Son of John Rutherford III and Violet Reynolds Born ca 1727 Essex Cty Va Married unknown Died ca 1799, after 1799. Early settler of Grayson Cty Va. Children Thomas II
As Lord Hunter pointed out in Thomson v. H.M.A. 1986 SLT 281, there has been quite a substantial development of the exception allowed by our law in cases of discovery of adultery. That that is so is apparent from the more recent authorities of McKay v. H.M.A. 1991 SCCR 364 and Rutherford v. H.M.A. 1997 SCCR 711. This manifestly was never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, and, therefore, the attempt by the Legislature to confer such jurisdiction is simply nugatory and void." Citing Ex parte O'Neill, 8 Md. 227; State v. Shields, 49 Md. 301; and State v. Glenn, 54 Md. 594. Go to Harris v HMA 2010 - conduct must affect the public peace for breach of the peace Man verbally threatened 2 police offers on separate attempts and said this was not breach of the peace but court said they didn't need to define public disturbance and they were charged. Rutherford v Miln [1940] ScotCS CSIH - 6 13 Dec 1940 scs Scotland [ Bailii] O'Hara v Central Scotland Motor Traction Co. Ltd [1941] ScotCS CSIH - 1 25 Mar 1941 scs Scotland [ Bailii] Hma v Hill [1941] ScotHC HCJ - 1 16 Apr 1941 HCJ Scotland, Crime [ Bailii] Inglis v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co [1941] ScotCS CSIH - 2 3 Jul 1941 scs
The case brief underlines that the lawsuit of Block v Rutherford was revised by the Supreme Court of the USA to resolve the issue whether the rules of Central Jail infringed the prisoner`s rights or whether it was explained to maintain the security.
*HMA v Hayes 1973 every person, regardless of past, has same presumption of innocence (burden on crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt) HMA v Rutherford 1947 Strangled wife, consent as defense, new "probably and natural" consequence of actions Clear authority is to be found for that proposition in the cases of HM Advocate v Rutherford 1947 J.C. 1 (murder); Smart v HM Advocate 1975 J.C. 30 (assault); and Finlayson v HM Advocate 1979 J.C. HM Advocate v Rutherford (1947) SLT 3. Jessop v Johnstone 1991 SCCR 238. Kay v Butterworth (1945) 61 TLR 452. Lord Advocate’s Reference No.2 of 1992 (1992) SCCR 960. MacLeod v Mathieson (1993) SCCR 488. R v Quick (1973) QB 910. Ross v HM Advocate (1991) SCCR 823. Sorley v HM Advocate (1992) SCCR 396. Books
HM Adv v Rutherford 1947 JC 1. Recent possession of stolen property – Applies only in theft or reset Raises presumption of guilt if three conditions are present: (1) Stolen goods found in the accused’s actual possession (2) Interval between theft and discovery of goods must be short (3) Must be other criminative circumstances pointing to
criminal law (m9111) weeks 10: 2016/17 homicide introduction this week and next week we will be looking at the law on homicide. criminal non-criminal homicide HM Advocate v Rutherford 1947 JC 1 Charged with murder by strangulation, said she had asked to be strangled, guilty of culpable homicide, could be inferred that a person is presumed to intend natural and probable consequences of his actions. HMA v Steven Batten, Dale Thomson, Aidan Peter Patrick Kelly and Jordan Craig. Thursday, 16 July, 2020. HMA v James Whitton Kerr. Friday, 10 July, 2020. HMA V Janey Mains (Sutherlay) Monday, 6 July, 2020. Contempt of Court Finding. Friday, 3 July, 2020. HMA v Charlene Keenan or Gallacher. Friday, 26 June, 2020 Rutherford v. State of California (1987) - 188 Cal. App. 3d 1267, 233 Cal. Rptr. 781 Jun 16, 2017 · Here the court refused the appeal. The court proceeded on the sheriff’s view of the relevant part of the statement not having been adopted. The court went on to consider that in relation to such appeals under section 106(3)(b) the test outlined by the Lord Justice General in Williamson v HMA 2016 HCJAC 115 had not been met.