The National Register.
London, England, 1812-02-16 00:00:00

108

resided in the City of London. He hoped in such. a case as this, his
‘N. ould not let in the plaintiff. to prove this fact.
1.0r4 Et LE 30 !WV na said this Was certainly that desyription of case,
in which he would he very unwilling to grant the plaintiff any indul-
gence, anti as it was now too late fur him to amend his ckse.
The plaintiff was nonsuited.

•••••••••
COURT OF EXCHEQUI.R CHAMBER, FEE. 14.

Tim, KING r. BENJAMIN WALSH, ESQ.
This case came on for further argument, before the Twelve Judges,
in Serjeant's Inn Hall, at Six o'clock this evening. .
Mr. Guritey, on the part of the prosecution, in continuation of his
!
fortner:argnment, after generally adverting to the cases he bad cited. on
the former occasion , proceeded to quote the remaining cases from
East's Pleas of the Crown, from all of which he contended, that the
possession of the personal chattels followed the right to the property,
and consequently that when the prosecutor (Sir T. Pioneer) delivered
the check on his Bankers to the prisoner, he had not parted with his
right of pos cession or control over the property ; and in furtherance of
this position, he supposed the case of the consignor of goods sending 4
them by a common carrier to the consignee, in that case he con-
tended the consignor had a control over the property until its actual
delivery into the hands of the consignee, and should the carrier convert
them to any other purpose than that for which he was entrusted with,
then he would he guilty of felony ; so in this case, as the prisoner had
converted the check of Sir Thomas tp his own purposes, contrary to the
implied contract, he was guilty equally of a felony. With respect to the
vet) maim), or felonious intent in taking the property and converting it
to his own use, he contended that the evidence upon the trial of the
prisoner's preparations for his journey was sufficient to warrant the
Jury in the conclusion they had drawn, namely, that the prisoner had
taken the check with a felonious intent to steal, and therefore that in
the judgment of their Lordships the verdict should stand.
Mr. Seariett, on behalf of the prisoner, and in reply to the argu-
ttente of the Learned Counsel on the part of the Crown, reverted to
his former proposition, which he distinguished under three several head,:
First, that the prisoner had not been guilty of a fraud in obtaining the
possession of the Banker's check ; Secondly, that the property in the
Bank-notes was never at any. period in the prosecutor, Sir Thomas.
Plomer, and, Thirdly, if the property ever had been in Sir Thomas
Pjomer, he had parted with it on a particular trust, and did not expect
a specific return of such property. With respect t . •he first point, he
contended, that the Banker's check being obtained previous to the pre-
parations for the .journey," there was no proof of any previous intent to
defraud at that time. Upon the second point, he contended,the property
in the Benk-notes never could at any time be in Sir Thos. Phonier, the
mere delivery of, the Banker'e check to the prisoner could not constitute
a felony,because that check was of no ..value until it came into the hands
of a third person; had it been lost or destroyed, the prosecutor could not
main: ein any action against hiss Banker for the value, nor against the
prisoner, is icing still of no value until turned into cask, or converted
into wine use, ny. pasting, out of the possession of the holder into the
bands .of a third person for, value, whereby alone it became a chattel
pre-petty iiethe lotod.e of .suds third person. Upon the.third point, lie
comeridedeeliateeven had the property in the Benk-notes ever been in
Sir 'I honoti*. nuttier, he Lad patted will all control over that pro-
perry, inasmuch as he had parted with it on a particular trust, for a
particular purpose, and did not expect a specific return of these identical
notes, the contract between the parties being proved.to he expressly for
the purpose of purchasing Exchequer Bills. With regard to the various
cases cited by the Learned Counsel for the Prosecution, he did not
trouble .their. Lordships with observations .upon each particular case,
but thought it better to class them under their 'respective heads, and
own to them generally ; and from all of which he contended, that in-
stead of advancing the arguments on the other side, they all supported
the general principle ho had laid down. And as to the supposed case
of .the consignor of goods, there he admitted the property was in the
consignor mail the delivery was completed : that was the specific con-
tract, and could not he compete until the actual delivery. in such a
case there was no variation or change of property, so as to take it out
of the control of the consignor. Had the carrier, in that case, con-
verted the. whole of the property to his own use, in the identical state
in which it was entrusted to him for delivery, he would be guilty of a
misdemeanour, hut not of a felony ; or had he separated and divided
the property, and delivered it to different persons, contrary to his con-
tract, this would completely change the character of the property, and
take the control over it out of the consignor. So 'in the case of a man
delivering a piece of cloth to a tailor, to makelinto a suit of clothes,
and the tailor converted it into another purpose; by the delivery for a
specific purpose, diverted the property into other hands, and he could
have no further control over '1 he tailor might have a lien upon it,
for the cutting out and making up ; but the original owner having
once parted with it for a specific purpose, could have no longer any
power over it. With regard to the case of the forgery of a will, that
was a case be no means analagous to the present, than the forgery con-
stitute d the felony ; but, in the present case, the conversion of the pro-
perty constituted the f:lony ; and it was wholly inconsistent to say, that
in a case where the property never had been in the prosecutor at any ewe
period, that it cetdd he contended, that this was a felonious taking of