Tumblety's Bail - A Fresh Perspective

[Mr Lucky]

Well you have got it all wrong.

The reason the magistrate refused bail was because the sum in question that Mullins was being accused of obtaining by false pretences was a massive £16,000 (from the North-Western Bank).

If this was being treated as a felonly, the Defence Counsel, Mr Rodway, could not have said: "Seeing, sir, that there is an authority that bail will be given, and they are entitled to it if they go to London". The ability to apply to a Judge in Chambers for a writ of habeas corpus only applied to prisoners charged with misdemeanors.

The magistrate agrees because he says: "That is after the case was committed. I know the case you allude to, it was Justice Lush. I remember it." In other words, he is saying that Mullins could indeed go to see a judge in chambers to get himself released from custody (because he was only being charged with a misdemeanour) but he could not do so until committal. This would not apply to a felony charge.

Had you been right (which you aren't) I have no idea where you think it would have got you but being wrong we don't need trouble ourselves with that.

I don't think you are capable of understand the point I've made.

I'll leave you to your sophistry.

The ability to apply to a Judge in Chambers for a writ of habeas corpus only applied to prisoners charged with misdemeanors.

PS this is hilarious, I wont embarrass you by asking have you got a credible legal source for it.

[Chris]

I havnet studied this case in detail but from what I see, Ginger was out on bail before committal but it doesn't say if he had a surety or if he had been bailed in his own recognizance up until then.

Please follow the link I provided and read the post.

[David Orsam]

I havnet studied this case in detail but from what I see, Ginger was out on bail before committal but it doesn't say if he had a surety or if he had been bailed in his own recognizance up until then. Now that doesn't necessary mean a monetary recognizance it could have been in his own recognizance.

It was, I believe, in his own recognizance in this case (and I will be supplying more details in due course) but that really doesn't get you anywhere. For Tumblety it could easily have been one surety at the remand hearing and then the magistrate at committal insisted on two sureties, causing the 48 hour delay between 14 and 16 November.

After hearing the evidence he was duly committed it was at that point that the court were entitled to ask him for a monetary recognizance or a surety

But the court were equally entitled to ask a prisoner for a monetary recognizance or a surety at the first remand hearing. So you are getting nowhere.

The two day Tumblety gap is a mirror image of the way the courts worked with regards to sureties

You keep saying things without providing a single authority to support your words.

[Chris]

The cases quoted relate to sureties being obtained in the first instance before committal. Tumbleties sureties did not come into play until after committal. So he could not have been bailed before with sureties. So there could have been no amendment.

If he had sureties already in place from Nov 7th. There would be no need for the police/court to take 2 days to check them out on Nov 14th

Everyone seems to be missing the obvious that there was a 2 day gap between committal and bail. Thats not consistent with sureties already being in place

You don't seem to take in anything that's said to you.

[David Orsam]

Hi All,

I appreciate most can not follow the point I made

R v Mullins

Mr Raffles: I exercise my discretion, knowing what I do of the case, and shall not grant bail.

Why does Mr Ruffles say this?

This charge involved a bank and 'false pretences', so the crime likely needed some sort of forgery to work. either by pretending to be someone else or falsifying a power of attorney, or forging some type of legal instrument - all of which is felony

Therefore in this case R. v Mullins, the charge is a misdemeanour (the theft - for which evidence exists) but the misdemeanour depended on whether the accused actually committed the act of forgery (felony - but for which there is no evidence)

So the felony is corpus delecti on the misdemeanour being proved

There is an ancient rule (going at least back to Hale) that once a felony was committed, all succeeding illegal acts are also felony.

This is why I would suggest that this case R v Mullins was treated differently by the magistrates regarding the granting of bail - despite only being able to charge him with a misdemeanour they refused him bail due to it technically being felony.

Well you have got it all wrong.

The reason the magistrate refused bail was because the sum in question that Mullins was being accused of obtaining by false pretences was a massive £16,000 (from the North-Western Bank).

If this was being treated as a felonly, the Defence Counsel, Mr Rodway, could not have said: "Seeing, sir, that there is an authority that bail will be given, and they are entitled to it if they go to London". The ability to apply to a Judge in Chambers for a writ of habeas corpus only applied to prisoners charged with misdemeanors.

The magistrate agrees because he says: "That is after the case was committed. I know the case you allude to, it was Justice Lush. I remember it." In other words, he is saying that Mullins could indeed go to see a judge in chambers to get himself released from custody (because he was only being charged with a misdemeanour) but he could not do so until committal. This would not apply to a felony charge.

Had you been right (which you aren't) I have no idea where you think it would have got you but being wrong we don't need trouble ourselves with that.

[Trevor Marriott]

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the entry relating to Henry George Ginger, posted by Dr Fell seven years ago, demonstrate that it's not safe to assume from those data that Tumblety was in custody until Friday 16th November?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=4529&postcount=48

The entries seem to be parallel in all essentials, yet we know from a newspaper report of his committal that Ginger had been out on bail until then. (There is even the parallel circumstance that after his committal Ginger wasn't bailed until the following day.)

I havnet studied this case in detail but from what I see, Ginger was out on bail before committal but it doesn't say if he had a surety or if he had been bailed in his own recognizance up until then. Now that doesn't necessary mean a monetary recognizance it could have been in his own recognizance.

After hearing the evidence he was duly committed it was at that point that the court were entitled to ask him for a monetary recognizance or a surety, and he was clearly remanded until he could come up with one or both and then he was bailed the next day when he did.

The two day Tumblety gap is a mirror image of the way the courts worked with regards to sureties

[David Orsam]

The cases quoted relate to sureties being obtained in the first instance before committal. Tumbleties sureties did not come into play until after committal. So he could not have been bailed before with sureties. So there could have been no amendment.

If he had sureties already in place from Nov 7th. There would be no need for the police/court to take 2 days to check them out on Nov 14th

Everyone seems to be missing the obvious that there was a 2 day gap between committal and bail. Thats not consistent with sureties already being in place

Trevor, this has been explained to you over and over, again and again, including in this thread and you still don't seem to get it. It is remarkably simple. If Tumblety's bail was increased at the committal hearing then he would have needed to get his sureties sorted out all over again.

And your post contains an odd assumption. "Tumbleties sureties did not come into play until after committal." We have no idea whether Tumblety had sureties (whether the same individuals or different ones) on 8 November. We don't know what bail was set by the magistrate.

"he could not have been bailed before with sureties." Of course he could. What on earth are you talking about?

"If he had sureties already in place from Nov 7th. There would be no need for the police/court to take 2 days to check them out on Nov 14th". If the bail was increased from say £50 to £150 for each surety then the police need to check out that the sureties, previously checked out for £50, are good for £150. Or the original sureties were replaced with new ones. This is not rocket science.

No-one is missing the 2 day gap between committal and bail. It is consistent with sureties being in place if the bail was increased.

[Mr Lucky]

I don't think I'm going to be able to help you.

I don't want your help, thanks

[Mr Lucky]

Hi All,

I appreciate most can not follow the point I made

R v Mullins

Mr Raffles: I exercise my discretion, knowing what I do of the case, and shall not grant bail.

Why does Mr Ruffles say this?

This charge involved a bank and 'false pretences', so the crime likely needed some sort of forgery to work. either by pretending to be someone else or falsifying a power of attorney, or forging some type of legal instrument - all of which is felony

Therefore in this case R. v Mullins, the charge is a misdemeanour (the theft - for which evidence exists) but the misdemeanour depended on whether the accused actually committed the act of forgery (felony - but for which there is no evidence)

So the felony is corpus delecti on the misdemeanour being proved

There is an ancient rule (going at least back to Hale) that once a felony was committed, all succeeding illegal acts are also felony.

This is why I would suggest that this case R v Mullins was treated differently by the magistrates regarding the granting of bail - despite only being able to charge him with a misdemeanour they refused him bail due to it technically being felony.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok you won't accept it. Never the less if they had evidence of a felony they would charge him with that, and not with the misdemeanour. End of story



What kind of answer is that ? - you simply don't know what you are talking about do you ?

You are absolutely right he is in a world of his own, he needs to stick to the facts and stop coming up with his "What if`s"

[Trevor Marriott]

The point is that it makes nonsense of your claim that "there would be no need to increase the amounts. that would serve no purpose and the court would have simply agreed to those same amounts to continue," because those are general considerations that would apply to all cases or none.

The cases quoted relate to sureties being obtained in the first instance before committal. Tumbleties sureties did not come into play until after committal. So he could not have been bailed before with sureties. So there could have been no amendment.

If he had sureties already in place from Nov 7th. There would be no need for the police/court to take 2 days to check them out on Nov 14th

Everyone seems to be missing the obvious that there was a 2 day gap between committal and bail. Thats not consistent with sureties already being in place

[David Orsam]

Ok you won't accept it. Never the less if they had evidence of a felony they would charge him with that, and not with the misdemeanour. End of story

I don't know what you mean by "End of story". You clearly have something on your mind but I believe you are very confused and don't actually understand what I have been saying in this thread.

What kind of answer is that ? - you simply don't know what you are talking about do you ?

I don't wish to be rude Mr Lucky but you either haven't read my original post very carefully or you haven't understood a word of it. You certainly haven't understood the case of R.v Mullins. I don't think I'm going to be able to help you.

[Mr Lucky]

Asking me "Will you accept..." is a strange way of phrasing the question. Of course if the police had evidence of Tumblety having committed a felony they would have charged him with that felony. It doesn't mean they wouldn't charged with him with the misdemeanour too but, having been charged with a felony, section 21 of the Indictable Offences Act would not apply.

Ok you won't accept it. Never the less if they had evidence of a felony they would charge him with that, and not with the misdemeanour. End of story

Mullins was being charged with a misdemeanor.

What kind of answer is that ? - you simply don't know what you are talking about do you ?

[David Orsam]

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the entry relating to Henry George Ginger, posted by Dr Fell seven years ago, demonstrate that it's not safe to assume from those data that Tumblety was in custody until Friday 16th November?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=4529&postcount=48

The entries seem to be parallel in all essentials, yet we know from a newspaper report of his committal that Ginger had been out on bail until then. (There is even the parallel circumstance that after his committal Ginger wasn't bailed until the following day.)

Chris, I'm going to be dealing with this in detail in my next main post on the subject (hopefully tomorrow if I have the time)

[David Orsam]

Will you accept that if the police had evidence of a felony committed by Tumblety they wouldn't charge him with a misdemeanour at the magistrates?

Asking me "Will you accept..." is a strange way of phrasing the question. Of course if the police had evidence of Tumblety having committed a felony they would have charged him with that felony. It doesn't mean they wouldn't charged with him with the misdemeanour too but, having been charged with a felony, section 21 of the Indictable Offences Act would not apply.

- see the first two entries in your list in post one.

Assault with intent to commit felony and attempt to commit felony were both misdemeanors.

did you know a felony can be corpus delicti on a misdemeanour ? - and this can be deduced from the evidence given to the magistrate (I presume you didn't - as I would suggest it's the most likely explanation for circumstances in the r v mullins case you brought up)

Mullins was being charged with a misdemeanor.