The Queen v Harriet Langridge
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1849 |
| Date | 01 January 1849 |
| Court | Crown Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 321
Crown Cases
S. C. 2 Car. & Kir. 9756; T. & M. 146; 3 New Sess Cas 645; 18 L J. M. C 198, 13 L. T. O. S. 551; 13 J. P. 425; 13 Jur. 545, 3 Cox C C 465. Considered, R. v. Galvin, 1865, 10 Cox C. C. 198.
[448] 1849. the queen o. harriet la^gbridge. (A, was indicted for obtaining a promissory note by talse pretences from B The deposition of B , who was too ill to attend as a witness at the trial, was held sufficiently distinct to be received in evidence, although in the caption it was not stated that A. was charged with obtaining the note unlawfully Semble, a deposition is good without a caption, if described as the examination of the witness, and the evidence be relevant to the charge , provided the prisoner was duly apprised of the nature of the charge, and had full opportunity of cross-examining the witness ) [S. C. 2 Car. & Kir. 975 ; T. & M. 146 ; 3 New Sess Cas 645 ; 18 L J. M. C 198 , 13 L. T. 0. S. 551 ; 13 J. P. 425 ; 13 Jur. 545 , 3 Cox C C 465. Considered, R. v. Galmn, 1865, 10 Cox C. C. 198.] Harriet Langbridge was indicted at the General Sessions of the Peace, held at the castle of Exeter, in the county of Devon, on the 20th of February, 1849, for unlawfully obtaining by means of false pretences from Mary Howe, one promissory note for the payment of the sum of fifty pounds, and interest, and of the value of fifty pounds of the property of Charlotte Howe, with intent to cheat and defraud the said Charlotte Bo we of the same. Upon, the trial of the prisoner, the deposition of Mary Howe was put in by the counsel for the prosecution. Proof was given that it was taken by the committing justice in the presence of the prisoner, and that she had a full opportunity of cross-examining the said Mary Howe, the witness , that it was signed by William Ponsford, clerk, the justice before whom the same purported to have been taken. And that the said Mary Howe was, at the time of the trial, so ill as not to be able to travel. The charge preferred before the committing justice was, that the prisoner had obtained the promissory note and other valuable securities, by means of false cb. ca ii.-11 322 BEGIN A V. JOHN RADLEY 1 DEN. 449. pretences, and of this charge the prisoner was informed by the committing justice The caption of the deposition of the said Mary Rowe is as follows -" Devon, to wit. The examination of Mary Rowe, wife of William Squire Rowe, of Thornbury Faim, in the parish of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v Thomas Galvin Jun., Thomas Galvin Sen., and Michael Farrell
...THE QUEEN and THOMAS GALVIN jun., THOMAS GALVIN sen., and MICHAEL FARRELL. Regina v. NewtonENR 1 F. & F. 641. Regina v. LangbridgeENR 1 Den. C. C. 448. Johnson's caseENR 2 Car. & K. 335. Regina v. Mullen 9 Cox, Cr. Cas. 339. Regina v. Smith 2 Starkie Rep. 208. Regina v. WalshENR 5 Cox, 115,......
-
Preliminary Sections
...R. 149. 326 CASES REFERRED TO IN 1962 R. v. Knewland and Wood 168 E.R. 461. 65 R. v. Langbridge, 3 Cox 465; (1849) 2 Car. and Kir. 975; 1 Den, 448; T. and M. 146; 3 New Sess Cas. 645; 18 L.J.M.C. 198; 13 L.T.O.S. 551; 13 J.P. 425; 13 Jur. 545. 296 R. v. Lawson 36 Crim App R. 30; (1952) 1 T.......