Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Queen's Bench; And the Court of Exchequer Chamber on Appeal from the Court of Queen's Bench [1861-1869] by William Mawdesley Best ... and George James Philip Smith Volume 7 (Paperback)

,
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1868 edition. Excerpt: ...second trial either on the same or on a fresh indictment. The only pleas known to the law founded upon a former trial are pleas of a former conviction, or a former acquittal, for the same offence; but if the former trial has been abortive without a verdict there has been neither a conviction nor an acquittal, and the plea could not be proved. That which would be matter of plea to a fresh indictment would be ground of error upon a second trial on the same indictment. As far as relates to the former abortive trial, nothing which then took place could be ground of error on the second trial on the same indictment unless it would have been a bar by way of plea to a new 1866. indictment for the same offence. All the authorities are Winsob concurrent to this effect with the single exception of the The QVBt case of Conway and Lynch v. The Queen, in error (a), and we have before given our opinion on that case. On these grounds we decide that there is no error apparent on this record, and the judgment of the Court below is affirmed. The learned counsel contended further that there was error in admitting Mary Ann Harris as a witness on the second trial, in which the prisoner fVinsor was alone given in charge to the jury. To this it was answered that it did not appear on the record that Mary Ann Harris was examined as a witness on the trial (6). (a) 7 It. Law Rep. 149. () The following is the portion of the record relating to this question. 16. "That the second trial was irregular and illegal because the said M. A. H. who was jointly charged with the said C. W. upon the said indictment for the said felony and murder was admitted to give evidence and gave evidence on the part of our said Lady the Queen against the raid C. W. 17. "That the...

R408

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

Discovery Miles4080
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 usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1868 edition. Excerpt: ...second trial either on the same or on a fresh indictment. The only pleas known to the law founded upon a former trial are pleas of a former conviction, or a former acquittal, for the same offence; but if the former trial has been abortive without a verdict there has been neither a conviction nor an acquittal, and the plea could not be proved. That which would be matter of plea to a fresh indictment would be ground of error upon a second trial on the same indictment. As far as relates to the former abortive trial, nothing which then took place could be ground of error on the second trial on the same indictment unless it would have been a bar by way of plea to a new 1866. indictment for the same offence. All the authorities are Winsob concurrent to this effect with the single exception of the The QVBt case of Conway and Lynch v. The Queen, in error (a), and we have before given our opinion on that case. On these grounds we decide that there is no error apparent on this record, and the judgment of the Court below is affirmed. The learned counsel contended further that there was error in admitting Mary Ann Harris as a witness on the second trial, in which the prisoner fVinsor was alone given in charge to the jury. To this it was answered that it did not appear on the record that Mary Ann Harris was examined as a witness on the trial (6). (a) 7 It. Law Rep. 149. () The following is the portion of the record relating to this question. 16. "That the second trial was irregular and illegal because the said M. A. H. who was jointly charged with the said C. W. upon the said indictment for the said felony and murder was admitted to give evidence and gave evidence on the part of our said Lady the Queen against the raid C. W. 17. "That the...

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

2013

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 2097

Authors

,

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 16mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

298

ISBN-13

978-1-234-38778-5

Barcode

9781234387785

Categories

LSN

1-234-38778-6



Trending On Loot