The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1808-12-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIG RAI. C. Cala or wrc•s firNCH, WarriIIIISTER, D■e. 7. PUBLIC PECULATION. 'fIIE KING r. ALEXANDER DAVISON, ESQ. was the only trial which took place dna day, s ,',l it oteupied the Court to a err!. late hour,- eutirely of a robiic nature, it excited great iocre-t. The ATTORNET-C;EN FALAI. stated, that it was au Were...titer against the Weinfeld, and the eliar 4 e as s, that he (Mr. Davison) haviag heel, em oord bj GOVer4lllllllt. 0r rather by the Barrack Otter, as ati agent to purchase articles necessary for that derailment, ill is col ttttt issue' of 2; per oa t s for the application of liis skull mid know ledge, to see that Goverimieut was riot imposed u pria, hail betrayed his trust ; that he had pre tended to purclarise goislo from others, which were in tact Ins own, and of his owl' manufacture; a:al th it that profit was derived by others, which I.lllh, in t, derived by himself, exclusive of his commis sioie he himself being the seiner; and that con eminently no cheek existed upon the furnisher or these articles, although he was expressly paid fur that purpose. Such was the general nature of the c harge against Mr. Davison. It was unnec es s a ry fur Imo to enlarge much upon the importance of such a charge. 6. inagoitsideL of these toinsee ti,„,,, " m i tre d it ulasolutely necessary that Go vcruusesit should have a dieck over those ano transacted them. The trial had been fivinerly postponed on account of the absence of General Dc Laticy, who would now be called before the Jury, au the part of the Delendivit, to elucidate some or the facts he was about to state. Mr. Da vison became an went for Govirninent, as long ito al 1794, but the fraudalent transaetiun, which lie imputed to him, viii not cominciice till the 24th of December, 1797. It was t h e cut•tom to render halt-yearly accounts, and he shorild iustance, in particular, the one between the C 2 itli of December, 1797, and the 84th of June, 1798. Ile should prove that the Defendant pat iii false vouchera,anit false bills of parcels, to the amount of. 5-2,0001. hod upwards, and that lie charged a Commission thereon, to the amount of la,oool. Ile knew it would be said by the Counsel for Mr. Davison, as had been said before, that Government muttered no thing by such a practice, as the Defendant reader eel those goods to Government from his own stores, at the satue prier: he could have got them from others; and that, with respect to the Commissioti, they wem to nay that, whether the goods were fur nished by °loves or nut ; to which he answered, that Government therehy lost that check. which was paid him for furnishing. If Mr. D. himsel I furnished the goods, the narneof the cheek was a mere mockery. 1794, General Dc Laaey having occasion to turnivh 'stores to a great autouist, eaup;oyell Mr. Davison as an Agent, by a letter writteir to him on nth December of that year, and M. Davison's Cus.terthereto, iu whirls lie engaged alaays to pro duce bills of piareela and receipts, from the pennies from whom he puichitioal,and also engaged, accord ing to ;stipulation., to provide& proper parker. In that Agret- , urtot it was provided, that two and a half per yeas. should be deemed a reasonable eompen. ist,on Cot hit troutste; add that 'should be the sole emolument he should derive from the business; evi dently therefrom throe ine aside all expectation, that he was at the same bin- to derive the profit of a merchant from any of the se transactions, by the sale of hi 4 own goods. A Mr. Lodge was the per son employed as a packer, to whom the goods were sent weakly, and receipts given by him for them; hut these were not considered of great importance, as, every half year, regular retnrrts were delivered by him to Davison of all the goods so delivered du- ring that time. There were also returns mule upon the goods being sent to the barrack-office, Rating the quantities, but not the price. He in ' stances! in particular the half 'lady accounts vended by Mr. Davison to Government, betses t a the 125th of December, 17v7, and the Nth June, 1798; one containing the quantity, and not the price--the other containing the price. but not the qualitity. In these the par ticislar tradesmen wire mused. from whom the goods were alleged to he bought. An abstract of the.,e accounts ties rendered monthly. In that first reboil he had inentioued there was the name of George Watson, stated as having sold goods to the AUK/WA of 15,1501.95. 9d. ; refereuce was made to the abstract, and the abstract referred to the bill of parcel.. At the end of the abstract was George Watson's receipt; but he should prove that this George Watson was entirely fictitious, no such promo having ever furnished any goods to the I.)e -&infant, he being an apprentice or clork in his. (11r. Davison's) office. 1 hose accounts he alluded to applied only to the article of bedding, but that was not the only article furnished by Mr. Davi sou. There was also a half yearly account of re ceipt and expenditure, which embraced the whole of his employment. id that half yearly account. Le, amongst other articles, takes credit to I selt for bedding, pmvided to the amount of 33,1691. 17s. 9d. and carried the balance to a new account. Although the charge for t 10.1111115411,11 %%31 not men- Waned in this general oil-molt, %et, by including the others, it actu tlly coottor. 111.11116 d it. The fact however was, that Mr. Mungo Sheihion was the Defendant's principal mana4er ; and in till the re turns made by Lodge, there appears the name of Sheddon, as a person furnishing a large portion of these goods, Although that persmi was neither a merchant, trade:,iiian, nor manufacturer, but was a clerk and tnuottger of Mr. Davison. That name, as well as that of Watson and Allen, were only used in order to prevent the suspicion that the goods were purchased from Davison himself. In his transactions with Lodge, he states the name of Sheildoil as the person from whom the goods were purchased; while, in his accounts to Government, he states the name of Watson as the person from whom he purchased them. As this person. Watson, Wilb no other than his apprentice. and as it was well known hi- was not * merchant, nor dealer in such articles. the Defendant fell upon the plm to get another person, of the name of Aileu, to si4n the receipt., as ix fur Wistonti in his alrsetsve. lime the Learned Counsel entered into • minutt comparison of the different accounts ren itairorl for the half year ; he was particularly illus.- trdtite, and shevred their connection with each oilier. The whole was •no other than a sclicine t. keep up the markets, and, by suppliing the goods himself, instead of purchasing them from inert:Mints, to ;;et a inerchant's profit, oesides his commission of 21 per cent. The charge of this commission, how ever, was not the only complaint against him. 1-Ile complained that he thereby deprived Government of the check they paid hint for, as a guardian to them from the deception of others. The Defendant pre tended that ail this originated from a mi,take, and that it was to be rectified in a subsequent account ; but it must be observed, that these charges are made iii nine different haif-yearly accounts, viz. from December, 1797, to June, 1802, in aU of which he takes credit to himself far commission upon all ;he goods rendered. It ass not till the year isuti, when he was questioned about the irre gularity of these fraudulent transactions pressing close upon [nut, that he thought of rectifying ail the accounts so rendered, and of restoring his com mission. Mr. Davison underwent an examination before the Military Coinmission in October, 160.5, yR to the mode In_ which he conducted his bosun-A. Ile then stated, that he had famished some goods himself; but he had charged no commission fur them. This, however, did not apply to the goods which he(the Attorney-General) had alluileilto; sub. anima to lOW, Ms. Davison did in his accounts state, that lie himself had furnished some goods, and assigned as the reason, that he could not get gli out of the market to supply the demand. For these lie had stated no commission, as lie knew he was not . entitled to it, us they were actually his own, and he had received the profit of a me:Limit on them. Mr. Davison that he intended to give Government tleitit,.lor the commission he had charged upon these fraudulent vouchers, in some fu ture !Wel/alt. Tins he did iii what was called a ',up plegieutury account, dated the 15th of May, 1806, and headed thus, Debtor, Lieutenant-General De 1141131 Cy. late Barrack-Master-General, iu ac count with Alexander Davison. creditor." In it he begins with taking credit fur 9,0001. mid then lie charges for one year's rent of his warehouse, and, upon the other sale, ha discharges 1 elf with sums that ought to have gone into former accounts, which, liv error, were omitted. In it he carries the correction so far back as the year 1797 ; and, al . though the balance against Mr. Davison was in illy favour in a former account, yet this last one threw it against him, to the ainount of 6,6791.1ti5. 11d. Mr. Davisou had evidearly seen the necessity of looking over his accounts with a scrutinizing eye, and thus voluntarily divulging tiicise • errors, which lie saw were very likely to be detected, as he thought that it would come from loin with a better grace flint . ' if he had 1142e1l driven to it by th.- Cuininissioners. By this means he had timid 'nut that he had been overcharging Government to the ' , amount of 1,5001. which it was necessary to retsina. This, it was evident, he had no thoughts of doing, wail time Military Inquiry was institute.!, when the Commissioners for the Barrack Accounts had hint before them. He declined rendering a cash ye *bunt which they rerinired; and, in his letter of the loth of November, 1906, stated, as his reason, that all his accomits had been rendered, settled, and the balance paid ; namely, this very balance w lie reclines in his supplementury account. He (tlie Attorney-Generali had tha w.. endeavoured to state to the Jury an outline of trainattiims, which, from their nature, ' were difficult_ to be described, but which, upon hailing at the Palters themselves, were easily comprehended. When the case should be detailed in evidence, it weight lie rendered much more intelligible. tins object hud principally been to state to the Jury the grounds upon which iie charged Mr. Davison, in this information, with fruilduleut practices, and the in jury arising to Government from the commission of those frauds. He had also hinted at some of the points likely to be set up iu his defence, iii order to 'hew them that it was impossible that they could be substantiated. lie desired to lead them to no conclusion to which the evidence itself did not) fairly conduct them, nor to give a verdict in his favour, rhould the case appear doubtful, or equally balanced. If they thought it was so, he had no objection to their giving it in favour of the Defend ant ; lint he was of opinion it was impossible for Mr. Davison to shelter himself itgaiii4 the impu tation cast upon him ; and it would therefore be their duty to thud him guilty. The letter written by Major-General De Laney, dated the 214th of February, 1794, offering Mr. Davison the agency for the Barrack Department, and also the answer thereto, dated the toth of Ja nuary, 1795, accepting of the proposals, npon the commission of two and a half per cent. upon the goods purchased, as the sole emolument to be re quired, were put in and read. Mr. Thomas armor, Secretary to the Commis. sioners for the Barrack Accounts, produced the several accounts alluded to by the Attorney4;ene ral, which ware (severally read ; and proved the hand-writing of Mr. Davison. to those containino the names of Sheddon, Watson, and Allen, tlw alleged fictitious merchants, furnishing him with the goods in question. Mr. Win. James, clerk to Mr. Lodge, the packer appointed by Mr. Davison, wowed, that the name of Sheddon was stated in the accounts ren dered them as the seller of the goods. Mango Sheddon was the person who managed the army business at Mr. Davison's warehouse, in Bedford street, and he knew him in no other character. Ile knew Watson as a clerk or apprentice at that ware house, and he was quite a yonog man, about .2.1- years of age. He did not know one of the name of A lieu furnishing them with goods. Mr. Lodge conducted the whole of the packing business, so far as related to bedding aud towels. Several additional accounts and abstracts were produced, and partly read ; the Attorney-Genre:a at the same time pointing out the consistencies and inconsistencies which he had enuinerated iii his statement. Mr. John Allen said, he was in the employ of Mr. Davison in the beginning of isoa, nua hail the management of the hooks inlforil-street, at the Array-clothing Warehouse. He knew of young loan of the name of Watson being also there at that time as an apprentice, but he did not know him as being a person of property, nor as carry ing on business of his own, but he a•:u in the Ca.. pacity of a servant, and had no apparent means of carryin4 on business. This Witness proved u paper, which WAS Shea❑ him, to be his ing. It purported tb be a receipt by him to Mr. Davison for the amount of 15,1361. 9a. gd, for bar rack [wilding, delivered by IVatson, dated 31st Dec. 1798. It was not written at the time it bore date, but was signed in the year MO. Ile did nut know Wilburn in 1798. Ile knew that there was 110 acing supply by 'l4 — 'ittsoii, ;,t4 that paper imported. He signed it by desire of Nit.. Boweruig, u clerk of Jr. Ilar . u.oit's. at the liftlet, ill St. Jnittes's-st rcrt, adjoining to liis clia 4 .ln,use. Ile believed it was dictated by Mr. kitveistsg. Ile signed also similar receipts tar each of the half yearly accounts hir four or five years. There were many of them for tlnnug which he had no acquaintance with the parties, nor with the tran►actions, and many of dr.•ru were done at the same time. He hail no com munication with any other tiers° is than Mr. Row eling mut Mr. Shaddua, the latter of whom is now dead. He did nut la-e eive any of the SUMS for which those receipts pin-poled to lee documents. He supplied the goods friar Mr. I)avison's ware house, at Redford-stn et, out of his, Mr. Davison's, own stores, and of his own manufacture. He signed the receipa a; for Watson, who was then said to he absent, he did hot know where. There were four clerks or apprentices at the Bedford-strect ware house, and several hundreds of men were employed stt work for Davison, out of doors. All the goods, when ready, were sent openly to Mr. Lodge, the parker._ Mr. DALLAS made an eloquent defence on be half of the Defendant, which oecti2ied about too hours. He rose uitelor • feelings of cosaiderable anxiety, and he was sure the Jury themselves must entertain such feelings, when they reflected upon the sort •of case thi y were uow assembled to con sider. The charge, was, that of a fraud alleged to have been committed in the execution of a public employment, stated to have been one of great trust and confidence ; a fraud which mould only pro ceed from a mean and sordid desire in the Defend ant, to put into his own pocket a small sum, com paratively speaking, beyond that which he would otherwise have received, in breach of the paildie trust reposed in him, and in violation of the ',tattiest principles ref honesty and honour. Such au acctitottion involved in it. iyiue all that was dear mild valualile to any man, as well as to those eon- meted with him. He hoped, however, to prove, that 1141 fraud had actually been committed. Previous to 17 : 14, the Barrack Dcpartineot was supplied with the necessary articles by purchases from varions dilferent individuals, which !trochee was found both to create delay, and give occasion to decep tions. General De Laney being then at the head of that department, thought it prudent to appoint the Defendant as an agent to effect the neet-saary purchases, and to prevent the inconveniences that had aiisen, and fur this he was to receive a com mission of 2; per cent. for his mercantile skill and experience. Many calumnies hail gone Atwood, attended with dangerous consequences to the Dr. fendant,:but he hoped that on thisday of trial, the ,'Jury would prove themselves quite uobiatuteil and unprejudiced. It had been rumoured that this ape pointineat had taken place when no acquaint ance existed between Gen. De Laney and the De. fendato, and that Mr. Davison was not previously known to be a person of skill and experience. He ceutet, hmiever, stasureithein, that the Defendant. had been long employed tit things of the same sort be was well known by his very extensive transactions ' both of a public and a private nature, and was Mir of the most considerable merchants in the city. He had been employed in many con tracts with Governasent, in supplying stores to the litfetentsllepartmenti,sinil providing traipports up on the exisedition to Holland, a n d had lately, be fore this circumstance, acted as Commissary-Geo. by the appointment of a Noble Lord then in his eve, (alluding to the Earl of Moira, then on the Bench.) His zeal and honourelde conduct had been therefore tried end ascertained, previous to his appointineot by General Dc Laney.— The prMcipal part of the pri,ent charge that he hail been gnilty id: a fraudulent breach of duty. It must be observed, this was a contriu t in which the Defendant was not merely to he occasionally employed, or that each distinct dealing was to be separated from the other, but it was one which required a continued vigilance towards the growing omit of the public service; and that he, auticipating those wants, Should pre aria such incoliveidenciea as formerly existed ; that is, there should not he a deficiency of barrack stores, in ronseqnence of any scarcity in the mar ket ; the compethation which he was to receive was not only for looking the ba:•gain in each particular instance, but Aro for taking care that the different articles should be safely thpositial in the place where they were wanted, and miming the risk of their be ing returned, should they be of a different description f douse required. In addition to this, hr was also to superintend the insurance of these articles. These were the leading points of the agreement lii qua stion. He should admit, that if, during the apave of dive years, the Defendant had cot ii iii /WI to snisply articles, in the mimes of others, with a frau dolma intention, that would undoubtedly be a fraudulent execution of the agreement, when he hail no liberty to derive any other emoluments stated. He should however slew, that whatever might have born his intention hi doing so, no frau dulent purpose was actually in view. The charge was, that being employed as an Agent to receive a commission of two and a half per cent. mid no other emolumeot, lie from time to time supplied to the Hoard stores said to he manufactured by himself, as if they hail been manufactured by other per sons, and that he thereby imposed' upon the Bar rack-Master-General to allow him a commission, which he would not have otherwise received. This being what the charge is, it was a little material that the Jury should know what it was not. ' Before doing this, however, he again took an opportunity of adverting to the scandalous prejudice which had been excited by the dad, publications against the Defendant. Although it turned out by the statement of the Attorney-( lene rwl. and the evidence adduced, that for uo less then ten yews, the Defendunt had been in the habit of executing the office of agent, it was not imputed to hini,after all the investigationthat hall take.. place, and the unusual powerr• vested in t he commission. that he had tit any one instance charged for these grinds Risme the fair market price of the day. It was most intoortittit to ktiow there wes so actual saving to the tinblie, in the dealings carried on with 31r. Davison, It hsel charge that he had in this respect, or neither had it been . the Defendant had into any unjust derstanding, with 'while during that public 'acme" had' *wale was [Mud all these foul and Davison stoat The Crown had been against him, nlieged his having dealt cal agreement. 511 It :Illy answer freed, to allege of life conducted i doubted, whether motive, therefore must look round, duet of the party i Mid it fair sad for supposing that . gle instance. He original agreement. the seller of his beyond the coot' that that was which he acted. agreement, in the General De Laney, he should supply the prove, that that was I 1( ems known to General Irere, of loving out 'employed for tlie goods from others, st was deemed neceoury. `be . smigueti 'by General treentent, was the public market standing all the. , purtieular period. this, the Defendant diet. there his Lor seer to the sixth vison by the Commissioners, was any other agreement ' Barrack-Master-General, there was any persisted in stating, authorised by General his own stores.; i writing, yet the transaction took , (ieuend the Laney Mr. Dallas next procteded it was not inconsistent • " as agent to dente actions, besides instaticed the case acted as broken,. could be proved, I the prices of the Major-t ;mend . I von received his s . CClUefv,y await, were Under these them to find fraudulent one material part of, delivered in fictitious receipts were clerk, instead material to ohs eve, whatever of this rood agreement ing this, for the improper and ft they were of opiii entated to the co , beeinne quite imi. was not 111 general commit amongst a their daily surrounding and detect it, and, ' twin. When we foi, .work in such transac, be imputed to for the object i in this m..imer iiece , sity for • iirartised. It 14, MAO` out in that particular way, solely by he re commendation of Mr. Booming, the clink of the Defendant, in order to comply with the regula tions of the Barrack-Office. He should pima, to demonstratimi, that Mr. Davison, long before this inquiry, had applied to the Barrack-Office, in order to deduct the commission from such former ac counts, in which his clerk thought it had hien irregularly introduced, and that it was afterwards rectified iii a current account. The inquiry took place in it/05, and was afterwards further. prose cuted in latali; while this appliention look place in 1802, and Mr. Davison consented to deduct it.— Mr. l)artits concluded by recapitulating his va rious points of defence, and particulatly enforced the right of Mr. Davison to charge the commission of an agent, at the same time that LW enjoyed the profit of the merchant. by virtue of the alleged %crow' agreement with Geuend He Laney, sad also forcibly contended, that such being theater, it was impossible to conceive that the supposed fraud had been knowingly committed. In support of his argumente he called Major-General De Laney..-ge 1 was some time since Barrack-Muster-General. 1 **l4 appUllittli in the year 1793, mid continued until Nov. land. Formerly, thu furitialtiug of bariacts .tutees was conducted by the War-Office, and partly by the OfillliMet-Offer. but pnreipally by the former.— % arious persons Irene employed by them a. *gents, but Ido not know what commission they had. I found great inconvenience arising to the public service by that mode of conducting the bestiaries. I often found, that wiles) the ;articles were thought to brat the barracks, according Co order, they were actually still in the warclaiiiiaw iii Lou dest. The dory of these regent.. did not extend to the actual seitiling of the storms In the dittei eat barracks. ins was en iccouve.iienee which re quired to be - vernmcnt w: was in conseqi . , t iraa ixsf lseki . made a Fart of the he had condutced himself irregularly et, or that hi,,had raised the market, A i t been made * part of the charge. that int had in a Aicsgle instance entered list or fraudulent transaction, or un• with the persons with whom he dealt. that period nearly one million of the r had been passing through his hands: round to SPIV, that noriettlisttuding it and miseleevons eistabiatione,* Mr: ' - o:1 fully and completely acquitted. tad been only able td whet ape charge alleged to liner been comMitted by alt under the stipulations atilt origi- it. He did not mean to say.. that it wer whatever to a specific charge of lege that a man had is every situation cted himself uprightly ; but when it is ether that fraud existed in fact or in More more difficult in detection, we nod, and see whet has been the con- • nifty in every other instance, and if wd sad upright, there was no reason that lie departed from it in one sin- . He should grant, that under the ement, Mr. Davison was not to be if his own stores, nor to charge commission ; but he had to observe, • us not the only agreement under -led. There had been a subsequent in the year 1797. between Imo and Laney, by which it arm .otipoloteil pply the stores himself. He should ,hut was not done claialesiiiiely, but it o General De Laney. Instead, there- ig only an agent, he was, after 1797. a. the double purpose of purchasing , thers, or furnishing them himself when ed necesaary. The reason that would by General Dr Laney for this seesind' was the impossibility of procuriiig ins market a sufficiency of stores, notwithe• the. exertions that were used at that ieriod. Were he to go no farther than fendant would he entitled to their ver... his Lordship oltawrved, that in as an- sixth interrogatory put to Mr. Da.• e Commissioners, as to whether there her agreement betwesu him and die ster-Cleneral, he positively • denied' ,ny other agreements Mr. as still stating, that to 1797 Mr. Decibel' was by General De Laney to supply from ; and although it was not put in the circumstances under which that took place, would convince them t ha t Caney ha d. uthorized him to do next proceeded to argue. that • t inconsistent .with the • delft+ " derive profits froni niervantileiratisa ides the covninisaions he 'charged ; and to case of insurers and merchants Sr he otters. In the transactions alludi4l to it sved, that samples, attitetnhat of 1 the goods, had been tilways avat to Laacy, sad that, Mt.' Davis • .1 his approbation, previous to his re-' warm These prices, ft' could be e considerably under the market pile's. e eircumscanres„ it, was imposaibk few d that the claim of commission sees • one on the part of Mr. Davison. One rt of the charge was, that Mr. Davison n fictitious bills of parcels, and that ere delivered in the name of his stead of his own. Now, it was • observe, that there was lib instance thus being the case, until eller the re- silent had been entered into. Suppos- the sake of argument. to hose been an • t. ind fraudulent proceeding, Jet, nudes. sf opinani that the Defendant war unit the commission, all that %pet iris of ploof ite immaterial, and of no avail. .4 fraud general u thing which a man ,'house* to oiliest a crowd of spectators, who, by surrounding hint, cantiot fail to obseete it, and, by exposing him, would be his cut we found that a man goer openly to eh transactior.s, no fraud or dce...it COD Ito him. It was not fur him to account act in view, in making out she arenuitt liter ; but it was evident, that where no or a fraud existed, no fraud had been it appeared that the accounts had been ,a that particular way, solely by the m- aim" of Mr. lloisertiug, the clerk of the t, in order to comply with the regale-. he Barrack-Office. He should probe to thou, that Mr. Deviant", long before the Lid applied to the Barrack-Office, in order rectiOcd. the more e-isevtally re Go. re eri, to erect new turret kg. It [ tweet: of this 1 made the agreement