Young v Slaughterford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 88 E.R. 1007
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
case 295. young against slaughterford. A juror having been on the grand jury, or of the coroner's inquest, or being uncle to the prisoner, are good causes of challenge.-S. C. ante, 217. At a trial at Bar in an appeal of murder; Holt, Chief Justice, said, to which the rest did not dissent, that it was a good cause of challenge by the appellee to one of the jury, that he was one of the grand jury who found the bill against the appellee, upon which he was indicted at Kingston Assizes: also that the being of the coroner's inquest, is good cause of challenge by the appellee: also being uncle to the appellee, is good cause of challenge by the appellant. But the appellee denying him to be any relation, the Court directed it to be tried on a voir dire. One being produced to be a witness against the appellee who was under twelve years of age, The appellee's counsel objected to him for that reason ; and besides, they said he had taken money. Holt, Chief Justice, said, that if he knew the danger of an oath, he might be a witness : and that appearing, he was admitted. And secondly, suppose he had taken money, that is no reason why his testimony shall not be taken; but if it be proved, the jury may give the less credit to his evidence. But suppose one gives or promises a witness money if the cause go on that side, he cannot be admitted to give evidence. [229] Sir Peter King objected, that in an indictment evidence of discourse preceding the fact is not to be given. But Holt, Chief Justice, said, that they might give in evidence anything that explains the fact. The appellee being found guilty of the murder, came afterwards to receive the judgment of the Court; and being arraigned, and asked what he had to say why judgment should not be given : Mr. Eyre, Solicitor General, moved in arrest of judgment, that the appeal was not good ; and took his exceptions to it. First, that there are two places mentioned in the appeal, viz. that he was com-morant at Shalford, and that the fact was done at Compton; afterwards it says, " die, anno, horn, et loco prced. eandem Jane Young percussit." Secondly, there is no venue laid to the assault; for it is said that the deceased being at Gompton, &c. " venit prced. Ghristop. Slaughterfurd felonice, voluntarie, et ex malitia sucl prcecogitatd ut felo dictce domince Regince mine, ac contra pacem, &c. die et hora...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King v Brasier
...was respited, on a dombt, created by a marginal note to a case in Dyer's Reports (Dyer, 303, b, in marg.; 1 Hale, 302, 634 ; 2 Hale, 279 ; 11 Mod. 228 ; 1 Atkins, 29 ; Foster, 70 , 2 Hawk 612 ; GiIK L. E. 144); for these notes having been made by Lord Chief-Justice Treby, are considered of ......