William Thompson, a Prisoner
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 1860 |
| Date | 23 November 1860 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 80
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 30 L J. M. C. 191; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 48; 9 W. R. 203, 3 L. T. 294. Referred to, Reg. v. Miles, 1890, 24 Q. B. D. 434.
[193] in the matter of william thompson, a Prisoner. Nov. 23, 1860.-On a rule to shew cause why a habeas corpus should not ibsue to bring up the body of a prisoner, it appeared from the affidavits, that the information charged that one W. T. did "unlawfully assault and abuse" Susannah T In stating the case before two justices sitting in petty sessions, the prosecutrix's attorney detailed facts, shewing a violation or attempted violation of the prosecutux's person againat her will. The prisoner's advocate objected to his giving evidence of anything but a common assault, but, after some argument between the advocates and the justices, it was agreed that the case should be taken under the Aggravated Assaults Act, 16 & 17 Viet. c. 30. The prosecutnx stated that the prisoner-began to "rawl"her for about a quarter of an hour; that she rawled till she could not rawl any longer with him, when he put her against a gate and had connexion with her against her will She was cross-examined as to whether she had not consented to what took place. The justices convicted the prisoner, and in the commitment stated that they found the assault to be proved, and to be of such an aggravated nature that it could not, in the opinion of the justices, be sufficiently punished under the 9 Geo. 4, e. 31 ,, and the justices therefore, in pursuance of the 16 & 17 Viet. c. 30, adjudged the said \V T. to be imprisoned fec. for six months. Held, that the 16 & 17 Viet, c .50, s 1, applies only to common assaults, and not to an assault accompanied by any cucumstances which make it a distinct offence recognised by the law as something more than a mere assault-such as an assault with intent to commit a rape. Per totam Cuuam - Per Pollock, C. B., and Wilde, B, that inasmuch as the charge was not of u common assault, and the evidence did not point to a common assault, but to a rape or an attempt to commit a rape, the justices had no jurisdiction.-Per Bramwell, B, and Channell, B, that the information charged an assault, and that aa it was possible that the justices might have disbelieved the charge of rape or attempt to commit a rape, and found that nothing more took place except an assault of an aggravated character, the rule ought not to be nude absolute. [S. C. 30 L. J. M. C. 191; 7 Jur. (N. S) 48, 9 W. K 203; 3 L T 294. Referred to, Reg. v. Miles, 1890, 24 Q. B. D. 434 ] Qverend had obtained a rule calling on H. Slater and R. Wild, Esquires, two of the justice* of the county of Lancaster, and on Susannah Taylor, to shew cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue, directed to the keeper of the House of Correction at Preston, commanding him to bring up the body of William Thompson From the affidavits on which the rule was moved, it appealed that the information charged that William Thompson on the 29th of October, 18(50, at the township of Lower Darwen, "did unlawfully assault arid abuse Susannah Taylor, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided " The material parts of the commitment were as follows:-Whereas William Thompson was "duly convicted before the undersigned &c., upon the information and complaint of Susannah Taylor, of &c, single woman, in that the said William Thompson, within three calendar months last past, to wit, on &c., at &c, did unlawfully assault and abuse the said Susannah Taylor, contrary to the [194] statute in such case made and provided. And the said justices did find the said assault to be proved, and to be of such an aggravated nature that it coald not, in the opinion of the said justices, be sufficiently punished under the provisions of the statute 9 Geo 4, c. 31. And the said justices did therefore, in pursuance of the statute passed &c. (16 & 17 Viet. c. 30), intituled 'An Act for the better prevention and punishment of aggravated assaults upon women and children, aad lor preventing delay and expense in the administration of certain parts of the criminal law,' adjudge that the said William Thompson, for his snid offence, should 6 H.A N. IN. IN RE THOMPSON 81 be imprisoned in the House of Correction at Preston, in the said county, for the space of six calendar months." These, therefore, are to command you &c " Given under our hands and seals, this &c. " H. slater. "E. wild." One E. Thompson deposed that he was present at the trial, and heard the evidence of Susannah Taylor and the other witnesses; that the only evidence of the assault was that of Susannah. Taylor, who swore that on the 29th of October the prisoner " had committed a rape upon her." The words she used were that " he rawled her and melled her, and had connexion with her against her will," and she stated the same on cross-examination &c.; and that when particularly asked by the justices she said that the said William Thompson put his privates into her, and that she screamed violently. (This did not appear in the depositions, and the magistrates' clerk and other deponents did not recollect it.) Other witnesses were examined, but they did nob speak to the said assault, but only to a meeting which had taken place for the purpose of arranging the matter without its going before the magistrates. Affidavits were filed in opposition to the rule, viz. one by [195] the clerk of the justices, which set out the depositions of the witnesses when before the magistrates, and amongst others that of Susannah Taylor, who said :-When coming to my work I met the prisoner, who after some observation " began to rawl me something like ten. minutes or a quarter of an hour. I rawled till I could not rawl any longer with him. He put me against the factory gate and began to mell of, and tried to do, and had connexion with me. I did not consent to his having connexion with me," &c. She was cross-examined by the prisoner's advocate, as to whether she made any outcry or complaint to any person of the prisoner's conduct; she stated that she screamed, but the engine was going, and people could not hear her at some cottages which were near. Other witnesses spoke chiefly as to attempts by the prisoner to settle the matter. Mr. Barlow, an attorney who appeared before the magistrates as advocate for Susannah Taylor, deposed that, " the case having been called on, I proceeded to state the facts to the justices, and whilst doing so Mr. Hall, the prisoner's advocate, objected to my going into anything but a common assault; but after some argument befcwixt myself and Mr. Hall, and the justices, it was agreed that the case should be taken under the Aggravated Assaults Act, and it was so taken and dealt with, and the prisoner was committed under that Act " Kay shewed cause (Nov. 22). First, the commitment is good upon the face of it. The conviction is not before the Court, and unless it is brought before the Court by certiorari they will not look beyond the commitment. The 16 & 17 Vrict c 30, s. 1, enacta that" when any person shall be charged &c. with an assault upon any female whatever &c...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King (Martin) v Mahony
...3 E. & B. 607. (5) 2 H. & N. 219. (6) 28 L. R. Ir. 440. (7) 22 L. R. Ir. 487. (8) [1906] 2 I. R. 446. (9) [1905] 2 I. R. 101, 112. (1) 6 H. & N. 193. (2) 5 Q. B. (3) 33 L. J. M. C. 118. (4) Ibid. 98. (5) 9 I. L. R. 93. (6) 3 1. C. L. R. 589. (7) 6 Ir. Jur. (N. S.) 154. (8) 35 I. T. L. R. 87......
-
Re John Sullivan
...Ex parte BeechingENR 4 B. & C. 136; Bailey's Case & Collier'sENRUNK 3 E. & B. 607; 23 L.J.M.C.161. Keller Unreported. W. ThompsonENR 6 H. & N. 193. In re ReaUNK 2 L. R. Ir. 429. In Re Clarke 2 Q. B. 19. Charles Lampon 3 Deac & Chitty, 751, 755. Mathew's Case 5 Ir. Jur. (N.S.)225. Carus Wils......
-
Ex parte John Clarke
...Div. Bfore ANDREWS, J. Ex PARTE JOHN CLARKE In re RiceUNK Ir. R. 7 C. L. 74. Ex parte ThompsonENR 6 H. & N. 193. In re Thompson 6 Jur. ( N. S.) 1247. Reg. v. BrickhallUNK 33 L. J., M. C. 156. R. v. Justices of Surrey 1 Jur. (N. S.) 1138. The Queen v. Justices of Suffol'k 18 Q. B. 416. R. v.......
-
Wilkinson against Dutton
...& 17 Viet. c. 30, s. 1 (b), this Court held the conviction good. On a subsequent application in the same case to the Court of Exeheqne? (6 H. & N. 193), that Court was equally divided in opinion; Pollock C.B. and Wilde B. holding that, as the evidence disclosed a [824] rape or an attempt to......