The Queen v John Ahearne

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeal
Judgment Date14 April 1852
Date14 April 1852

Cr. Appeal.


King v. Sudbury 1 Lord Ray. 484.

Thody's caseENR 1 Vent. 234.

The King v. CookeENR 5 B. & C. 538.

Rex v. Kinnersley and Moore 1 Stra. 193.

The King v. NicolsENR 13 East, 412 (in note.)

Lord Sanchar's caseUNK 9 Rep. 119.

Marsh v. Vauhan Cro. Eliz. 701.

COMMON LAW REPORTS. 381 E. T. 1852. Cr. Appeal. Court of Criminal aping.* THE QUEEN v. JOHN AHEARNE. April 14. Tnis case was reserved by MOORE, J., from the last Spring Assizes A prisoner charged was of the county of Waterford. on an indict- The case stated that the prisoner was tried and convicted on a and meatt he that others charge of conspiracy to murder one James Troy, and which murder conspired with was effected on the 27th of October 1851. unknown,naan uthd dnothers r ;To The indictment charged, that the prisoner John Ahearne, Maurice The three priÂÂAhearne and Patrick Power, conspired with each other, and with soners were in custody and others unknown, to murder the said James Troy. The three pri- arraigned, and severally soners named in the indictment were in custody, and were arraigned, pleaded not guilty ; but and severally pleaded not guilty ; but having refused to join in their refusing to ialnlenintheir challenges, the Counsel for the Crown put the prisoner John Ahearne join wtraiaslputao and on his trial, and he was accordingly given in charge to the jury hirenise the evi sworn to try him. affecteddence him named the other h in The evidence given on the part of the Crown tended to affect the and prisoner John, and also the other two prisoners named in the indict- ment: tindtiht-e ment, and made a case to go to the jury as to a conspiracy by the was no evi dence to show three ; but there was no evidence to show that any other person that any other person was besides those named in the indictment was engaged in the alleged engaged in the conspiracy. conspiracy. Held, that it was not neces sary that the other two prisoners should have been tried with him, though they were amenable to justice, because, being found guilty by an unexceptionable ver dict, judgment must follow. * LEFROY, C. J. ;i* MONAHAN, C. J. ; CRAMPTON, J. ; MOORE, J., and GREENE, B., presiding. t MEMORANDUM. In the Vacation after Hilary Term The Right Hon. FRANCIS BLACKBURNE was appointed Lord Chancellor, and The Right Hon. THOMAS LEFROY, then Baron of the Exchequer, was appointed his successor in the Court of Queen's Bench, and took his seat on the 14th of April 1852. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT