--Gravina, p. 86.
[51] Omichund _v._ Barker, Atk. I.
[52] Gaill, Lib. II. Obs. 20, Sec. 5.
[53] N.B.--In some criminal cases also, though not of treason, husband
is admitted to prove an assault upon his wife, for the King, ruled by
Raymond, Chief-Justice, Trin. 11th Geo., King _v._ Azire. And for
various other exceptions see Buller's Nisi Prius, 286, 287.
[54] Cro. Charl. 365.
[55] Omichund _v._ Barker, 1st Atkyns, ut supra.
[56] Rex _v._ Philips, Burrow, Vol. I. p. 301, 302, 304.
[57] Mayor of Hull _v._ Horner, Cowper's Reports, 109.
[58] Abrahams _v._ Bunn, Burrow, Vol. IV. p. 2254. The whole case well
worth reading.
[59] Wyndham _v._ Chetwynd, Burrow, Vol. I. p. 421.
[60] King _v._ Bray.
[61] Wyndham _v._ Chetwynd.
[62] Lowe _v._ Joliffe, 1 Black. J. p. 366.
[63] Burrow, 1147. Zouch, ex dimiss. Woolston, _v._ Woolston.
[64] In this single point Holt did not concur with the rest of the
judges.
[65] 1st Siderfin, p. 431.
[66] Interest reipublicae ut maleficia ne remaneant impunita.
[67] Love's Trial, State Trials, Vol. II. p. 144, 171 to 173, and 177;
and Foster's Crown Law, p. 235.
[68] Coppendale _v._ Bridgen, 2 Burrow, 814.
[69] Vide supra.
[70] Girdwood's Case, Leach, p.
Pages:
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160