The Forum Volume 10 (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 Excerpt: ...of larceny is to make a double charge; first, that Barnett was a convict; second, that he was a thief. The first charge was true and Corson in any event can put the record of the conviction in evidence and so justify the fl-st charge, but to prove the second charge he must convince the jury before which he is a defendant that Barnett did in fact commit the theft. Should the court have charged the jury that they must accept the record of conviction as conclusive evidence of guilt when the question arises collaterally in this issue? We know that Barnett was in fact innocent. If, through the discovery of new evidence, he now can convince the jury that he was really innocent, may he not do so and thus repair his shattered reputation? It has been. repeatedly decided that where A has been indicted for a crime and acquitted, he may not give the record of the acquittal as evidence of falsity of a charge when he is confronted by a plea of truth in an action for defamation brought by him against one who revived the charge on which he had been tried. The reason given is that the parties in the two suits are not the same. The defendant in the libel suit can say with force, "I was not interested in the criminal proceeding and did not try to show A's guilt." Further, the acquittal is merely a finding that the guilt was not proven and not necessarily conclusive of A's innocence. The defendant in the libel suit may have secured conclusive evidence of A's guilt, only discovered after the acquittal. This evidence he may produce and so escape liability for the alleged libel. England v. Bourke, 3 Esp. 80; Corbley v. Wilson, 71 111. 209; McBee v. Tulton, 47 Md. 403. Mr. Odgers applies the same rule when the defendant in the libel suit offers the record ot a conviction...

R354

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles3540
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 Excerpt: ...of larceny is to make a double charge; first, that Barnett was a convict; second, that he was a thief. The first charge was true and Corson in any event can put the record of the conviction in evidence and so justify the fl-st charge, but to prove the second charge he must convince the jury before which he is a defendant that Barnett did in fact commit the theft. Should the court have charged the jury that they must accept the record of conviction as conclusive evidence of guilt when the question arises collaterally in this issue? We know that Barnett was in fact innocent. If, through the discovery of new evidence, he now can convince the jury that he was really innocent, may he not do so and thus repair his shattered reputation? It has been. repeatedly decided that where A has been indicted for a crime and acquitted, he may not give the record of the acquittal as evidence of falsity of a charge when he is confronted by a plea of truth in an action for defamation brought by him against one who revived the charge on which he had been tried. The reason given is that the parties in the two suits are not the same. The defendant in the libel suit can say with force, "I was not interested in the criminal proceeding and did not try to show A's guilt." Further, the acquittal is merely a finding that the guilt was not proven and not necessarily conclusive of A's innocence. The defendant in the libel suit may have secured conclusive evidence of A's guilt, only discovered after the acquittal. This evidence he may produce and so escape liability for the alleged libel. England v. Bourke, 3 Esp. 80; Corbley v. Wilson, 71 111. 209; McBee v. Tulton, 47 Md. 403. Mr. Odgers applies the same rule when the defendant in the libel suit offers the record ot a conviction...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

May 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

May 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 3mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

46

ISBN-13

978-1-236-12185-1

Barcode

9781236121851

Categories

LSN

1-236-12185-6



Trending On Loot