<div1 type="SM_GOpage" id="LMSMGO55605GO556050052"> <xptr type="pageFacsimile" doc="LMSMGO556050052"></xptr>
<p n="223"> <note type="authorial" place="margin">1764.<lb></lb>
<rs type="date" id="LMSMGO55605_date44">Octor. 18th</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_date44" type="date" value="17641018"></interp>
.</note>
Audley Case Vizt. "that where the King is party and an Injury is done<lb></lb>
to the wife herself she is a good Witness" be extended to other Cases of<lb></lb>
Violence than that of Lord Audley</p>
<p n="224">As to the Argument from the Remedy which the wife has by the<lb></lb>
Surety of the Peace it seems a Solecism to say that for Threats and<lb></lb>
Menances for the bare Apprehension of Violence she shall have it on her<lb></lb>
own Oath, but of Violence actually committed even to the Amount of<lb></lb>
Mayhem her Testimony is not admissable; and there seems to be no<lb></lb>
greater reason for Admitting the wife to prove the Forfeiture of the<lb></lb>
Recognizance than to prove violence in the First Instance.</p>
<p n="225">But whether or not this is now the law is the Question for in the<lb></lb>
Case of the King agst. Azire,. a Husband was Indicted for an Assault<lb></lb>
upon his wife and the Chief Justice Lord Raymond Allowed her to be a<lb></lb>
good Witness and Cited Lord Audleys Case Sha 633</p>
<p n="226">At the Summer Assizes held at Coventy <rs type="persName" id="LMSMGO55605_n226-1">Thomas Dwyer</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_n226-1" type="given" value="Thomas"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_n226-1" type="surname" value="Dwyer"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_n226-1" type="gender" value="male"></interp>
<lb></lb>
was Tried before Sir <rs type="persName" id="LMSMGO55605_n226-2">Sidney Stafford Smythe</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_n226-2" type="given" value="Sidney"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_n226-2" type="surname" value="Stafford Smythe"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_n226-2" type="gender" value="male"></interp>
on an Indictment for<lb></lb>
Violently assaulting and Wounding <rs type="persName" id="LMSMGO55605_n226-3">Mariana</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_n226-3" type="given" value="Mariana"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_n226-3" type="surname" value="Stafford Smythe"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_n226-3" type="gender" value="unknown"></interp>
his <rs type="occupation" id="LMSMGO55605_occ170">wife</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_occ170" type="occupation" value="wife"></interp>
up on her left Ann<lb></lb>
with a Hatchet, and convicted on the Sole Evidence of the wife and</p>
<p n="227">In July Sessions 1763 at the <rs type="placeName" id="LMSMGO55605_geo193">Old Bailey</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_geo193" type="placeName" value="Old Bailey"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_geo193" type="type" value="undefined"></interp>
<rs type="persName" id="LMSMGO55605_n227-1">William Lee</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_n227-1" type="given" value="William"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_n227-1" type="surname" value="Lee"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_n227-1" type="gender" value="male"></interp>
was tried<lb></lb>
before £d. C B. Parker upon an Indictment on the Coventry Act for<lb></lb>
laying in Wait and Maiming his wife and she was Admitted to prove<lb></lb>
the Fact which was that the Husband at going to bed had Secreted a<lb></lb>
Razor with which he wounded the wife in the Throat, but this not being<lb></lb>
such a lying in wait nor the Wound such a Mayhem as the Act<lb></lb>
requires he was acquitted but Ordered to remain for the Assault of<lb></lb>
which he was afterwards convicted at <rs type="placeName" id="LMSMGO55605_geo194">Hicks Hall</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_geo194" type="placeName" value="Hicks Hall"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_geo194" type="type" value="undefined"></interp>
on the Evidence of<lb></lb>
the wife</p>
<p n="228">It is said that the Resolution in Lord Audleys Case has been<lb></lb>
Censured on Account of some Irregularities in the Proceedings<lb></lb>
the neither Sir Matt. Hall nor Serjt. Hawkins say any thing in<lb></lb>
Derrogation of its Authority but whether the Resolution in Browns<lb></lb>
Case in which Hale and the whole Court delivered their Opinions<lb></lb>
seriatim this latter one of Lord Raymonds in Azires Case and<lb></lb>
the Subsequent Cases at the Assizes and the <rs type="placeName" id="LMSMGO55605_geo195">Old Bailey</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_geo195" type="placeName" value="Old Bailey"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55605_geo195" type="type" value="undefined"></interp>
above Stated<lb></lb>
be not a Recognition of the Principle on which Lord Audleys<lb></lb>
Case was resolved and a Determination of the Law in this Respect<lb></lb>
is what the Justices for Middx would gladly know</p>
<p n="229">Upon the whole they are greatly at a loss how to determine in<lb></lb>
Cases of this Nature, which happen frequently they require an<lb></lb>
Opinion to direct them in their Duty and desire to be informed<lb></lb>
whether or no the Evidence of a wife there being no Witness but her<lb></lb>
self to the fact be admissable to prove the Assault upon her own Person<lb></lb>
by her Husband</p>
<p n="230"> <note type="authorial" place="margin">Answer</note>
This is vexata Questio upon which there have been and I believe</p>
</div1>

View as Text