The Express.
London, England, 1858-03-03 00:00:00

ASSIZB IRTBLLIGENCA

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—NoaTAAmp2oN, Miami 2.
(Before Mr. :wake Coleridge.)

FRAUD ON THE TREASITILT HT THE REGISTRAR OF •
801101:OH corer OF SWORD.
Oeorge Cooke, solicitor, 63 ears of
_was charged with
obtaining by false pretences, from the Lords COMMIS/10DM
of her Majesty's Treasury, the sum of 381. 3e. The case,
from the position of the prisoner, as Itegietrar of the Court
of Record,excited great interest. Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and
Mr. Field, conducted the prosecution, the prisoner being de-
fended by Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Serpent Hayes.
There were fifteen counts is the indictment, which occu-
pied Mean skins of parchment, and measured 38 feet in
length. The trial lasted six hours, but the facts of the case
are few.
Prisoner was appointed Registrar of the Northampton
Court of Record in 1837. In 1844 an Act of Parliament (7
and 8 Vic cap. 26) was passed, by which the power to
arrest on judgments under 201. was taken away, and (under
section 71) compensation wee awarded to any officer of the
court who should miler loss of fees in consequence of the
alteration. In 1846 Cooke made a return to the Treasury of
his fees for the previous seven years, and struck an average,
which amounted to 411. 14s. In 1846 be received from the
Treasury the sum of 311. 2s. Ild., being the diffee-
gnu between the fleesstated to have been received
during the peel year, and the average of the
amen previous year,. Cooke continued annually to make a
vetoes, end to receive compensation, end in August, 1857, he
returned the Ins at V. 110., receiving from the treasury the
Imbues of 381.25. It wee for making this return, sad obtaining
this easy, the present charge was brought. It was proved
by the evidence of hie own clerk, by that of the bailiff of the
court, sad the testimony of sevaal reeretable solicitors of
the town, that the business of the court, in the year in ques-
tion (August, 1856, to August, 1857), so far from falling off,
had very largely Incrrrd, and that the return had been
necessarily fraudulently made.
On behalf of the prisoner, Mr. Macaulay arged that the
mart had no juriediction offence, if any had been com-
mitted, having been commenced in one county and com-
pleted In another.
Mr. Justice Coleridge declined to stop the cam on this
ground, but reeerved the point for consideration.
Mr. Macanlay next contended that there was no proof of
fraudulent intention, and that Mr. Cooke's proceedings were
compatible with innocence, the court in respect of the busi-
ness of which Cooke made the return being founded by
charter in 1796, and administered under rules made by Mr.
Serjeant Clarke in 1837, and approved by throe judges. He
sought to establish a distinction between the court as thus con-
stituted and the court in its state under the Common Law
Procedure Act.

This objection was overruled, his lordship declining to en-
tertain the position that there were two courts, and stating
his strong opinion that the return purported to be what the
T required it to be—a return dell tees and emoluments
teed val by Cooke within the year by virtue of his office as

Alter an address to the jury by Mr. Macaulay, his lord-
' ship vary carefully summed up, and the jury almost imme-
diately returned • verdict of Guilty.
Dr. Faircloth was then sworn, and examined by Mr.
Macaulay. He deposed that he was Cooke's medical attend-
ant; that he suffered frem gout, and that:his life would pro-
bably be endangered by close confinement.
His Lordship, addressing the prisoner, said that, after a
long trial, and after having been earnestly and ably de-
fended, he had been convicted of a very great offence—an
aims that would be groat in any person, but peculiarly so
la one of his station and pretender', and at his time of life ;
boosamo fhs protein= to which he belonged, and the station
width be nunpied, made him nensesarify cognisant of the
whole unbar, of the act he was about ; and yet in spite of all
that, and of the position he held, be had not thought it un-
worthy of him to commit that great fraud. It had bean inti-
mated by his counsel that witnesses who could mask to hi.
character were not present, but that they might be to-mor-
row. That, however, would make no difference. If
he (the judge) thought that the strongest evi-
dence to character would make the sligh•est difference in the
punishment to be awarded him, he would have waited until
to-mormw morning before passing sentence. But that was
an offence, and the circumstances of the cue were such, in
his opinion, that the possession of a fair character ought not
to operate. It wee mainly bosun of his good character that
he had been enabled to do what be had done. Objections of
• legal end technical character had been taken, and if they
ahould be found to have any weight he would, of course,
have the benefit of them. But he was boned to say that if
they should so turn out, not a single person of common segue
would see that hie character stood at all the c'earer. In con-
sidering the sentence to be passed, he had at first thought of
consigning him to Imprisonment, the only alternative being
that of fine, to which he most strongly objected.)
The evidence just given, however, by Dr. Falrcloth had
induced him to alter his Bret Intention. Let it not be sup-
posed, however, that the alteration was owing at all to the
age, position, or character of the prisoner. It was due solely
to the consideration that impel -element might have an effect
upon his health beyond what the ends of justice and law re-
quired. The sentence of the court wax —that ho pay a tine
to the Queen of 2001., and that he be imprisoned until the
fine be paid.