Crime - 1200- 1799

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 41 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Oldcastle’s Case
1419	Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	In a case of treason immediate fear of death can be a justification.

Buckler's Case (1551) 1 Dyer 68; 73 ER 145
1551	Crime
	The indictment read that the defendant on a charge of murder had 'feloniously struck, killed, and murdered' the victim. Held: The words were sufficient without an allegation of 'malice aforethought'. The word murder implies 'malice aforethought'.

Reniger -v- Feogossa 75 ER 1 (ex); (1551) 1 Plowden 1
1551	Crime
	(Exchequer Chamber ) “[I]f a person that is drunk kills another, this shall be felony, and he shall be hanged for it, and yet he did it through ignorance, for when he was drunk he had no understanding nor memory, but inasmuch as that ignorance was occasioned by his own act and folly, and he might have avoided it, he shall not be privileged thereby.”

Dr Foster's Case, Concerning Recusants [1572] EngR 111; (1572-1616) 11 Co Rep 56; (1572) 77 ER 1222 (B)
1572	Ecclesiastical, Crime
	By stat. 23 Eliz c1, it is enacted that “every person above the age of 16 years, which shall not repair to some church, chapel, or usual place of common prayer, & contrary to the tenor of a statute made, &c. for uniformity of common prayer, and being thereof lawfully convicted therefor, shall forfeit to the Queen’s Majesty for every month which the or she shall so forbear twenty pounds, &c." Upon an information upon this statute. Held: The party offending may be convicted in the same indictment or information preferred or exhibited against him for the penalty.
	Link[s] omitted

Rex -v- Saunders and Archer (1573) 2 Plowd 473 Fost 371; 75 ER 706
1573	Crime
	A intended to kill his wife, and gave her a poisoned apple. She gave it her child who ate the apple and died. The defendant had not intended his daughter to eat the apple. Held: A was guilty of the murder of his daughter, but his wife, who was ignorant of the poison was innocent.

Jerome -v- Phear (1588) Cro Eliz 93; (1588) 78 ER 352
1588	Crime
	A person effecting an arrest must not use unnecessary force.

Crouther’s case (1599) 2 Hawk PC 116
1599	Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	A constable was indicted for refusing to make a hue and cry after notice of a burglary committed in the night.

Watts -v- Brains 78 ER 1009; (1600) Cro Eliz 778
1600	Crime
	No words or gestures however provoking will justify homicide from the crime of murder.

Beverley's Case (1603) 4 Coke 125
1603	Crime
	“Although he who is drunk is for the time non compos mentis, yet his drunkenness does not extenuate his act or offence nor turn to his avail, but it is a great offence in itself, and, therefore aggravates his offence, and doth not derogate from the act which he did during that time, and that as well in cases touching his life, his lands, his goods, as any other thing that concerns him.”

Mackalley's case (1611) 9 Co Rep 65 b; (1611) Cro Jac 279; [1611] ER 824
1611	Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	If an officer or magistrate is killed when executing a process or preserving the peace, the offence is murder and remains so even if there is some defect in the process being executed, or the arrest was being made at night.

Rex -v- Taverner (1616) 3 Bulstr 171
1616 Coke CJ and Croke J	Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court discussed the offence of killing in a duel. It expounded the heinousness of the offence with copious reference to the ancients and to Holy Scripture. Killing in cold blood was the sin of Cain

Rex -v- Eliot, Holles and Valentine (1629) 3 St Tr 293
1629	Constitutional, Crime	1 Citers
	Parliamentary privilege did not protect the maker against seditious comments made in the Chamber of the House.

Rex -v- Eliot, Hollis and Valentine (1629) 3 St Tr 293
1629	Crime, Constitutional	Casemap 1 Citers
	Proceedings were taken in the King’s Bench against three members of the House of Commons, who were charged with seditious speeches, contempt of the King in resisting the adjournment of the House and with conspiracy to keep the Speaker in the chair by force. All pleaded to the jurisdiction. The plea nihil dicit meant that conviction would be inevitable, but if they defended themselves at all, their contention that Parliament was the only body with jurisdiction over these matters would be totally undermined. Eliot's self-acknowledged dilemma was that if he did not submit he would incur the censure of the Court, but if he did, his act would be considered "a prejudice to posterity" and "a danger to Parliament". So he would be silent, just because his duty was to Parliament. Held: Members had no privilege to speak seditiously or behave in a disorderly manner.

Anon (1661) 1 Sid 54; (1661) 86 ER 237
1661	Crime
	An indictment for perjury or forgery was not to be quashed on a motion of insufficiency without a trial of the issues.

Rex -v- Darcy & Collins (1664) 1 Sid 186; 82 ER 1047
1664	Crime
	D & C were indicted for a misdemeanour in that D had challenged E to a dual and sent the challenge by C who knew well about it. Both defendants were Guilty.

Tuberville -v- Savage [1669] EWHC KB J25
1669	Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	Tuberville laid his hand upon his sword saying, "If it were not Assize time I would not take such language." It was held that the act could have amounted to an assault but for "the declaration that he would not assault him, the Judges being in town."
	Link[s] omitted

Rex -v- Legg (1674) Kelyng 27
1674	Crime	Casemap 1 Citers

Sedley's case (1675) Strange 168; [1675] 1 Sid 168
1675	Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant Sir Charles Sedley showed himself naked on the balcony of a house in Covent Garden in the presence of several people and urinated on them. He was indicted at common law for outraging public decency and pleaded guilty, the magistrate ruling that: "Not withstanding that there was not any Star Chamber, yet they would leave him to know that the Court of King's Bench was the custos morum of all the King's subjects and that it was then high time to punish such profane actions, committed against all modesty, when they were as frequent as if not only Christianity but morality also had been neglected."

Taylor's Case (1676) 3 Keb 607
1676	Crime	Casemap
	The court discussed the meaning of blasphemous libel. An attack on Christian beliefs would undermine and endanger society: "For to say that religion is a cheat is to dissolve all those obligations whereby the civil societies are preserved and that Christianity is a parcel of the laws of England and therefore to reproach Christianity is to speak in subversion of the law."

Rex -v- Penny 91 ER 999; (1687) 1 Ld Raym 153
1687	Defamation, Crime
	Spoken words defamatory of a private person were held not to be a crime.

Rex -v- Orbell (1703) 87 ER 804; (1703) 6 Mod 42,
1703	Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	The indictment stated that the defendants had fraudulently and per conspirationem, to cheat J.S. of his money, got him to lay a certain sum of money upon a foot race and prevailed with the party to run "booty". Held. No false representation was made to J.S. and he was not led to believe something to be true which was in fact false.

Rex -v- Wyat (1705) 1 Salk 380
1705	Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	Where an officer [a constable] neglects a duty incumbent upon him, either by common law or statute, he is for his default indictable.

Curl's Case (1727) 2 Stra 788; ER 899
1727	Defamation, Crime
	Obscene libel was recognized as an offence at common law.

Rex -v- Oneby (1727) 2 Stra 766; (1727) 1 Barn KB 17
1727	Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	Where A & B have a sudden violent quarrel, and later, after tempers shoud have cooled, A kills B, that is murder. If A says he will revenge himself on B, or will have his blood, that is express malice. The fact of killing is prima facie murder. It is for the defendant to extenuate the fact of killing.

Rex -v- Huggins and Barnes (1730) 2 Str 883; (1730) 2 Ld Raym 1574; (1730) Fitz 177
1730 KBD Lord Raymond LCJ, Lord Chief Justice	Prisons, Crime, Vicarious Liability	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant Huggins was warden of the Fleet Prison. A prisoner, Arne, died in 1725. Barnes, a gaoler had put him in a room "without fire, chamber-pot or close-stool, the walls being damp and unwholesome, and the room built over the common sewer". Thus confined, Arne "by reason of his imprisonment in the said room sickened, and by duress thereof died" 44 days later. Huggins was indicted and tried at the Old Bailey for his murder, under an allegation that as warden of the Fleet he "had the care and custody of the prisoners committed thither", that "Barnes was his servant, employed by him in taking care of the prisoners", that at the time of Arne's imprisonment Barnes and Huggins knew the room to be as before described and that Huggins was "aiding and abetting Barnes in committing the said felony and murder." The jury had returned a special verdict finding that Barnes was in fact the servant of Huggins' deputy, Gibbon, and that Huggins had visited the cell only once, some 15 days before Arne died. Held: In a certiorari in the Kings Bench, the judges concluded that Barnes, if indicted, would, on the facts as found by the jury, have been guilty of murder, but that Huggins was not guilty. Lord Raymond LCJ said: "Though he was warden, yet it being found, that there was a deputy; he is not, as warden, guilty of the facts committed under the authority of his deputy. He shall answer as superior for his deputy civilly, but not criminally. It has been settled, that though a sheriff must answer for the offences of his gaoler civilly, that is, he is subject in an action, to make satisfaction to the party injured; yet he is not to answer criminally for the offences of his under-officer. He only is criminally punishable, who immediately does the act, or permits it to be done. Hale's P. C. 114. So that if an act be done by an under-officer, unless it is done by the command or direction, or with the consent of the principal, the principal is not criminally punishable for it. In this case the fact was done by Barnes; and it no where appears in the special verdict, that the prisoner at the Bar ever commanded, or directed, or consented to this duress of imprisonment, which was the cause of Arne's death." In Strange's report: "It is a point not to be disputed, but that in criminal cases the principal is not answerable for the act of the deputy, as he is in civil cases: they must each answer for their own acts, and stand or fall by their own behaviour. All the authors that treat of criminal proceedings, proceed on the foundation of this distinction; that to affect the superior by the act of the deputy, there must be the command of the superior, which is not found in this case." Fitz-Gibbons reported: "The act of the deputy cannot criminally affect the principal; so that unless the act be by command, consent, or privity of the principal, so as to make him an abettor, he cannot be guilty."

Rex -v- Burford (1731) 2 Barn KB 80; (1831) 97 ER 369
1731	Crime
	A motion of prosection was granted.

The Case of Macdaniel And Others [1746] EngR 531; (1746-1809) Fost 121; (1746) 168 ER 60
1746	Crime
	Indictment against accessaries before the fact in robbery.
	Link[s] omitted

Alexander MacGrowther’s Case [1746] Fost 13; [1746] EngR 782; (1746) Fost 13; (1746) 168 ER 8
1746 Lee CJ	Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	In the rule that necessity might be a defence to a criminal charge, the distinction was drawn between threats directed against the person and threats upon property. "The only force that doth excuse is a force upon the person, and present fear of death ; and this force and fear must continue all the time the party remains with the rebels. It is incumbent on every man, who makes force his defence, to show an actual force, and that he quitted the service as soon as he could."
	Link[s] omitted

Rex -v- White and Ward (1757) 1 Burr 333
1757	Crime	Casemap
	The court considered the law of public nuisance to be the nuisance to "all the King's liege subjects" living in Twickenham and travelling and passing the King's highway was impregnating the air with "noisome and offensive stinks and smells". Each defendant, on undertaking to avoid repetition, was fined 6s 8d.

Rex -v- Wheatly (1761) 2 Burr 1127; [1761] 97 ER 746
1761 Lord Mansfield	Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	Lord Mansfield discussed the common law offence of cheating: "The offence that is indictable must be such a one as affects the public. As if a man uses false weights and measures and sells by them . . in the general course of his dealing: so if a man defrauds another under false tokens."

Rex -v- Rispal [1762] EngR 54; (1762) 3 Burr 1320; (1762) 97 ER 852 (B)
19 Jun 1762	Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendants were accused of having falsely accused another man, Mr Chilton, of having removed hair from bales of human hair being sold. Mr Chilton was arrested. Held. The justices of peace had jurisdiction in the present case; a conspiracy being a trespass, and tending to a breach of the peace and they held, that the indictment was well laid ; and that the gist of the offence is the unlawful conspiring to injure the man by this false charge. They all therefore concurred in opinion, that the rule ought to be discharged.
	Link[s] omitted

Delaval's Case (1763) 3 Burr 1434
1763	Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant was convicted for outraging public decency, having procuring a girl for the purposes of prostitution.

Rex -v- Royce (1767) 4 Burr 2073; 98 ER 81
1767 CCR	Crime
	The defendant was accused of riot. Held. Involvement in a riot as a secondary party could be established by showing verbal encouragement of those physically involved at the time.

Scott -v- Shepherd (1773) 3 Wils 403; [1773] 2 Wm Bl 892; (1773) 95 ER 1124
1773	Crime, Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	An accusation of assault and trespass will lie where the defendant threw a squib which was then thrown about by others in self defence, but eventually exploded putting out the plaintiff's eye.

Rex -v- Rudd [1775] 1 Cowp 331; [1775] 1 Leach 115; [1775] 98 ER 1114
1775 Lord Mansfield	Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	Mrs Rudd applied for a writ of habeas corpus, having already given evidence as an accomplice and being ready to give further evidence to assist in convicting her partners in crime. Held: Where a co-accused gave evidence for the crown and sought a pardon after conviction, his claim was for the mercy only of the crown, and had to be based upo the magistrates' implied promise and his own wholhearted co-operation and full disclosure. Lord Mansfield: "If she had such a right, we should be bound ex debito justitiae to bail her. If she had not such legal right, but yet came under circumstances sufficient to warrant the court in saying, that she had a title to a recommendation to the King for a pardon, we should bail her for the purpose of giving her an opportunity of applying for such pardon." The defendant could not claim a pardon as of right (a pardon promised by proclamation or given under statute or earned by the ancient procedure of approvement) but:- "There is besides a practice, which indeed does not give a legal right; and that is where accomplices having made a full and free confession of the whole truth, are in consequence thereof admitted evidence for the Crown and that evidence is afterwards made use of to convict the other offenders. If in that case they act fairly and openly, and discover the whole truth, though they are not entitled as of right to a pardon, yet the usage, lenity and the practice of the courts is to stop the prosecution against them and they have an equitable title to a recommendation for the King’s mercy."

Macdaniel’s Case (1775) 19 St Tr 745
1775	Crime	1 Citers
	It is the indictable offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice knowingly to charge a man falsely with any crime.

Rex -v- Stratton (1779) 21 How St Tr 1045
1779 Lord Mansfield	Crime
	It was just possible to imagine cases in which the expediency of breaking the law was so overwhelming that people might be justified in breaking it. The rule could be extended to cases of treason upon a general principle that it could to be extended to other classes of crime.

Rex -v- Bainbridge (1783) 22 St Tr 1
1782 Lord Mansfield CJ	Crime	Casemap 1 Citers

Rex -v- Bembridge (1783) 3 Doug K B 32
1783 Lord Mansfield	Crime	Casemap
	"Here there are two principles applicable: first, that a man accepting an office of trust concerning the public, especially if attended with profit, is answerable criminally to the King for misbehaviour in his office; this is true, by whomsoever and in whatsoever way the officer is appointed…… secondly, where there is a breach of trust, fraud or imposition, in a matter concerning the public, though as between individuals it would only be actionable, yet as between the King and the subject it is indictable. That such should be the rule is essential to the existence of the country".

The King -v- E Topham [1791] EngR 1268; (1791) 4 TR 126; (1791) 100 ER 931
29 Jan 1791	Crime
	An indictment for publishing libellous matter, reflecting on the memory of a dead person, not alleging that it was done with a design to bring contempt on the family of the deceased, and to stir up the hatred of the King’s subjects against them, and to excite his relations to a breach of the peace, cannot be supported. Proof that the defendant gave a bond to the Stamp-Office for the duties on the advertisements in a newspaper, and had occasionally applied at the Stamp-Office respecting the duties, is evidence that he is the publisher. Vide Pult. de Pace, 2.
	Link[s] omitted

Penruddock and Lanxfords Case [1792] EngR 1775; (1792) 1 Bulst 93; (1792) 80 ER 791 (B)
1792	Crime
	Exception taken by Yelverton, to quash an indictment of murder being quod, &.c percussit, and doth not say felonice percussit. The Court held this to be a good exception, The Attorney General urged that the indictment was sufficient notwithstanding this exception for that the words mudravit doth imply felonice.
	Link[s] omitted