. 1 Barnard. B. E. 142. And if he is, how they shall be assessed. An indictment was found 20th Feb. 1726, at Hicks's Hall before the Justices of Oyer and Terminer for Middlesex, against the defendant and one William Hayes, for that they intending to defraud the executors of Edmund Longbotham of 2801. 30th of October 1720, forged a certain writing vocatum a bond purporting to be an obligatory writing under the hand and seal of the said Edmund Longbotham, and to bear date the 18th of June 1718, to the said Thomas Hayes, in the penalty of 5601. with condition to pay 2801. on the first of December next following the date, &c. then the indictment proceeds, that the said jurors further present upon their oaths, that the two defendants afterwards, viz. the said 30th of October 1720, did publish the said writing so by them forged as aforesaid as a true bond, &c. contra formam statut. &c. then the indictment goes on, and the said jurors further say upon their oaths, that the said defendants afterwards, scilicet the said 30th of October anno ultimo supra-dieto quoddam [not saying aliud] false fabricatum scriptum, purporting to be made under the hand and seal of the said Edmund Longbotham, and to bear date the 18th of June 1718, to the said Thomas Hayes, in the penalty of 5601. with condition to pay 2801. upon the 1st of December next following the date of that writing, did publish, knowing it to be forged, &e. contra formam statut. &c. The defendants removed this indictment into the King's Bench by certiorari, and pleaded not guilty ; and the cause came on to trial before me the sitting after Trinity term 1727. And upon producing the forged bond in evidence, it was insisted upon by the defendant's counsel, that there was a material [1519] variance between that produced in evidence and that laid in the indictment; for it was laid in the indictment, in quo quidem scripto mentionatur praedictum Edmundum Longbotham note, he had not before been set oat to have been of any place per nomen Edmundi Longbotham de Lime-house in parochia de Stepney in comitatu Middlesex; but the bond produced in evidence was, Edmundum Longbotham de Limehouse in peroch. do Stepney in comitatu Middlesex; whereas peroch. does not signify a parish, nor is there any such word, the consequence of which would be, that he is described to be of a different place than he is mentioned to be of in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patrick O'Brien, in Error, v The Queen
...and THE QUEEN. Rex v. KellyENR 1 Mood. C. C. 113. Rex v. Thompson Ib. 139. O'Connell v. The Queen 11 Cl. & F. 155. Rex v. HayesENRENR 2 Ld. Raym. 1518; S. C. 2 Str. 843. Regina v. O'Brian and othersUNK Den. Cr. C. 20; S. C. 1 Cox, Cr. C. 126. Rex v. WatersENR 7 C. & P. 250. The Queen v. Dow......
-
Thomas Shea, in Error, v The Queen. William Dwyer, in Error, v The Queen
...868. Conway v. The Queen 7 Ir. law Rep. 161. Beecher's caseENR 8 Coke, 59, f. Regina v. Downing and Powis DEn. C. C. 52. Rex v. Hayes 2 Lord Raym. 1518. O'Connell v. The Queen 11 Cl. & F. 296, 374. Rex v. PayneENR 4 C & P. 558. Fogarty v. The Queen 10 Ir. Law Rep. 53. Regina v. Jones 7 Ir. ......