13
could admit it only on the exceptional grounds.
You
have a complete statement of the law in R. v. Bond,
R. . Bell (1911) A.C. 47.
k. V. Thompson (1918) A. C. 221.
Thompson's cse is cited in Halsbury's Supplement
on the aragraph quoted by the Crown on p.447.
R. v. Armstrong, (1942) @ X.B. 555.
Cases where the evidence was not admitted:
E. v. Butler (1846) 2 c. ♣ K. 221.
F. v. Oddy (1851) 20 L.J. (K.C.) 198.
2.30 P..
R. v. Holt (1860) 30 L.J. (M.C.) 11.
R. v. Fisher (1910) 1 K.B. 149, at 152/3.
...... ▼, llis (1910) & K.B. 746, at 756 et seq,& 760.
12.30 to 3.30 p.m. Adj urnment.
Potter (continuing).
A v. Kodley (1913) 3 K. ́. 468.
The conviction was quashed, Logically, the evidence
would have been admissible.
to Cheng's state of mind.
It is right on the point as
Perkins v. Jeffrey (1915) 2 K.B. 702.
The Zimmern and Christie evidence is not admissible
to show Cheng's state of mind with a view to inferring
from it the agency of Lau. See 13 Halsbury, 453.
The Zimmern and Christie evidence is not relevant
logically, or in the view of the man in the street.
If you put it into a logical form it would run somewhat
as follows;
1.Men who engage persons to commit murder are
likely to œ-ploy other men to commit murder.
2.The Prisoner employed Zimmern and Christie to
commit a marder.