The Queen against Scaife, Smith and Rooke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 1851 |
| Date | 02 June 1851 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 117 E.R. 1271
QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 Cox, C. C. 243; 2 Den. C. C. 281; 20 L. J. M. C. 229; 15 Jur. 607. Not followed, Attorney-General of New South Wales v. Bertrand, 1867, L. R 1 P. C. 520; R. v. Murphy, 1869, L. R. 2 P. C. 548; R. v. Duncan, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 199. For subsequent proceedings see 18 Q. B. 773.
the queen against scaife, smith and eooke. Monday, June 2d, 1851. If the deposition of a witness on charge of an indictable offence has been regularly taken before a magistrate, and at the time of trial such witness is dead or (stat. 11 & 12 Viet. c. 42, s. 17) so ill as not to be able to travel, the deposition may be read as evidence against the prisoner. So also if it be proved that the witness is kept away by the prisoner's procurement. But such deposition is not admissible on the ground, merely, that the prosecutor, after using every possible endeavour, cannot find the witness. If procurement of the absence be shewn, and there are several prisoners, the deposition is evidence against those only who are proved to have procured the absence. And, where the Judge, admitting such evidence, left it generally to the jury, and did not point out that it applied only to those implicated in procuring the absence (there being some who were not so implicated), and the latter were convicted, the Court granted a new trial. A new trial was granted on this ground in a case of felony removed by certiorari. [S. C. 5 Cox, C. C. 243; 2 Den. C. C. 281; 20 L. J. M. C. 229 15 Jur. 607. Not followed, Attorney-General of New Smith Wales v. Bertmnd, 1867, L. K. 1 P. C. 520; B. v. Murphy, 1869, L. R. 2 P. C. 548; R. v. Duncan, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 199. For subsequent proceedings see 18 Q. B. 773.] This was an indictment for robbery with violence, removed by certiorari from the Hull Borough Sessions, and tried before Cresswell J. at the last York Assizes. The prisoner Smith was defended by one counsel, and Scaife and Rooke by another. On the part of. the Crown, a deposition by one Ann Garnett was tendered in evidence. It had been regularly taken before a magistrate, in the presence of the prisoners. The witness did not appear at the assizes; and it was proved that due search had been made for her on the part of the prosecution, but that ahe could not be found. [239] There was evidence also that she was kept away by the procurement of Smith; but this evidence did not implicate the other prisoners. The reading of the deposition was objected to by the counsel for Smith; but the learned Judge admitted it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Davis (Iain); R v Ellis; R v Gregory; R v Simms; R v Martin
...or procurement of the defendant incriminated by the statement. Subsequent authorities were considered and this exception again accepted in R v Scaife (1851) 17 QB 238, where Hunter arguendo (at p 241) referred to the maxim that justice "will not permit a party to take advantage of his own ......
-
R. v. Davis (I.), [2008] N.R. Uned. 233
...the defendant incriminated by the statement. Subsequent authorities were considered and this exception again accepted in R. v. Scaife (1851) 17 Q.B. 238, where Hunter arguendo (at p. 241) referred to the maxim that justice "will not permit a party to take advantage of his own wrong&quo......
-
R v Kowain Findlay
...of the defendant incriminated by the statement. Subsequent authorities were considered and this exception again accepted in R v Scaife (1851) 17 QB 238, where Hunter arguendo (at p 241) referred to the maxim that justice “will not permit a party to take advantage of his own wrong” and also......
-
R v Mathew Scaife and Thomas Rooke
... ... ] 1851 regina v mathew scaife and thomas rooke (Where, upon the trial of an indictment against three prisoners for felony, it was proved that a witness had been kept out of the way by the ... Hampshire, 1887, 3 T L R 712 ] The prisoners were indicted, together with John Smith, at the Quarter Sessions ior the borough of Kmgston-upon-Huil, for stealing from the prosecutor two hundred pounds in sovereigns and half sovereigns The indictment was removed into the Queen's Bench by certtoran, and the case was tried before Mr Justice Cresswell, at the Yorkshire Spring ... ...