The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1804-12-08 00:00:00

• I LAW. COURT OF KING', BENCII. Worseimsi Li, Dec. 7. Si:tings al Nisi Preys, b t lare Lard ELLENEOROCCH. and a Sper: . ct.hirn. FRAUD UPON STAMP DUTIES. THE KING . 11 EDMI.AQD and HENI.v DAVIS. This was an indiftment, charging the Defendants „it)) a conspiracy to c!leat and defraud I his Majesty's revenue, by divers impositions and frauds, com mitted against the stamp duty ad. There were se veral mints in the indidment, charging the Defend with vat icius conspiracies and frauds, in bring ,s4 tai the stamp-office dive's pieces of paper, con d t ogether, with the appearance of single sheets 0 1 raper, and procuring the same to be stamped, Etc. &c. 'ft. this indidment the Defendants had pleaded— At Guilty. The Right Hon. the ATTORNEY GEN ER At stated the case on the part of the prosecution : he intimat e d to the Court and Jury, that the evidence which should be adduced, would lay before them a display -.; ingenuity of A most singular nature, which he ;egretted had not been exerted to a better purpose, and rendered advantageous to the public, as well as beneficial to the individual ; but this was, he ob served, one of the fittest subjeds for a prosecution, that ever came before the Court, inasmuch as it al feted one of the principal reveaues of the Crown to a very grht degree. A :out the latter end of last July, the Commis- sioaers of Stamp Duties received intelligence of certain Stamps being in circulation, wh ic h did not seem to have the general appearance of genuine Stamps ; upon comparing them with the dye, they bore the mid impression; but, upon closer examina tion, they were found to want the usual gloss which is visible on the face of Stamps. The place whore these Stamps were purchased, was at length found out, and the Solicitor for the Stamp Office was di retied to buy some of them, which being according ly done, they were compared and examined, and found to correspond with the die, except as to the gloss ; while the Commissioners were in the vsa y a/t of investigating the business, the Defendant, Henry :Davis, came to the Office with a parcel of paper to he stamped, which he delivered to the officer, called the teller-in, with the usual warrant ; this parcel was accordingly stamped, but the paper having en gaged the attentinn of the officer, very frequently, from its unusual thickness ; this day he observed, by accident, that one corner of a sheet was a little split : he pursued his examination further, and found it weuticl divide with great ease, leaving the stamp pert -/I, but rather faint. some of this paper, upon further investigation, was found to be triple and quadruple, and so ingeniously cemented together, as to have the appearance cf one consistency, tear inn no trace whatever of the cement when divided Upon this discovery the Commissioners gave mediate dire/ions to have the person who had brought this paper to attend them, when the De fendant, Henry Davis, answering to his name when called, was brought before them, and was de livered into the custody of a Bow-street Officer ; in the mean time Mr. Esteourt, the Solicitor for the Commissioners, proceed: d, with a Row-street Officer, and some other persons, to the house of the Defendants, in King -street, Westminster ; and, while the Officer was in the act sir purchasing a stamp from the Defendant, li sbert Davis, the oche: s came in, and seized a number of stamps, which they found in a drawer behind the counter ; there were some few genuine stamps found among them, and a great quantity of the fabricated ones ; npon a subsequent search made at the house, a consider able quantity of paper w.ss diacovered, which ap peared to have been prepared with the same cement, for a similar purpose ; some of which was marked in the customary way, for .the purpose of being stamped. From all these circumstance s , he observ ed, that it WAS evident a fraud had Len practised ; and, whether they were the fabricators of the fraud, or only instrurriehts in the handl of other persons, it lay upon them to prove. He then stated, that an allowance was made by the Stamp-Office of so much per cent. discount to the distributors :if stamps, who parchased a certain quantity togethei . This the Defendant had never claimed, nor was it because he was ignorant of sneh allowance; for, though he bought but a few at a time, yet he ~.fl-cre d to make an allowance of discount to others who might purchase from him. The Defendant, Ed ward Davis, was a serjeart in the St. John's and St. Margaret's Volunteers, and applied to one of his Officers, of the name of Julien, whose mother dealt in stationary and stamps, that he might supply her with the latter article, as he had great quantities of them, and could allow her a discount upoa them ; Mrs. .Julien accordingly had some quantity from him ; but finding the pap :r of a thin and inferior description, she complained of it, and refused to take AM' mere. He then stated that therewas a further circumstance in the case : while Henry DA% i. was under exam na ion at Bow -street, he asked permission from the Officer to retire; but. suspeing something not right, he was previously searched, and three or four pieces of the fabricated paper found upon him. It was also necessary to observe, that these two Defendants lived together, in a very confined and extremely contraded hahita tioil, consis:iag of only a shop and small parlour behind ; they kept no servant, and both were in the habit of attending the shop alternately. He stated this against any ffistindion which might be Auer% t td to be snack between the case of the one and toe other. Mr. Estcourt, Solicitor for the Commissioners of Si p Ditties, was then examined ; he proved nearly w.t.4 has been already stated I he said Henry Davis, when called upon, answered, and told his puce of fesidence"; the Stamps mentioned in the warrant were tweuty-three of one shilling, and five of four The contents of the drawer behind the Definidant's counter were deposited in a box pro duced in Court, among which were several dort_n of legal Stamps, and a book containing a great num ber us illegal of diffe rent denom.natsons, ready ones for sale; they is,:re all upon wove paper. He then separated sumo of the bumped paper into three, With great facility ; and, upon the closest examina lhoe, it did not appear that the cement had any erstbk effect upon the paper. Oa his cross.exan:inatiou by Mr. Simms, he ad „pilditted, that witheut something to create suspicion, those stamps might Dave passed unnoticed ; and, even the officers themselves might have been de ceived, if the paper offered for stamping had not accidentally split. When Henry DAVii was taken into custody, he immediately odd wlire he lived, and aeswered all questions pm to him ; when he was afterwards asked by the Magistrate, whether he would become a witness for the crown, or be committed as a principal? he refused to become the former, and submitted tosthe latter. The Defend ant, Edward Davis, had been in the habit of sending to the Stamp Office, for three or four months be fore, and the paper in evidence passed current at the office "until the time it was found separated at the corner. Miller, the police officer, who had the Defendant flenry in custody, stated, that on the 2d of August last he carried him to the Brown Bear, previous to taking him to Tothillfields ; when he asked to retire, as already mentioned. On his cross-examination by Mr. ERSKINE, he said, the Defendant, Henry, made nn objedion to be searched ; he knew he had been taken on account of these papers, and said he thought he had left all at the Stamp Office. Rivets, the police officer, proved the purchase of a fabricated stamp at the Defendant's shop, and then taking him into custody. Henry Barker. a Clerk in the Receiver General's Office, stated that he had frequently received war rants in the name of Edward Davis, that there was an allowance of 12 discount to persona taking 391. worth together, and a further allowance of nine per cent. t s wholesale stationers, taking a quantity on plain paper, to the amount of 301. including 101. worth of receipt stamps ; there had b 'en no allow ance to Davis in this way, as he never took more than two or three pounds wor h at a time. Thomas Marshall, the Teller in at the Stamp- Office ' proved that he d seeded the fraud by discern ing the split corner. On his cross-examination, he said he had been ' upwards of one and twenty years in the Stamp Office, and believed a great number of these papers passed through his hands he was married, bad a wife and children, from fourteen to twenty years of age; he d:d not think a young person of sixteen ' years of age would be likely to observe them. The landlord was examined, to prove the extent and size of the apartments which the Defendants rented; and several witnesses were called, who pro iu and proved many of the fabricated stamps to have been purchased at the Defendant's shop from both Henry arta Edward. Snnie k .al objectioas were then taken by Mr. EitsiclNE to the alleg itions in several aunts in the indictment, which were afterwards over-ruled by the Court. • Mr. EllqlCl4e, in addressing the Jury on behalf of the Defendants, expressed great anxiety in the tusk he had to perform, and the situation in which he was placed of having the defence of these un fortunate persons ; he trusted the Jury would feel for him in the painful observations he should be obliged to make in the course of his address, and the great difficulty under which he laboured, ellen he was ob!-ged to separate the cases of the two De fendants, so as not to suffer the one to interfere with the wiser ; and, after attentively observing the Iltvidence, a great distinction was to be found bet Ween them ; he was ready to admit that the charge aaainst them was that of a, great and enormous crime, and most dangerous in its consequences to the public revenue, which, upon conviction, must draw down a heavy weight of pu nishment upon the criminal. In this case. the in genuity ill' the party was wonderful, and the con trivance WAS such as to impose upon the vigilance of the Officers of Stamps, for a length of tirpe. As to the fraud, it was so truly described, it was wholly unnecessary for him to say any thing on the subjed. It appeated it had been successfully pradisect for three nr four months ; several persons pun hased them, without making any observations upon them ; some bought and sold unsuspeetingly. lie then citiarthe instances of a goldsmith discovering base metal ; an officer of the Post-office, discovering a forged frank ; A farrier discovering a blemish in a horse which would deceive an ordinary prr ,, ,n ate. All which he adduced to prove, that saes man could divest him self of knowledge he had obtained through experi ence; he therefore contended, that in the same manner they were to distinguish between the cases of the two Delendents, that of Henry 'hewing his innocence and ignorance. As to Edward Davis, lie expressed great apprehension that he should not be able to deny the charges against Lien ; but as to Henry, whose cause he felt he could not sacrifice, he insisted these was no proof, no foundation whatever, to say that he lt,ew of the separation of the paper ; sod as their was no implement of ma nufacture tound upon the premises, it could not be supposed that the other could carry it on with ;stealer success, or with more certainty of avoiding deted.on, than by keepirg his brother, who was a boy not sixteen years of age, in the dark. and, such was the de, eptiOn, that even an old officer, who had been twenty years in the habit of exam:tilt-7 stamps, had been deceived. ft %VII the duty of counsel at all tines to distinguish suspicion from guilt. and were the jury to find both guilty, they would aid the crime of the sededion of one brother to the crane of the other. To look at the condo& of the young man at the time of his apprehension. his subsequent demeanour before the Magistrate, his immediate and ready answers, his refusal to be come King's evidence, in none of which did he betray the least symptom of guilt, nor could there be any thing more convincing of innocence. As to the elder brother, who might feel that he had not made many observations on his part of the case, be coasidered it the duty of a counsel always to put himself in the situation of his client, and not to push his observations too far, but ever to make the distindion between innocence and guilt. The great objed in this adion was to detest and punish frauds committed against the re ue, which end was now in a great measure attairltlff ; he, therefore, had no doubt hut the Jury, upon a review of the case, would find it the:: du:y, as he was well convinced it was their inc:ination, to acquit the Defendant. Henry Davis. Several respedeb . e witnesses were then called, all of whom gave the Defendants most excellent elle riders; the Detembrat, Henry, had oniy been in sown aOoat a year and a half. The Assosste Glossas spoke at great length • • n reply,' and observed slut the Defendant, Edward, 'was, quite desolate, and, as to Henry, no greater proof of his guilt could appear, tha n hi s k now l e d ge of the thickness of the paper when brought to the Stamp Office, and the miraculou, increase of nitni her, and alteration in texture, vriten returned to the drawer, and vended by him. Lord ELLENIONOUGH, in summing no the evi dence, observed, there were several counts in the intlidment for a consipiraey, and, ill order to convict upon those counts, it was necessary to find both guilty. It, therefore, was the part of the Counsel on behalf of the Defendants, to induce the Jury to find only one guilty. The question for them to try was whether Henry Davis privy or accessary to the fraud committed by Ilk brother ; and, attending to the whole of the tramaElion, it was clear that he had constant access to the drawer where these fabri cated stamps were kept, he mu , t be sersible to the common sensation of the touch, and his taking them at one time to the Stamp Office in the thick state, and afterwards vending them in their separated state, left no room to doubt the privity and co:s spiracy. The Jury found both the Defendants GatiCry of certain misdemeanors and conspiracy, bu: recom mended the Defendant Henry to the consideration of the Court, on account of his youth. 1.11111. Of TILE BOARD OF ADMIRALTY. THE KING 9. JOHN IiERIOT, EN. and °roses. This was an indictment against John Heriot, an‘i John Taylor, Esqrs. Richard Harris, and Richard Blackberry, the Proprietors. Printer and }Vali-41er of a Newspaper, called The True Briton, for a Libel upon the Earl of St. Vincent, and the other Members of the Board of Admiralty, published on the 17th of December, 1803. The ATTORNEY GENERAL stated the case on the part of the prosecution. He addressed the Jury in a most animated and learned speech ; commenting, in the first instance, upon the law of bile's, with great ability. He (observed, that all libels, of what soever description they may be, either originated in oribad a strong tendency to malice, whether against individuals or particular persons ; in which cases it was the duty of the legislature to interfere, and pre vent the mischef which ?night follow, and to punish the libeller according to Isis deserts. The libel in this case Was one of the most malicious, wicked, and dangerous, that ever came before the Court, tending to vilify and degrade the cloarader of a Noble Earl, who held one of the first situations under :he Crown, and whose gallant conduit, on all occasions, had caused the finger of envy to be pointed at him ; it went further, the libeller was not satisfied with venting his spleen against that Noble Personage, the whole of the late Nlembers of the Admiralty Board wcre vilified and libelled, arid the endeavours of the author were to throw His Majesty's Government into disrespect and disre pute. He then stated, that in the beginning of the year 1793, Admiral Rainier was Commander in Chief of His Majesty's fleets in the Indian Seas, and the Earl of St. Vincent was, at that time, the First Lord of the Admiralty. On the 17th of December, 1803, a paragraph appeared in the Newspaper men tioned in the indidment, which, after introducing some prefatory observations, .sated, 11;4 a re port had prevailed, that Admiral Rainier had de tained the fleet of the French Admiral, Lineis, in the Bay of Pondicherry, which afterwards escaped, in consequence of the gross negligence of a certain Board, on not sending out dispatches to the Noble Admiral, for two months :tit, r the war had com menced, and farther accusing them of negleft in their official capacity," ate. lie knitted the here,- aity of the Government being always open to the just censure and animadversion of the public, bus [oat was not a reason they should lie degraded, debased, and vilified. He could scarcely conceive a come of greater magnitude than that ascribed to the Noble Earl and his . associates in office, in which our pos sessions in India were so deeply concerned, nor wou:d it be in the power of the Legislature to affix a punishment sufficient for the crime: For all this charge there was not the slightest foundation in truth, and the intention of the slandeier seas conspicuous in every line; he, theref4re, under all the circum stances of the case, felt himself well warranted in saying, that this was not only a libel most gross in its nature, and dangerous in its tendency, but was, also equally false, malicious, and scandalous, and he sat down fully satisfied that the Jury would find that verdid against these Defendants, which would receive its full effed by thejudgment of the Court on a future day, when those persons si.ould be brought up to receive the just sentence for their crime. The clerk of Mr. Bicknell, the Solicitor to the Admiralty, proved the purchase of The True &dull newspaper, at the newspaper-office in the Strand. The copy of the affidavit from the stamp-office was then produced ; by which it appeared, that John Heriot, and John Taylor ' Eitits. were the Proprietors, Richard Harris, the Printer, and Rich ard Blackberry, the Publisher of Toe Tree Bri'on. William Marsden, Esq was then examined. lie stated, that he had been, thr these eleven months past, Chief Secretary to the Board of Admiralty ; and, previous to that period, and in the year had barn Second Secretary. Several dispatches were sent out to the East-Indies, to Admiral Rainier. who was then Commander-in-Chief in the Indian Seas, at the commencement (.1 hostilities between this country and France, in the year 160.3, to which he had received answers by letters, which he then had in Court ready to produce. The Commission under the Great Seal was then produced, appointing the Right Hon. Earl St. Vin cent, First Lord of the Admiralty; Sir Philip Stephens, Bart. William laiiot, ii.sq ;it Choßsa a Trowbridge, But. James E-q. John M ham, Esq and William; GrAtth3Lat, Esq. Lures Commissioners. Mr. Serjeaat Bast, in a most ingenious and era mated speech, addressed the Court and Jury on behalf of the Defendants : he observed that his Learned Friend, the AI rni i. GLSCRAL, hid tally and satistaZtority contained the law of libels ; but he stated, that all libels originated in malice ; he therefore begged leave to remind the Jury, that before they should fitid those perwons guilty, thy must find that they had published this pare. tia'a with malicious lute/mts, to vi►ify that Clo veininent of which they themselves were members. He had never bol.;r: sera evil:nee acre.: to p:ove ~'~•- the tenth of a transaaion, which had been the jed of a libel, nor was it a question now. wheal the thing published was tree or file-, but it was f the Jury to inquire whether the publisher had pu lished this with intent to vilify and degrade the c rater of the government, and whether this procee ed from malice or mistake ; it was not the repo turning out to be untrue, that. made these Defeo arcs guilty of a false, scandalous, and malicioes bel ; the fad must appear a wilful and malicious in tention to injure his charader and wound his feel-. i ings. -He was at that time filly persuaded that there was no foundation in truth for the as. sertion, nor was there a necessity for a Noble Lord of the Earl's high chareder to vindicate his condliet ; that already stood s•itheiently higa in the estimation of the public ; he most !unequivocally admitted there. was no foundation for it In the indictment it was asserted, that a certeia report had been circulated relative to the detention of the French fleet, and charged the Defendants with the original fabrication of such report ; that . I rnieal Rainier had detained, not ceptured, the French fleet them was A diiferenee between detention and cap ture ; :1.1.!er sonic circumstances the fleet of one nation may be detained by another, and though the Admiral had no diced authority to capture, yet be might detain. He had no di , ant, either at ts. it tane, or before lie came into court, that ships had been dispatched at the very commencement of the rup ture; but It might have occurred, that through va rious accidents from adverse winds, ace. other ships . might have reached him before the Government dispatches, and he might have received private hi formation previnus to that of Government, and that therefore there was a foundation for the revert, — Pondicherry was at that time in possession of the French, and the French fleet was anchored in the" bay. Admiral Rainier stationed his fleet on the out aide, but the French Adm.r.d, suspecting something, slipped his cables in the - night, and left false lights to elude the gallant Admiral's vigilance. fore, though no blame was eturibetable to the of the Admiralty, yet there WAS sufficient. fon tion for the report. The Ar roam EY Create A t. replied at some le I . gtk t. ' Lord El tee aoantou,in summing up we evidence to the Jury, observed, that ther • was ne quealan whet ever as to the /as/vtoer in thie cane, or as to the. persons alluded to in them, all r. pr Urn:nary . proofs had been satisfied, and the publication brought home to the Defendants. ale then went through ail the evidence. making his observa tions upon it : he said he had heard much said on the subjeft of malice ; but, in his opin.on, every report of this sort which drawl halivislaals into public disrepute and dinesped, is no snore me less than malice: the law pl'esumes it such, art is this case the malice resulted from the using itself. There was no inference to be drawn from tie; tali ginal report for the foundation of this pubilc.i.ion, and what was afterwards agitated in Parliameet mach helve originated in this publication. He, e:er.fore, uader all the circumstances of the case. had no doubt in saying that, in point of Law, it was a libel. The Jury found all the Defendants Caide. THE KING r. NISKIOT SSID °nit KU This was a similar .I%.l;:tinent .to the farmer. brought al., , Aiut lAnt I iigiot, Esq. ar, the sole Pia pricier, W. Armiter,e Scripps, as lite Publisher, B. Macmillan, as the Prime'. of the Newspaper, TLe inn. in which the same publication appeared. The AT TOSSICY GENLItAI. observed, that it ing a similar publication with the last, it would merely nece:aery to go through the form of pr winch were used in the former case. The indidtnent, &c. were then read. and Pr‘lei* gone through, wilkn the Jury returned a re did of Uwe, against all the Defendants. • OLD 11.11LEY. • w inttlP Efisileib Spencer, east Etzetti Benfritht, titul your , -- about oi do young woman, twenty years . stood ind.,!tod for sealing tour tahle.rloths, the perty of George Diggles—who dept.sect, that Prisoner was servant to him; that she had I, eesi kip* by a gen leman of high rank, whose AttortSir hal was ; that he had often seen the prisoner with hint / thst he, being obliged to go'to t:.e ;sland of dad, the prisoner' became very much digressed e that she applied to him to procure ter a place, she had a wish to go to service ; that he took to bis servize about the beginning Lticy rsfell, who had been cone sonar in taking the 'able-cloths, prisoner had brought her two r` l•idgings, aad asked her to - that she had got the other t. the Prosecutor's house ; ani on the cloths was applied •. ml things the prisoner had made lodging she had been ia before • to the Prosecutcr. The p.rwn-broker, to whom pledged, swore, that Mrs with - him in a false name. Emilia Thompson deposed, had lodged in 1: rr house, an, ?. to tare Prosecutor's ; that she ed room ; that she did not prisoner lett her house, nor she was in it. Sir ROBERT GRAHAM said, secutor, who was an Arto: known better, did not India the prisoner ; foe that all prove the guilt of the witness, criminate the prisoner, except Mel), who was herself deeply vi hose evidence has been c able witness for the prisoner, give; her a goad charaiter.' The. Jury immediately Sir R.L.IIERT GIAMAX she was now in, would be a cure, to te more cautious how The prisoner bowed and whole mai, she seemed much hAncliterchief to her eves. frilirevi Erani v a very genteel peargnce peculiar:y intereszin?, on a capital inditiment, for te' iag aalc,unzerfetzing,and f /VP IA! 4.G'411.4, IP, tri m - te very much digressed to procar , ler a colacv., at ivice ; that fie took he; in- rginning of September ~en concerned with the psi-. t-cloths, deposed, that dle A two of the cloths. to hue to pawn them for hes, mud' r two from the prisoner, at end that the money-dye got d to ti.e replacing if d made away with in the afore she went ;41 servant , rhom the table-cloths were 4 s Meld had pledged ewe !posed, that the prisoner and that she tt it to gn site I: 4.1 one te.ady lusnish. of mi.,s any th i ng when the ur during the whole times( said, he wondered the ?re. srvoeney, and should hay. lie Mrs. !!tell, instead of all the evidence we: t to itness, Nfell, and none to except the testimony of, deeply implicated, and contradiacd by a respect- iner, who, at the same Lane er.' • oisvitted-lic. said, he httped the danger t a lesson to her for the fu- how she conducted herself., and retired. During the nuch affected, and held a :enteel youth, and of an apa) :sting, was p :t to the bar ar I eioniously making, ft ter. ifelanio:atiuttarltag,know-t