The Sun.
London, England, 1830-11-22 00:00:00

AW INTELLIGENCE,-.(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Mr. GURNEY moved for a rule to show cause why a
criminal information should nut be filed against several of
the inhabitants of the borough of Queenborough (the
names of whom did vat transpire). It appeared from the
affidavits, that for a length of time strong disputes have
existed between the Corporation and the inhabitants of
Queenborough, relating to the oyster fisheries; and to
such an height did these disputes arrive, that the Corpo-
ration were threatened, unless they agreed to certain pro-
posals, with violence even to bloodshed--a threat which
was very nearly carried into execution, for, at a Court
Leet, at which the inembert of the Corporation were as-
sembled, the parties against whom the present applica-
tion was made attacked the Town-hall, broke the win-
dows, and committed other acts of outrage.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.

THE RING V. FRANCIS DYNELY..*JUDGMENT.

Mr. Seijeant Luntow prayed the judgment of the Court
upon Mr. Francis Dyndy, an attorney residing at Worces-
ter, who had been convicted of conspiracy with a person
named [matey (also an attorney, since dead), to defraud a
Mr. Marshall.

The defendant, a most respectable looking man, appeared
on the float of the Court and put in an affidavit, in
which he declared that he had not the least intention to
,lefraud the prosecutor, as, at the time he obtained the
money, he expected to have been able to repay it at a fu-
ture day. A great number of affidavits, amongst which
was one by the Mayor of Worctster, were read, giv-
ing the defendant an excellent character for honesty and
good behaviour.

Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Court in mitigation. He
said it was with the deepest regret that he saw a person
in the defendant's situation in life brought into that Court
for judgment. He could not, however, help thinking
that the present case was one of great hardship, as the
Court would bear in mind that the fraudulent transaction
of which Mr. Dynely had been convicted occurred 14
years since, and the evidence on which he was found
guilty was furnished by his confidential clerk, who
produced letters which ought never to have seen
the light. The defendant since that transaction had
lost all his property, and been a bankrupt, and
the other party being dead, coupled with the loss of
documents, rendered it impossible for him to justify the
ti Lineation. There were circumstances, however, of a
mitigatory nature. He was at that time an attorney in
good practice, he had considerable landed property, and
when he obtained the money he gave .his own bond as a
security ; and had not unforeseen circumstances arose the
prosecutor never would have suffered. He had also re-
ceived the highest possible character fur honesty and inte-
grity of conduct, and this was the only single instance of
his deviating from the path of rectitude. In on evil hour,
however, from the necessities of the moment, he had for-
gotten himself, but he hoped the Court would temper its
judgment with mercy.
Mr. Gonsosr followed on the same side, and stated that
the defendant had suffered the greatest anguish of mind
in consequence of the part he took in the transaction.
Mr. Serjeant Luntow, in aggravation of punishment,
said it was a painful duty at all times to speak in aggra-
vation of punishment; but it became particularly so in
caves like the present, when the party had moved in so
respectable a sphere of life. It was his duty, however, to
state that this prosecution had not been instituted from
any vindictive feelings ; their Lordships were in possession
of the facts of the case, and that the defendant was con-
victed on the clearest of all possible evidence, viz..•._letters
in his own hand-writing, which letters had clearly shown
that he contemplated a fraud. He (Mr. Serjeant Ludlow)
would not say more than that he felt confident the Court
would pass such a sentence as would satisfy the justice of
the case.

Mr. Cuxwoon followed—He was fully sensible of the
painful duty imposed upon the Court in passing judgment
upon persons who had received a high character, but it
was a duty the interests of soc;ety demanded should be
firmly exercised. The defendant, whatever his station in
life had been, was convicted, on the clearest evidence, of
a conspiracy, and it was not sufficient to weigh with the
Court to be told that he was now too poor to pay a fine,
and too ill to bear imprisonm►ut,
Lord TxNTEROEN enquired if the defendant was now
practising as an attorney,

Mr. CAMPBELL said that be was, but in consequence of
those proceedings had very little business.
Mr. JihtieC JAMES PARKE addressed the defendant as
Mime : —Francis Dynely, you have been convicted on the
clearest evidence of a very grave and serious offence, viz.,
of conspiring with a person named Loxley, also a professional
man, to cheat and defraud the prosecutor. The charge
against you was proved on the clearest evidence, not by
witnesses who might by possibility have been in error, but
by your own handwriting, • by which you describe the
means to be used to carry the, turret into effect. Your
correepontlence with Loxley *hows a regular plan to defraud
Mr. Marshall. He was the trustee of another individual,
and he never would have advanced g,OOO/. on a security
had be known es you did, and whore duty it war to have in-
formed him, that it could not be assigned without consent.
In short, you got the advance without any valid security
at all. You say that it Was not your intention to de-
fraud, and that you expected, at a 'future day, to be
able to repay the troneY. This is a circumstance
that this Court cannot for a moment pay any attention to.
It is but a vain hope to stifle the conscience when about
to commit a fraud, and indulged in by all. You complain
of hardship, as the transaction took place fourteen years
ago ; this does not alter the complexion of the case, and
your example will show that no length Of time can lessen
the offence.. Your case is one of great enormity, if com-
mitted by unprofessional men ; but your being in the pro-
fetision makes it one of a much greater magnitude, end if
not therefore made an example of, all trust and confidence
would be destroyed. You plead in mitigation that you
have a flutter a clergyman SI years of age, and a son about
to enter that sacred profession, to whom the sentence of the
Court must give great pain. The Court exceedingly regrets
that its judgments, and the publicity it will receive, should
be the cause of pain to an aged man, just at the close of life,
and also, that it should be injurious to the prospects of a
young man about to cuter the sacred profession, but it
could not forget that it had a public duty to perform.
The judgment therefore is, that you be imprisoned for eight
calendar months in Worcester gaol, and, as a matter of
course, that you be struck off the rolls, for it is ialute-
Bible for the Court to suffer any one who hoe so grossly
violated his duty, any longer to continue in practice. Thu
defendant was then removed in custody.
The Court afterwards proceeded to hear motions for new
trials.

ROLLS' COURT.
JunoteNT.....anaritsott V. kvirr.
His Honour the MAMA of the nous gave judgment
this morning in this case. The plaintiff was the granter
of AR annuity of 851. a year for three lives, fur the MUM
of 700/., and had tiled his bill against the defendants, two
professional gentlemen, who were agents in the transac.
tion of the purchese of the annuity, for the purpose o'
having it declared that they had fraudulently induced
him to purchase the annuity by a misrepresents.
thin of the circumstances of the granter and his
sureties, and by concealing what it was their duty to
have disclosed to the plaintiff. At the hearing the great
difficulty in the mind of the Court Wilt, whether the ease
was one whioh it Court of Equity could take notice of— i
whether a fraud of this nature came within the cogni.
aance of a Court of Equity ; but upon consideretion of
the authorities, more particular that of Evans end Bich-
nell, 6th Vesey, it appeared to his Honour that
although the pleiutiff, if hit itota were true, might
have relief in a Court of Law, yet that a Court of Equity
had a concurrent jurisdiction. With respect to the alleged
inierepreeentation, the Court did not find, upon looking at
tit() pleAdirigil, that there Will any misrepreeentitinn ad.
nutted, unless what him Honour was about to state could
be deemed to be such; the plaintiff alleged that the defto-
dants had represented t him that Mr. Lee, the granter of
the annuity, wo an officer in the service of the East
India Company, enjoying a salary of 10001. a year,
tivt defendants admitted that stieh a representation
was made, and it avowed that Mr. Lee was an
officer in the service of the defendants, and stared
to have a 'salary of 900/, alear. a Ca'rurt did
not eensider that representation weal give touch weight
to the cue of the plaintiff; With respect to the conceal-
ment of the circunnitancee of the granter and his suretie. •
the facts were these, the granter had shortly before
the present transaction made an essignmeat -nr, Oa a
year, part of his salary, for the purpoae of securing the
payment of debts amounting to WO/. It appeared elan
that there was a runnier account between the J4104001+
and Mr. Lee. The plaintiff alleged that the thrtimdante
had great :merest in'precuring the 7001 for Mt. Lee, and
that the transaction was in every mspeet a baud upon
him. From the evidence it appeared that at the time the
transaction took place there was only U.Ol. due from Lee to
the defendants • it was true that they were under
liabilities fur him to a much larger amount ; but
trill in the mind of the court the interest which the
defendants had in Lee's property did nut warrant the
plaintiff in inuring the allegations of freed which he had
With respeet to the oorediscloteni of the circuit...

,tancee of the granter and his sureties, the Co art cou-
ntered the proposition of the plainM4 most Jar., ttge one.
No granter of au annuity 'wee obliged:Air disolotti to the
durchaser all the embarrassments of his situation. It
,Vas the duty of the grantee to look to -that. Jo
this case, hoverer, not the least doubt could 'have been
mtertaitted of the embarrassment of the party. granting the
innuity, the transaction, itself was a sutliciaos pront,of it ;
tin no man, unless he was under very great etOstristruents,
would ever grant an annuity like the one in titostiott..--
Upon the wbOle, therefore, his Honour w'atHuluarlY. of
opi-
nion the bill of the plaintiff must be distnissed—and, con-
videring its nature, and the charges of fiend which it con-
tained, none of which had been substantiated, his Honour
felt himself called upon to dismiss it with costs.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
The CounT took motions to-ilay, but nothing of im-
portance occurred previous to our Reporter le,rviiw.
His Horiourt received the congratulations- of the Bar
this morning on his appointment as Solicitor-General.