The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—June 14.

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.

(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, Lord Chief
Justice Erle, Justices Wightman,
Willes, Blackburn, Byles, and Barons Martin
and Bramwell.)
THE QUEEN V. FLETCHER-THE BILSTON SAVINGS
BANK FRAUDS.
The further hearing of the arguments in this case
was resumed to•day. The defendant (the Rev. H.
Fletcher) had embezzled certain moneys deposited
in the Bilston Savings Bank. He was indicted be-
fore Mr. Baron Channell at Stafford at the late
assizes for that county, when the jury found him
guilty of embezzling the money as trustee of the
bank. The defendant owas indicted under the late
Fraudulent Trustees Act, which contained the
words, trustee under a deed, will, or instrument
in writing," The learned counsel for the de-
fendant took an objection on the trial,
that he was not a trustee under the provisions
of the act, and the learned judge reserved the
point, admitting the defendant in the mean-
time to bail. The case came before the
ordinary Court of Appeal, but as their lordships
were divided in opinion, it was referred to the full
court. The case accordingly came before the full
court on Saturday, the 7th inst., and after hearing
the defendant's learned counsel, the court took time
to consider whether they would call upon the
learned counsel for the prosecution to support the
conviction. _ _

Mr. Dowdeswell to-day submitted that the de-
fendant was a trustee created by an instrument in
writing. As treasurer, and also as secretary, he
dealt with trust funds, and held them as a trustee
expressly created. All persons dealing with trust
funds were trustees in law.

The Lord Chief Tustiee said there could be no
doubt that as treasurer and secretary the defendant
was a trustee, but the question was whether he was
trustee within the meaning of the act.
Mr. Dowdeswell contended that he was. No deed,
will, or instrument in writing could create a fund
to be dealt with in the manner contended for by the
defendant. It was the trust that was created and
not the fund. The word " instrument" means any-
thing contululug yin Granr or direction_ There was
no regular form for creating a trust, and any writ-
ing or memorandum in the shape of mutual cove-
nants, &c., without seal or stamp, was sufficient to
create a trust within the statute of frauds. The
Fraudulent Trustees Act it was intended should
have a wider signification than the statute of frauds,
and it did not contain many of its limitations. The
rules for the guidance, Bco., of the trustees and the
depositors were an instrument in writing that cre-
ated the trust, and when approved of were re-
gistered. An instrument in writing was anything
that conveyed the will and intention of persons.
All friendly societies, hospitals, and other in-
stitutions, were governed by rules which were
instruments in writing, and it was the intention
of the legislature that this act should be applica-
ble to all these cases. He also contended that
this was a trust for a public purpose to bring it
within the 17th section of the act.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn doubted, under the
rules, if this was an institution for a public purpose.
If not there was no express trust created.
Mr. Matthews (for the defendant) was heard in
reply. It was not merely a simple trust that was
necessary to support the conviction, but a trust of
property, The defendant was only liable at an
action at law.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said he was of
opinion that the conviction was right and ought to
be upheld. It was quite clear that the defendant
was a trustee for other persons within the meaning
of the act. This was not, strictly speaking, an in-
stitution for public or charitable purposes, but it
was of a sufficiently public purpose to support the
conviction. It was a trust created by an instru-
ment in writing, printed documents being consi-
dered written ones. The object of the act was to
prevent the fraudulent misappropriation of funds
by trustees, in their hands in that capacity. The
finding of the jury was right.
The other learned judges concurred.
Conviction affirmed.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
FINLAY T. FINLAY AND RUDALL.
Dr. Wambey for the petitioner.
The parties were married at Lisbon in Dec., 1833.
The husband was a master mariner, and he coha-
bited with his wife, a Portuguese, for several years
in different parts of the world. In 1840 she
eloped from Cadiz with Mr. Rudall, who was said
to be a gentleman. They went to Peru and other
places, and were found last year to be in Percy-
street, Euston-road.
The case stood over for legal proof of the mar-
riage.

VERE V. VERE.

Dr. Spinks for the petitioner.

The marriage took place in 1859, the respondent
being the keeper of a coffee-shop in Paddington.
His wife charged him with having treated her
with habitual violence, and with nothaving afforded
her proper sustenance for herself and her four chil-
dren. He was also accused of adultery with the
servant of the house.
Decree nisi, with costs.