The Sun.
London, England, 1813-11-27 00:00:00

LAAV _lNTitt,t lOtiNtt.

COURT OF CUANcERY, Nov. 9.6.

J. P. AtnitOL. AND OrIIER3 V..t. SMITA, ESQ. M.

The Vic?. this day gave hits judg-
'bent in the above came, which was heard before
.ltim an the Bth, 12th; and. 15th NovOnber. The
bill prayed.an account of the produce of certain
effects of the late Captain Jelte,, possessed
by the delenflant aster Capt tiu Jelfe'S decease in
17(15, as trustee fur his infant chidt en.. Captain
Jelfc left at widow, v. ho -obtained letters of admi-
nistration at his estate; hut the defendant, her
hrolher, undertaking to conduct her affairs for
her, possessed the itliole of hue property, and
never settled any accaunt of it for thirty-seven
vear, namely, till 1802, when Mrs. Jelle died
1-le then rendered an account to her family, by
which he appeared indebted to the estate in' less
than -WOOL.; but the account being submitted to
the investigation of arhitrators they awarded the
sttrn due to he upwards of 33,0001. which the de-
fendant pail. The farther Iclahn made against
him in the present 3tat amounted to about 15,000/.
.and was founded on a discovery made since the
award, that several entries in the accounts laid
before the arbitrators by the defendant, and ads
itted by them, were lake, representing him to
'have miule purchases and sales of stock, which, in
Jiver, never took place. Upon a statement of the
acepunts, upon the basis of the defendant's real
transactions, instead of these imaginary stock.,
dealings, the balance due from him appeared to
exceed the 33,000/. and -upwards, awarded by the
arbitrators to the extent claimed by the phsintilfs'
bill.

The Nrtcr.-CuANrcELLott stated, that though the
evidence from the Bank 'shoved the entries in
,
question is the defendant's, accotults relating to
the stock to be false, and lair ground was laid for
decreeing the account sought by the plaintiffs, if
the Court bad jurisdiction, he felt Abut the award
which had been made as the conclusion of .11 the
parties' differences, wag, under the provisions of
the Statute of William the :Id., a btu; to. any far-
ther investigatiou He, therefore, thought that
the Court had not jurisdiction, and dismissed the
plaintiffs' bill ; but considering the 'Case, which
was proved by them, be said he should not make
them pay costs.

COURT OF KING'S r,r:scti, Nov, V.

THE KING V. TUC HEY.. J. lIINGRAM.

The defend I.la wits i- flay brought •up for
jut &t:t..nt.. Ile had been convicted of a conspi-
racy, together with James, Cooper, the prose-
cutor', to defraud the revenue of 101. by inserting
in a deed of conVeyance a less suit than lout actu-
ally been paid for the consideration of the pur-
chase. The •intlict meat also charged the defendant
with purchasing a house which he hail diissuaded
Cooper front buying, in order to extort money
front the said CoOper. It alai stated, that the de-
fendant purchased the hOuse for 750/. and sold it
to Cooper for 2,200/. in consequence of a dornutut
license, which the Magistrates had alitiwed to be
kept on foot for sever• years, having been attach-
ed to it. It is unnecessary to state the circum-
stances. of the case more fully, 'as a foil report of
cheat is already before the:
The affidavit of the defetnlant Was rend, in
which he denied that Cimper had ever asked his
advice as to the purehuSe of the house in question,
and went very fully into the
.different parts of the
cause; forty affidavits as to character were then
read, in which the defendant received a most ex-
cellent character ; one of the affidavits was front
cite Bishop of Winchester, another front the Mar-
quis of Buckingham, several. from Magistiate3 of
the county, and one trout a Roman CatholiC
Priest.

Mr. JEKYLL addressed the Court in mitiration
of damage's ; and Mr. Sedeant PELL replied, on
behalf of the prosecution.
Mr. Justice.La Byktic said, the Court had to
discharge a. painful duty in passing sentence on a
Magistrate and a Clergyman, 'convicted of a eon-
spi;acy to defraud the revenue, and for having
sold a house' for a large sum of money in conse-
quence Of having obtained a license for it. In
animadverting on his crime, and.apportioning his
punishment, the Court would not attend to any
other circumstances than such as had been proved.
It was clear that the hunse was sold to the defen-
Aant for 7.-Dll. and that some short -thne'after-
wards he sold'it for the sum of 2,2001.' including
the license.. It was material that the bargain was
made between Cooper and the defendant, without
any communication with Beach. The defend:int
also gave [11: order for the conveyance to his own
Solicitor, and he was not called at the trial, nor
had he made any affidavit. If it were true, that
the defendant did thint,t that Cooper Wll3 to pay
the expellees of the .conveyance, that only provNl
that he did not do it front a corrupt motive; but
Ire would. still be guilty of a conspiracy to de,
fraud the revenue.' It did not appear front the
defendant's affidavit, 'how CoOper 1111:1 paid the
purchase-money, "It was clear that the defendant
must have given directions tohis*Solicitor to insert
stieli a sum.as the consideration, as would enable
hint to avoid paying the 201. ditty. In ordinary cases,
when persons of low condition were brought be.
fore the Court, they generally: pleaded ignorance;
but the present defendant could not avail.himself
of that plea. The Court had an imperious duty
to perform ; they could not look to she right
band, or to the left ; they could not, deal tint jus-
tice With' a, different hand to different persons.---
The Gotta, although it would not go out of the
way to remark on persons not before the Court,
could. not help reprobating the p:actice of grant-
ing dormant licenses. The defendant was nut
innocent as to this business, for be-knew of the
intended application, as Was shewn by his saying
that he was interested in. it, and would not take
any part. The legislature had beett very careful
that persons engaged in the business of public-
houses should not have any power to grant Ii
tenses; but the object of the legislature would be
frustrated', if the owners of those houses had the
power. Taking all the circumstances of the case
into consideration, the Court raid 'order and ad -
judge, that the defendant' should be imprisoned
;six calendar monthS in the goal of Winchester.
:Lord ELI-ENDOW:1(1On direeted that the Judge's
Eepurt, and the proCeedings, shOuld be laid before
She Lord Chancellor.. . . .