R v Erasmus
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Court | Orange Free State Provincial Division |
| Judge | Potgieter R |
| Judgment Date | 27 March 1958 |
| Citation | 1958 (2) SA 685 (O) |
| Hearing Date | 26 March 1958 |
E Potgieter, R.:
In hierdie saak het die getuie Johannes Mtembu gister getuig dat toe hy en die ander naturelle wat saam met hom arresteer was in die sel gesit is, beskuldigde die ander prisoniers in die sel aangesê het om hulle, d.w.s. getuie en sy makkers, te slaan want hulle is dronk. F In kruisverhoor het mnr. Erasmus, namens die beskuldigde, aan die getuie gevra waarom hy dan niks van hierdie voorval by die voorlopige ondersoek gesê het nie. Die getuie het egter geantwoord dat hy dit wel gesê het by die voorlopige ondersoek. By ontstentenis van enige teenbewys moet daardie verklaring van die getuie aanvaar word.
G Mnr. van der Walt, namens die Kroon, het egter aansoek gedoen om getuienis aan die Hof voor te...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
3 practice notes
-
S v Bergh
...(1) SA 434; R. v Rose, 1937 AD 467; R. v Kizi, 1950 (4) SA 532; R. v Dart, 1951 (1) SA 483; R. v Vlok, 1951 (1) SA 26; R. v Erasmus, 1958 (2) SA 685; S. v Sitwayi en Andere, 1961 (4) SA 538. Die toetrede deur die landdros tot die arena het nie 'n buitengewone omvang aangeneem nie. In elk ge......
-
Menday v Protea Assurance Co Ltd
...consistent statement. See, e.g., Phipson, Evidence, 11th ed., paras. 1576 - 1586; May, Evidence, 4th ed., para. 579; R. v. Erasmus, 1958 (2) SA 685 (O); S. v. Sitwayi and Others, 1961 (4) SA 538 (E); Fox v. General Medical Council, (1960) 3 All E. R. 225 Addleson J at pp. 230 - 231; R. v. R......
-
Menday v Protea Assurance Co Ltd
...consistent statement. See, e.g., Phipson, Evidence, 11th ed., paras. 1576 - 1586; May, Evidence, 4th ed., para. 579; R. v. Erasmus, 1958 (2) SA 685 (O); S. v. Sitwayi and Others, 1961 (4) SA 538 (E); Fox v. General Medical Council, (1960) 3 All E. R. 225 (P.C.) 1976 (1) SA p567 Addleson J a......
3 cases
-
S v Bergh
...(1) SA 434; R. v Rose, 1937 AD 467; R. v Kizi, 1950 (4) SA 532; R. v Dart, 1951 (1) SA 483; R. v Vlok, 1951 (1) SA 26; R. v Erasmus, 1958 (2) SA 685; S. v Sitwayi en Andere, 1961 (4) SA 538. Die toetrede deur die landdros tot die arena het nie 'n buitengewone omvang aangeneem nie. In elk ge......
-
Menday v Protea Assurance Co Ltd
...consistent statement. See, e.g., Phipson, Evidence, 11th ed., paras. 1576 - 1586; May, Evidence, 4th ed., para. 579; R. v. Erasmus, 1958 (2) SA 685 (O); S. v. Sitwayi and Others, 1961 (4) SA 538 (E); Fox v. General Medical Council, (1960) 3 All E. R. 225 Addleson J at pp. 230 - 231; R. v. R......
-
Menday v Protea Assurance Co Ltd
...consistent statement. See, e.g., Phipson, Evidence, 11th ed., paras. 1576 - 1586; May, Evidence, 4th ed., para. 579; R. v. Erasmus, 1958 (2) SA 685 (O); S. v. Sitwayi and Others, 1961 (4) SA 538 (E); Fox v. General Medical Council, (1960) 3 All E. R. 225 (P.C.) 1976 (1) SA p567 Addleson J a......
