38
I want to refer to Abbia
that in detail.
Onge
-
your lordships have referred to
By Sibble, 1 ur. Appeal, tiêx page 158, and see 72 J.P. 1908. The appellant was tried along with a co-prisoner "hite against whom there was a ralea stronger dace. Statements of Williams and white were admitted which were evidence against Shite but not against Dybble and it is difficult to doubt the jury were prejudiced against “bble by that evidence. Other than snore that there were only grounds of strong suspicion.
5. V krris: 23 Ur, kneal imorta skách page 190. This was quoted by my friend
In that œsee the argument wont much further than this case. The questions put to the appeallant in orose-examination contained the clearest possible suggestion that he had committed the other offences. Thom questions were entirely irregular. There is no suggestion of that in this case.
Drisco"
Ke Ye Dripood 20 ur. lupeat deport is 1632
That is exactly the present case and that was decided in favour of the respondent. The appeal was dismissed.
de ▼ Hemingway 8 ur, Appeal dimmort n.48. The only evidence against the prisoner was that he was with Partridge,àìm co-defendant
rl in the evening, and also after Partridge's wrist had been injured. The prisoner was not defended and the L. C.J. indicated that if he had been defended the decision of the G.. A. might have been different.
de To Annicke é 3 Ore Anu eel tenorta n. 77. From beginning to the end of the trial the appeallant's defence was not put to the jury.
A v. Immer - 13 Cr. Annesi importa v.25. My friend read you the second paragraph there. I asked your Lordships to look at that case once today already, but the last paragraph applies the principles which I have read xxXSXIE- That case supports my case, I submit, very much more than it does my friend's.
R. Y. Covosky. 1 Cr. Appeal reports p.99. already been dealt with by your Lordships.
That case has
1. Brukên 11 °C. Ano end deporte # bottom of p. 270. here we no evidence to enable the Court to may that even with a proper direction the jury would have come to a conclusion adverse to the appellent.
de la Davis 22 Ur. Appeal senort p.24, Mother carmi knowledge
The Judge was wrong in ruling that there was any corroborative evidence implicating the accused. This is the substantial reason for quamking the conviction.
H. V. Hell 11 r. doumal importa p.225. Mint was quoted as an authority by my friend. The judge made a suggestion adverse to the defence of conspiracy of which there was no evidence, Even theXA the Court exoep tionally heard further evidence before deciding that there had been miscarriage of justice.
B. V. Ells Quie 7 Ur. Appeal reports poke That case decided that only points of real gravity should be taken in this Court.p.8. The real point in this case is that the witness Fletcher who gave the most important evidence against puallant was man whoso general character and part in the affair vore such that he required corroboration before the Jury could act upon his evidence. The judge gava undan weight to Kletcher's rcxmaxx former statement treating it as a deposition whereas it was not and it mje mred that the statement might easily have been c oncoêtod, There being no other evidence the Court could not assume that the Jury would have come the arune conclusion with a proper direction, Contrast the case immediately preceding Hill. In that onse there were many points of similarity with the present case. Circumstantial evidence of the main fact. Bo medical evidence of murder. The only person who could have done it was the prisoner. The defence was not put at all to the jury and was most unfairly ridiculed by the judge. Nevertheless the Court dismissed the appeal.
•
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.