The King v Winifred and Thomas Gordon
| 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. 359
THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 East, P. C. 312, 315, 352 Referred to, Butler v Ford, 1833, 1 Cr. & M 662
[515] case CCXXXV. the king v. winifred ani thomas gordon. (On an indictment for the murder of a Constable in the execution of his office, it is not neeessary to produce his appointment; it is sufficient if it be proved that he was known to act as Constable A person indicted as an accessary before the fact, cannot be convicted of that charge upon evidence proving him. to have beem present, aiding and abettmg ) [S. C. 1 East, P. C. 312, 315, 352 Referred to, Butler v Ford, 1833,1 Cr. & M 662 ] At the Spring Assizes at Northampton in the year 1789, Winifred Gordon, the wife of Franeis Gkxrdon, and Thomas Geedon, their son, were tried before Mr. Baron Thompson for the wJinl murder of Geotge Linnel. The indictment consisted of two courts. The First Count charged, That Thomas Gordon and Winifred Gordon, on the 23d July 1788, at the parish of Pattiahall, in the county of Northampton, in and upon one George Linnel, then and there being, feloniously, wilfully, and of their malice aforethought, did make an assault (he the said George Ltnnel then and there being Constable of the said parish of Pattishall, m the said county of Northampton, awl in the due execution of his said office) ; and that the said Thomas Gordon, a certain gun, &c. to and against the said George Linnel, fec. feloniously, wilfrily, and of his mahee aforethought, did shoot and disehafge, &e thereby giving the said Geerge Linnel one mortal wound, &c. of (a) A similar application was refmsed by Mr, J. Gould at the last Essex Assizes. 360 THE KING V. WINIFRED AND THOMAS GORDON 1 LEACH 518. which said mortal wound the said George Liunel then and there instantly died And that the said Winifred Gordon, before the said felony and murder aforesaid by the said Thomas Gordon, in manner and by the means aforesaid, done and committed, to wit on. the said 23 July with force and arms at, &e. then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of her malice aforethought, did incite, move, instigate, stir up, counsel, direct, advise and command him the said Thomas Gordon the felony and murder aforesaid, in manner and by the means aforesaid, to do and commit , and then concluded that both the prisoners " in manner and by the means aforesaid, then and there feloniously, and of their malice aforethought, did kill and murder the said George Linnel, &c." The Second Count...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jamie Ngahuia Ahsin v R and Raeleen Matewai Noyle Rameka v R
...had done so and that the other was an aider and abettor. 144 See the discussion in Russell, above n 138, at 165; and The King v Gordon (1789) 1 Leach 515, 168 ER 145 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 (UK) 24 & 25 Vict c 94. Section 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1848 (UK) 11 & 12 Vict c 46......
-
The Queen v Meaney
...The King v. William StoneENR 6 T. R. 527. The King v. BrisacENR 4 East, 171. Coalheaver's CaseENR 1 Leach, C. C. 76. Bernard's CaseENR 1 Leach, C. C. 515. R. v. GordonENR 1 F. & F. 242. R. v. BirchenoughENR 1 Mood. C. C. 477. R. v. BrisacENR 4 East, 164. R. v. BowesENR 4 East, 174. R. v. St......
-
Griffith et Al v R
...the offence of being an accessory, that the person should be absent at the time the offence is committed: 1 Hale 615 R v.Jordan, 1 Leach 515.” Paragraph 4142 of the 36th edition of Archbold reads in part — “The Procurement. The procurement may be personal, or through the intervention of a t......
-
R v Dillon
...to determine whether the statement of the rule is true, and if so, whether it applies to the instant circumstances. R. v. Gordon et al ( 1 Leach 515 and 168 E.R. 359) was a case in which a constable in the course of executing a warrant upon the accused parties was fallen upon by them and sh......