Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
There were two indictments in this case, upon both of which a discussion took place as to the relevancy.
The Lords, (1st June,) held that they were not prepared to sustain the objection as fatal to the relevancy of the libel altogether, but they expressed such an opinion as to the effect which they must give to it if the trial proceeded upon this indictment, that Mr Solicitor-General deserted the diet pro loco et tempore.
Objected to the relevancy, in so far as concerned the words, ‘or by some other means to the prosecutor unknown .’
Lord Mackenzie .—The authorities quoted are certainly entitled to the greatest respect; and the rules laid down and founded on are, generally speaking, correct; but they do not appear to me to support the objection to the extent to which it is maintained.
I cannot therefore sustain the objection to these words, as stated in the present indictment, which, it will be observed, contains a specification of the modus operandi adopted by the public prosecutor, as that which appears to him to be the most consistent with the appearances. At the same time, if, in the course of the trial, the prosecutor prove any other mode of killing not specified, and which, by his offering proof of it, could not be unknown to him, the pannel will be entitled to an acquittal.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.