Skip to Search Facets Skip to Results
Full Search Search Help

Results: 97

  • The Queen v Thomas Bailey

    20 Jan 1872 LR 1 CCR 347, CCR

    LARCENY — Process of Court — Taking with Fraudulent Purpose

  • The Queen v Brackenridge and King

    02 May 1868 LR 1 CCR 133, CCR

    FORGERY — Bank-notes — Scotch Bank

  • The Queen v Tyson

    23 Nov 1867 LR 1 CCR 107, CCR

    PERJURY — Materiality.
    KELLY, C.B. The real question is, whether on this indictment these two statements were material. We all agree that they were, as they tended to render more probable the truth of the first allegation. When it had been sworn by the witness that at the time of the robbery Sullivan was in Mint Street, it tended to render that statement infinitely more credible to add, “I, as deputy, know that he lodged there for nearly two years, and never was absent more than a night or two all that time.” Under the circumstances, without giving any opinion as to whether

  • The Queen v Morris

    01 Jun 1867 LR 1 CCR 90, CCR

    Subsequent citations: 2.
    CRIME — Autrefois convict — Assault

  • The Queen v Jarvis

    16 Nov 1867 LR 1 CCR 96, CCR

    EVIDENCE — Confession, Admissibility of.
    KELLY, C.B. While it is our duty to watch with a jealous caution the rules of law as to inducements to confess, for the sake of public justice we must not allow consideration for prisoners to interfere with the rules or decisions of courts of law. In this case, do the words fairly considered import either a threat of evil or a promise of good? They are these: “Jarvis, I think it is right that I should tell you that, besides being in the presence of my brother and myself, you are in the presence of two officers of the

  • The Queen v William E Hodgkiss

    20 Nov 1869 LR 1 CCR 212, CCR

    PERJURY — Affidavit under Bills of Sale Act (17 & 18 Vict. c. 36) — False Oath

  • R v Martin

    19 Jan 1867 LR 1 CCR 56, CCR

    Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 2.
    CRIME — False pretences — Remoteness.
    BOVILL, C.J. The question asked of us is, whether the verdict was right upon the evidence. This we understand to mean whether there was evidence to go to the jury; and so understanding it, we are all of opinion that there was. The objection urged upon us has been answered by my Brothers Willes and Blackburn in the course of the case; and it is obvious that there are many cases within the mischief of the statute where the thing obtained is not in existence when the false pretence is made. Thus a man, by false pretences, may induce a

  • The Queen v Bullock

    25 Jan 1868 LR 1 CCR 115, CCR

    CRIME — Malicious injury — Wounding Cattle

  • The Queen v Reardon and Bloor

    28 Apr 1866 LR 1 CCR 31, CCR

    CRIME — Receiving — Joint indictment

  • The Queen v Joseph N Hadfield

    04 Jun 1870 LR 1 CCR 253, CCR

    Subsequent citations: 1.
    RAILWAY — Obstruction of train — 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 36

We use cookies on this website, you can read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. To use website as intended please Accept Cookies