Talk:Bushel's Case

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The William Mead originally linked to was not born until well after the case referenced here; to me, it made no sense to retain such an obviously misleading link. Shawn K. Quinn 04:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Spelling

I agree, because of the historical importance of the case keeping the title as it was originally in historical archives is important. The correct spelling is Bushell. PascalsCalculatingHamster (talk)

Spelling?

An IP just changed Bushel to Bushell claiming that all external links use to 'l's, yet I see one using one L, a second using both spellings, and one using two Ls. Does anyone know what the correct spelling is, or are both correct? Martin451 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(This comment was, I think, made by Martin451.)

I very much doubt whether anyone at the time thought that there was a "correct spelling". English spelling only got standardised in the era of Samuel Johnson in the following century.

Since the article title only uses one "l", I think we should stick with that, and revert the change. Paul Taylor (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification in order?

From the reference to jury nullification, do I properly that the jury found that the defendants were innocent on the grounds that the statute was illegal, not on the grounds that the defendants hadn't committed the crime? The way it's written sounds as if Court was trying to force the jury to find the defendants guilty regardless of the facts of the case, which would be quite a shocking chapter in English history!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.19.22 (talk) 16:05, March 30, 2009

Incorrect Citation?

According to the Commonwealth Legal Information Institute, the currently cited case, viz., 124 ENG. REP. 1006, was a case called Bush v. Risley, in which, due to jurisdictional issues, it was held that “[a] Rate Tithe is not to be decreed in Chancery.”

Although I do not purport to be an expert on the life of William Penn, the content within this article—inter alia, the case caption itself—seem to align much more closely with that of Bushel's Case, on Habeas Corpus, 84 ENG. REP. 1123 (K. B., 1670), in which it was held that a juror who acquits a given defendant in good faith must be free from being punished or otherwise coerced into returning a guilty verdict. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the original citation now seems to be correct now—or, more exactly speaking, the document to which it links seems to have been changed by LII to reflect the correct volume and page number of English Reports. Now, it displays Bushell's Case (C. P., 1670), whose facts and holdings are consistent with those described within the Article.

However, it seems that both cases with Bushel/Bushell in the caption pertain to the same Edward Bushel. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judge throws out case against UK climate activist who held sign on jurors’ rights

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/22/judge-throws-out-case-against-uk-climate-activist-trudi-warner-sign-jurors-rights

The activist Trudi Warner had been accused of Criminal Contempt by holding up a sign reminding jurors of Bushell's Case. The article says that there is a plaque in the central criminal court in London that says: “Jurors, you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.” 46.33.143.125 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]