The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-24 00:00:00

THE POLICE CO URT&

MANSION-HOUSE._

Ga. riel Sane Garrett, charged with having committed
extensive fraud by altering the amount of • letter of credit
for 2101. to 6,2101., was brought before Alderman Wire for
final examination, by Thain, of the detective City police.
Mr. Mullen,, of the firm of Bash and Mullein, solicitors
to the Committee of Bankers, appeared for the prosecution,
and Mr. Weather for the prisoner.
Mr. Mullen. said it was his intention to elceethe case by
calling a Russian merchant whose house had been de-
frauded to a considerable extent by means of the forged do-
cument and by the prisoner.
Mr. James Murray Wilson said—l am a merchant carry-
ing on business at St. Petersburgh under the firm of
Wilson and Company. We are correspondents mentioned
in the letters of credit of Duncan, Sherman, and Co., of
New York. On the 21st of February last their letter of
credit N 0.41 was brought to me by the prisoner. It pur-
ported to be for 6,2101. On that day I paid to the pri•
toner the equivalent in Russian money of 1001. sterling.
He then signed the two bills produced for 401. and 601. upon
the Union Bank of London, both dated the 21st of Fe-
bruary, and signed by him, in my presence, " Ga-
briel Sans Garrett," and both purporting to be
drawn on the Union Bank of London on account
of Duncan, Sherman, and Co.'s letter of credit No. 41. On
the 224 of February the prisoner called upon me again and
mid that he required a further sum of 2,6001., end it was to
pay for some diamonds which he had bought. I was to pay
the amount upon order which he was to give to the parties
from whom he said he had obtained the diamonds, end if
any balance remained I was to pay that over to himself. He
called again the nest day, but on the same day he came
again on the 'Change, and requested me to provide a sum
equivalent to 1,2001. sterling more to be paid in the same
way upon his order In consequence of that request be gave
me the two bills, namely, one for 2,6001. dated the 224 of
February, and drawn as the other bills on the same letter
of credit. I saw him sign these bills, the other is for 1,2001.
and drawn in the same manner. In consequence of envie-
giitimre bus I paid the three drafts produced signed by the
The amounts of the bills were marked off upon
the he; staredit, sad I returned the letter of credit with
these emdeaseensmis on it to the prisoner. The drafts were
pa i le the rimer% order, but before he left I made •
manietket of the amount which would be caning to
the primer apes payment of the drafts on us.
There was • small balance of about twenty-Ave shil-
lings, which I phi to the prisoner. I then transmitted
the bills by poet to ear London house, in whose favour they
were drawn. The bream was paid to the prisoner before
the cheques were presented ; but he had told me the
amounts of the sibenees he was to draw. There were pre-
vious endearments ea the letter of credit, one of which was
of the Union Bask of London, and another of Shickler and
others, of Berlin, and • third of Mare and Co., of Moscow.
I made a note ur account on a slip of paper, stating the ex-
change and tne amount he would have to receive.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wontner—l did not keep a copy
of the letter of credit.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mullens—lt is not usual to keep
a cony. We should have detained the letter of credit if the
amount had been exhausted.

Alderman Wire asked whether Hr. Wontner desired to
make an y further observations on the case
Mr. Wontner said the only point to which his attention
had been directed was as to the 1 egal effect of the docu-
ments having been presented in London by an innocent
agent, whether this act could be binding in a criminal
sense upon the prisoner for a transaction in which he was
implicated abroad, out of the jurisdiction of Ithe British
courts. He had looked into the cases, and not one of those
already decided applied to the present case. The cases
alluded to had reference to innocent persons who had been
deputed to do an unlawful act for the benefit of those who
had employed them as agents. In the present cue the
transaction was completed abroad, and the fact of" the
cheque being presented in London was on act done for the
benefit of the bolder of the bill, and could not have been
presented in London for the benefit of the prisoner. The
prisoner had committed no unlawful act, either by himself
or constructively by any innocent agent in Englaud. What
he did was done out of the jurisdiction of the English
courts, and therefore the prisoner was entitled to his dis-
charge.
Alderman Wire—Suppose this bad been a case of forgery
of the letter of credit, and there was no evidence to show
whether the alteration had been made in this country or
abroad ?

Mr. Wontner—There is no evidence to the effect that the
alteration has been made in England. The only evidence
is that the document has been uttered abroad. Giving a
forged English bill abroad would not give jurisdiction to
the courts in England, although it might have passed
through the hands of several indorsers.
Alderman Wire-1-Buppose that this were a civil truss.-

tion, the iodoner of the bill would be the agent for the
drawers to present it. In my opinion, the agency in this
e.se is implied by law. Suppose • person at Boulogne
gives to the captain of a vessel n forged cheque payable and
to be received in London. Would not that be • criminal
offence for which he might be answerable in the Engl eh
courts? In the ease before me it was never intended that
the money should be received at Berlin or Moscow, but in
London; and I consider that there was such a contrivance
of the prisoner as to bring this cue within the jurisdiction
of the English courts.
Mr. Mullen—ln the ease in which evidence has been
given to day, the bill was given by the prisoner to Messrs.
Wilson and Co. at St. Petersburg, for the purpose of being
presented to the Union Bank in London.
Alderman Wire—This is a case of se much importance to
the banking and mercantile community, that I consider it
to be my duty to commit the prisoner for trial; but as there
may be some doubt as to tho law applicable to it, although
there can be no doubt whatever as to,the fraud committed
by the prisoner, I will consent VI take bail for him, himself
in 5001., and two aunties in 2501. each.
The prisoner was then formally committed for a misde-
meanour in having fraudulently attempted to obtain the
monies in question from the Union Bank of London, with
intent to detraud that establishment.