Attorney General v Ball
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1936 |
| Date | 01 January 1936 |
| Court | Central Criminal Court (Ireland) |
[C. Crim. Ct., I.F.S.]
Attorney-General
and
Ball
"Reconstruction" -Corpus delicti - Dead body not found - Onus of proof.
The accused was indicted for matricide. He made a statement to the effect that his mother had in her bed committed suicide with a safety razor and that he had put her body into the sea. A bloodstained hatchet was found in the house occupied by accused and deceased, and a very large amount of blood was splashed about various parts of the premises. Photographs taken of the positions...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
1 cases
-
People (Attorney General) v Thomas
...O'Daly andBudd JJ. (1) 2 Ex. D. 63. (2) 7 Cox C. C. 277. (3) 1 Lea. Cr. C. 388. (4) [1917] 2 I. R. 557. (5) 2 Lea. Cr. C. 569. (6) 70 I. L. T. R. 202. (1) 13 Cox C. C. 184. (2) 1 Cr. Cas. Res. 161. (3) 2 Cox C. C. 158. (1) [1917] 2 I. R. (1) [1943] I. R. 279. (2) [1917] 2 I. R. 557. (1) 2 E......