R v Mayet

JurisdictionSouth Africa
CourtAppellate Division
JudgeSchreiner JA, Steyn JA, De Beer JA, Reynolds JA and De Villiers JA
Judgment Date11 December 1956
Citation1957 (1) SA 492 (A)
Hearing Date05 December 1956

Schreiner, J.A.:

The appellant was tried in the Witwatersrand Local Division by CILLIE, J., and two assessors on a charge of murder and, B extenuating circumstances being found, was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment with compulsory labour. The learned Judge reserved a question of law as to the admissibility of certain evidence and also granted leave to appeal on the conviction and sentence.

C The deceased kept a shop in Kliptown, on the outskirts of Johannesburg; at the back of the shop was his dwelling where he lived with his wife (the appellant) and their three daughters. The Crown case was that the appellant engaged a coloured man named Sam Jones to procure two persons to murder the deceased for reward, and that two coloured men, Alex Dalton and Stefaans Ferreira, were procured by Sam Jones and carried out D the murder by means of blows to the head on the night of the 21st June, 1955. There was some evidence that the appellant helped to kill the deceased. The evidence was contradictory as to whether Sam Jones also took part in the killing; the trial Court found that he probably did not. The three men were tried separately from the appellant and were E found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. They gave evidence for the Crown against the appellant and they and the two younger daughters of the appellant and the deceased were the five principal witnesses against her. The third daughter, the eldest, was also present in the house on the night of the murder. She was at one time charged with complicity in the murder but the Crown withdrew the charge against her F She was not called as a witness by either party.

The question of law that was reserved related to the evidence of two witnesses, Edward Brown and Pieter Hoffman, who were approached by. Sam Jones with a view to their carrying out the murder of the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
24 practice notes
  • Magmoed v Janse van Rensburg and Others
    • South Africa
    • 25 November 1992
    ...dus ook geen verskil gemaak het indien dit tydens die verhoor E toegelaat was nie. R v Miller and Another 1939 AD 106; R v Mayet 1957 (1) SA 492 (A); R v Heyne and Others 1955 (2) SA 539 (W); R v Matthews and Others 1960 (1) SA 752 (A); R v Baartman and Others 1960 (3) SA 535 (A); S v ffren......
  • Magmoed v Janse van Rensburg and Others
    • South Africa
    • 25 November 1992
    ...dus ook geen verskil gemaak het indien dit tydens die verhoor I toegelaat was nie. R v Miller and Another 1939 AD 106; R v Mayet 1957 (1) SA 492 (A); R v Heyne and Others 1955 (2) SA 539 (W); R v Matthews and Others 1960 (1) SA 752 (A); R v Baartman and Others 1960 (3) SA 535 (A); S v ffren......
  • 2012 index
    • South Africa
    • Juta South African Criminal Law Journal No. , August 2019
    • 16 August 2019
    ...147R v Matshaba 1961 (3) SA 78 (T) ........................................................ 366R v Mayet 1957 (1) SA 492 (A) ............................................................ 430-432R v Mazunga 1938 SR 11 .................................................................... 365R v......
  • S v Mhlongo; S v Nkosi
    • South Africa
    • 25 June 2015
    ...TPD 218: discussed R v Levy and Others 1929 AD 312: referred to R v Matsitwane 1942 AD 213: followed J 2015 (2) SACR p325 R v Mayet 1957 (1) SA 492 (A): referred to A R v Miller and Another 1939 AD 106: referred to R v Nkosi and Zulu 1959 PH H91 (A): referred to S and Another v Acting Regio......
  • Get Started for Free
22 cases
  • Magmoed v Janse van Rensburg and Others
    • South Africa
    • 25 November 1992
    ...dus ook geen verskil gemaak het indien dit tydens die verhoor E toegelaat was nie. R v Miller and Another 1939 AD 106; R v Mayet 1957 (1) SA 492 (A); R v Heyne and Others 1955 (2) SA 539 (W); R v Matthews and Others 1960 (1) SA 752 (A); R v Baartman and Others 1960 (3) SA 535 (A); S v ffren......
  • Magmoed v Janse van Rensburg and Others
    • South Africa
    • 25 November 1992
    ...dus ook geen verskil gemaak het indien dit tydens die verhoor I toegelaat was nie. R v Miller and Another 1939 AD 106; R v Mayet 1957 (1) SA 492 (A); R v Heyne and Others 1955 (2) SA 539 (W); R v Matthews and Others 1960 (1) SA 752 (A); R v Baartman and Others 1960 (3) SA 535 (A); S v ffren......
  • S v Mhlongo; S v Nkosi
    • South Africa
    • 25 June 2015
    ...TPD 218: discussed R v Levy and Others 1929 AD 312: referred to R v Matsitwane 1942 AD 213: followed J 2015 (2) SACR p325 R v Mayet 1957 (1) SA 492 (A): referred to A R v Miller and Another 1939 AD 106: referred to R v Nkosi and Zulu 1959 PH H91 (A): referred to S and Another v Acting Regio......
  • S v Banda and Others
    • South Africa
    • 27 October 1989
    ...shall be admissible as evidence against another person'. Mr Smit cited the cases of: R v Miller and Another 1939 AD 106; R v I Mayet 1957 (1) SA 492 (A); R v Heyne and Others 1955 (2) SA 539 (W); R v Matthews and Others 1960 (1) SA 752 (A); R v Baartman and Others 1960 (3) SA 535 (A); S v f......
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
  • 2012 index
    • South Africa
    • Juta South African Criminal Law Journal No. , August 2019
    • 16 August 2019
    ...147R v Matshaba 1961 (3) SA 78 (T) ........................................................ 366R v Mayet 1957 (1) SA 492 (A) ............................................................ 430-432R v Mazunga 1938 SR 11 .................................................................... 365R v......
  • Comment: 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' and statements made in furtherance of a common purpose (S v Rensberg CC123/99)
    • South Africa
    • Juta South African Criminal Law Journal No. , May 2019
    • 24 May 2019
    ...common purpose to kill Ruenevad, to which all three accused were party. In support of his argument, he cited, among others, R v Mayet 1957 (1) SA 492 (A). In the Mayet case, Schreiner JA distinguished executive statements from narrative ones, and then explained the rationale underlying the ......