The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-14 00:00:00

THE BEACON NEWSPAPER.

EDINBURGH, MONDAY, DEC. 9.
TRIAL BY A JURY :of an ACTION of DAMAGES.
Present the Lord Chief Commissioner, and Lord Gillies.

JAMES GIBSON, OF INGLISTON, CLERK TO THY. SIGNET,
AGAINST DUNCAN STEVENSON, PRINTER IN EDIN.

BURGH.

In order that our Readers may distinctly corn-
prehetid- the facts of this important question, it
may not be improper, before detailing the Trial,
to give copies of the Issues settled and adjusted,
for investigation.
'lssues in Causa, JAMES Ginsox, Pursuer, v. Duxcwar STE-
VENSON, Defender.
It being admitted that the pursuer is, and has for many years
been a riter to the Signet, and has been agent and attorney
for the Bank of England since the 26th day of December 1811,
and has brought prosecutions for forgery on their account, and'
was employed as agent in the trial of Frances Mackay, which
took place before the High Court of Justiciary, at Edinburgh,
on the Ist day of February 1819: It being 'also admitted, that
in the month of June and July 1821, the defender Duncan Ste-
venson, was printer, publisher, and proprietor of a certain news-
paper, called the Beacon : —Whether, on or about the, 23d day
of July 1821, the defender, in the 25th number of the said-news-
paper' did print acrd publish, or cause to be printed and pub-
lished, the following words, or words of the following tenor or
effect :—" To the Editor of The Beacon.—Sir,-,ln your, last
number I osserved an article, which, although it discovered, on
the part .of its author, some disappointment and, peevishness, yet
contained some sensible enough remarks on the prevention of
forgery. There is one mistake, however, into which the writer of
it has fallol which ought to be corrected, because otherwiseyour
Widely circulatedi paper may be the means of creating, in the
minds of the ignorant and misinformed, :erroneous ideas as
to the state of our criminal-law, and of the mode in which
it is administered. The author of: that article says, It is,
well known that as the forms of law stand at present, it is
better for a Scotch bank to pay. a thousand forged one pound
notes, than to prosecute a forger ; at least it has been stated
by the best authority, that before a forger was-executed, it.
cost a Scotch bank twelve hundred pounds.' Now, every per-
son who is at all informed on the subject knows; that in order to
obtain, the conviction or execution of a: forger of. its notes, no
bank in this country ever necessarily expended twelve hundred
pence. As soon asa forgery is discovered to; have: been com-
mitted, a bank has only to give information to the public pro-
secutor—the Procurator Fiscal, and the. crime- will:then be
investigated, and the criminal brought to justice at the-public
expence, in the same way, that- any other criminal would be
disposed, of who had,: committed_ any. other, crime to the.we
judice of, an individual. When, however, this course is not-
followed, and banks, or their legal advisers, frony too keen an
attention to their own interest, instead of leaving matters to be
conducted in the ordinary way by the official persons appointed
fur that purpose by the public, officiously volunteer to assist in
the investigation ; and where, imagining that their-affairs are of
WO great importance to be entrusted to the:counsel
.and agent
whom Government has been so credulous as to entrust with the
management of the.criminal business of the country, they.are not
satisfied unless they have also the benefit of the eminent talents
of- the great agent of Whiggism, and • halt: a.. dozen Whig'd
Counsel, I am not prepared to deny that a bank may be forced
to disburse even a greater-sum-than 1,2001. Before, however I'
can speak decisively as to. this, I must first know from,Mr. Jas.:
Gibson, W.S: how much the conviction of a forger- here used to
cost the Bank of England. Banks have lately been obliged,