The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1803-05-12 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S SENCH, WEpt4EsDAr, 'Met

THE KING V. riavroa.
This was an information against the Defendant
for sending a challenge to Mr. John Hunter, of the
Navy Office. Judgment having guile by default,
the Defendant was brought up to receive the sen-
tence of the Court. The letter containing the chal-
lenge was first read, in which the Defendant called
Mr. Hunter a liar, a scoundrel, &c. and accused
him of making false representations to the Navy
Board, and d :minded satisladtion.
The transaaion, as explained by Mr. Hunter's
affidavit, was as follows : that a return of the
muster of his Majesty's ship Brunswia, fur the
months of January, February, and March, 179(,
coming into the office, he lied reason to striped that
these muster books were falsely made up by the
Defendant, and that he had fraudulently obtained
from the office the master books of the same ship,
for the months of May and June following, and
that the former books were made up by transcribing
the latter; and also that the signatures thereto were
forged. In consequence of this reprssentation to
the i3oard, they ordered that the Defendant should
not have access to any other books in the office.— '
The Defendant for this wrote him the challenge.
In answer to this, the Defendant, by his affidavits '
went into a d.'tail of the transaction. He said, that
being employed to pass the accounts of Philips, late
Parser of the Bruns wick, who was dead, he made
up the accounts from the subsequent musters, which
was a practice that bad long prevailed in making up
navy accounts. When the books were made up,
they were delivered to '.ll:tiisie and Co. agents of
Lord C. Fitzgerald, who commanded the Brunswick,
and were by them transmitted to his Lordship, at
Dublin, who there signed them. They were also
sent to Sheerness, where they were signed by the
Master and Purser. He therefore denied that the
signatures were forged. With regard to the prose-
cution, he verily believed it was founded in malice,
on the part of Mr. Hunter; because the Defend-
ant had betrayed a great many frauds to the Ad- '
niiralty, which were praaised by prize and navy
agents, and in which Mr. Hunter was himself af-
feaed. After the information had been given to
the Board by Mr.l hinter, he applied to the Com-
missioners for a dopy of that information, in order
that he might have vindicated his charader by law ;
but he was told that they never gave up any of their
servants who communicated intelligence to them.
Finding himself, therefore, without legal redress, he
was induced, by the irritation of the moment, to
write those letters, especially as it had been attended
wi:h the most serisas consequences to him; for, from
the circumstance of his being denied access to the
Navy-Office, he was ruined in his trade, and reduced
from a situation of great comfort, to absolute dis-
tress.
An affidavit of Maude was also read, which cor-
roborated the statement of the last deponent, re-
speaing the custom of making up one muster-book
by another; and that the signatures were the real
signatures of the persons subscribed.
Mr. ERSKINE said, he admitted, that upon these
aide nits he was not entitled to ask a severe judg-
ment against the Defendant. From his statement
it appeared that the prosecutor had made a false
charge, had refused to retract it, and that the fami-
ly of the Defendant were v!.tims of the calum-
ny ; and that the only reason for such conduit was,
that the Defendant had furnished important infor-
mation respeding the frauds committed by prize and
navy agents. But he himself hoped, that the Court
would grant permission to Mr. Hunter to answer
this affidavit of the Defendant. He would then
shew that the whole of it was false. He had
before him the affidavit of one of the persons whose
name was affixed to the muster-books • and he
would state that his name was a forgery. He hoped
that the Court would receive this answer befol'e they
peocceded to judgment.
Lord ELLt:Nsokocurt said, that they must look
to the facet charged upon the record, which was for
sending a challenge. The Court could not go into
a consideration of all the other collateral points.
Mr. GARROW submitted, that no man would ven-
ture to file an information, unless he had the power
to answer what might be sworn by the Defendant.
Supposing the case had gone on to trial, there the
prosecutor, in re-examination, could have explained.
whatever had been advanced in cross-examination ;
but by letting judgment go by default, the Defend-
ant could swear whatever he pleased, swearing last,
unless the prosecutor was also heard in explana-
tion.
Lord Es,tresoeorcu observed, that erough was
disclosed in the affidavits to enable the Court to
form their judgment upon the fag on the record.
They could not travel into the collateral points ; but
if Mr. Hunter felt himself aggrieved by any thing
that the Defendant had sworn, he might lay the
alltdavits before the proper fi:rum. If such a prac-
tice of making up accounts did really exist, it was a
praelice against all sense and all honesty, but they
were then to decide on a question of sending a chal-
lenge.
Mr. ERSKINE and Mr. Csaneow shortly addres-
se I the Court in aggravation of the judgment ;
they insisted on the enormous evils likely to ensue
from the fr.-.adulent manner in which the Defend-
ant had admitted lie made up his public ac-

counts.
Mr. MARRYATT on the other side, in extenuation
observed, that the common pradice had been such
as Defendant had pursued, and therefore he felt it
severely hard, when, by the representations of the.
Plaintiff; he felt himself deprived of his means of liv-
ing for doing that which, though not justifiable, was
nevertheless a common practice.
Lord ELLENBOROCGN condemned in very strong
terms the shameful manner which had been avowed
of ~taking up these public accounts. It was a ter-
rible thing, he said, to hear it publicly avowed in a
Court of Justice. If there ever existed ally difficulty
hi making public accounts, the parties ought to ap-
ply themselves to superior authority, but not supply
fads by induction. But that was not for them to de-
cide, they were only to pronounce on the party for
the fad with which he stood legally charged before
them. •
Mr. Justice LAWRENCE observed, that if Mr.
Hunter thought his charafter falsely attacked by the
affidavit of the Defendant, he might indict for per-
jury ; the Court had only to look to the fad of send-
ing a challenge, which was the one charged upon
the record.
Mr. Justice LE BLANC said, lie was not surprized
that Mr. Hunter should wish to answer the affidavit,

MI

grer

7 "7-1

S
* . • .!
, . .
but as it went ufrsTit cOlinteralpoiiiis the Court tould
nor receive it. The Defendant wee then ordered to
be recommitted, and.lsrought up• *gain on Satur-
day the 21st,
==tcr-zi—ds
COURT OF COMMoN PLEAS, MAY 11.
TAP V. LEE.
Mr, Scrieant Best moved the Court for a new
trial in this case, on the grounds that a Jury had
given their verdid contrary to evidence. It *as an
adion to recover damages for giving a false and
fraudulent charader of a person named Brunell, by
which the Plaintiff had sustained a tonsiderable loss.
Brunell, it appeared, was a chapman, or retail
dealer, and had dealt for a Considerable time with
the Defendant. In March, 1802, he became insol-
vent, and in that situation applied to the Plaintiff
for certain g00d..., which were to be sold to him on his
giving a reference to his character. Lee was men-
tioned as capable of affording every information on
that head. Tap immediately went to Lee and ask-
ed if it was safe to trust Brunell with any goods:.
The latter said, that Brunell had long dealt with
him, and then owed him money; lie had always
found him an honest man, and was ready at that
time to lechim have any goods that he might be in-
clined to take. From this information, the Plaintiff'
delivered property into the hands of Brunell to a
considerable amount ; a short time after which the
latter was arrested and thrown into gaol. Lee,
on meeting the Plaintiff, asked if he had trusted
Brunell with the goods • the other replied, " I could
not do otherwise from the charader you gave rite of
him." Lee then denied having said that Brunell
was a man of property. He had only stated that he
had found him an honest man ; he laughed at the
Plaintiff, and said, that he did not think 11c was such
a case as to trust the other with his property. The
action was then brought, and tried at Guildhall,
where the Jury gave a verdia for the Plaintiff. It
was contended, on behalf of the Defendant, that
there had existed no intention to commit a fraud,
and that it was necessary to prove the parties had
entered into a determination to obtain the goods for
their joint advantage, before a Jury could give a
verdi& for the Plaintiff. This had not been the
case ; it had appeared that Lee only spoke of Brit.
nell as an honest man, which he at that time consi-
dered him, from having sold him goods which had
always been regularly paid for. The Defendant
had not advised the Plaintiff to trust that person ;
he had done that from his own inclination, and had
understood the words used respecting Brunell, in a
different sense from what they were intended. Upon
the whole, it was argued, that the verdiil had been
given not only against evidence but the law.
Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD contended, that the De-
fendant had given a charader of Bruneil, contrary
to his knowled;7e of that person's affairs; he had
known that he was insolvent at the time application
was made to the Plaintiff for the goods ; it was con-
sequently obvious that there had exist( d a design, on
the part of Lee, to mislead the Plaintiff ; therefore,
the verdift given ought not to be disturbed.
The Court were of opinion, that the verdiet had
not been given contrary to the evidence, but ad.
mitted that the condud of the Defeaciant did not
appear to come under the imputation of fraud,
which was the ground of the anion.
A new trial, with costs, was therefore granted.
BIRCH V. JOSEPH.
Application was made in this case, for the Dee
: fend= to Fay the costs, a nonsuit having been
given, owing to the absence of a materal witness,
named Parkinton. Mr. Serjeant SHEPHEAD read the
affidavit of the above witness, which stated, that
he had consulted the Defendant, re;peding his
attendance at the trial, and was byr direded to
be at Guildhall precisely at ten o clock. He went
at that time,. and found the cause had been tried,
and the Plaintiff had been nonsuited, in consequence
of his absence.
Mr. Serjeant Best contended, that the Defendant
ought not to suffer for the negligmce of the wit.
'less, whose duty it was t,) have been ;'resent at the
time of trial.—kule refused.
_

V

i

• .
1.1
fi.
- _