22.8.32
192
9 Halsbury, p 263, para. 531
Archbold 28th Ed. 1485
There must be something done by the accused, and of course
there must be evidence of that.
R. v. Cooper (1833) 5 c. à p. 538
R. v. Taylor (1875)
2 0. C. R. 147
R. v. Fox 1
19 *.R. 109 at 110.
R. Y. Krause (1902) 18 T.L.R. 238
In eitament to murder:
no proof that letter ever reached the agent.
Ro Y. Lonse (1913) 110 LT. 239
Cited in the Supplement to Halsbury, Vol.9, para. 531.
ut. It is not a case of there being a
scintilla of eviden06. That decrine is gone.
There must be
evidence on which the jury could reasonably find a verdict.
13 Halsbury, p.429
Ryder ▼. Fombwall (1868) Ex. 32.
Giblin v. Halkullen (1868) #¥.C. 317
at 331, 335.
AO Y Bowden
(1856) 26 LeJ.Q.B. 3 at p.b.
The evidence here, which I dispute, and accept it only
for the purpose of argument.
Two branches (1) Chui (2) Zimmern à Christie. Chui evidence gives no evidence against the accused.
The
There
You are
between the ümui evidence and the accused.
Zimmern à Christi 17: den 06,
therefore throw back en
but that does not bridge the gap •
mmern & Christie svidenes.
There is only one
reference in their evidence to the chauffeur, the alleged
faithfulà abaugsmur statement which I acompt as true for
the purpose of argumente
9 Halsbury, p 588, para. 1190.
Z. & Christie's
evidence is no evidence that Lau was the agent of the
(110)