The Sun.
London, England, 1841-10-30 00:00:00

THE EXCHEQUER BILLS FRAUD.
By the solemn decision of the JUDGES in the case of
Rex v: Robert Aslett, which we extract to-day from Rus-
sell and Ryan's Crown Cases Reserved, it was held that
Exchequer'Bills issued as valid bills by the authority of
Government, though signed with the name of the auditor
of the Exchequer, by a person not legally authorised to
sign them, and therefore forgeries, constitute EFFECTS in
the hands of bona fide purchasers, and that the innocent
holders have a claim on the justice of the Government Jar
their payment.
As to the other point raised before-the JUDGES in that
case, it has no bearing upon the law of the case now
undergoing inquisitorial investigation at the Treasury.
We need hardly add, that neither the forgery of Exche-
quer Bills, nor the embezzlement of securities or other.
effects from the Bank-of England, is a crime now punish-
able with death. The last of those sanguinary statutes
was repealed by the Bill-of Mr. Fitzroy Kelly last year.
REX V. ROBERT ASLETT. -
The prisoner was tried and convicted before- Mr. Jus-
tice Le Blanc, at the Old Bailey September sessions, in
the year 1803, for embezzling effectS belonging to. the'-Go-
vernor and Company of the Bank of England, he being
an officer and servant of the Bank, and, -as such, en-
trusted with the effects. *
The first count of the indictment_stated that Robert
Aslett was an officer and servant' of the Bank of
England, and, as such officer and servant, was en-
trusted by the said Governor and Company with cer-
tain effects belonging to the said Governor and Com-
pany, that is to say, a certain paper partly printed and
partly written, purporting to be a bill commonly called
an Exchequer Bill, the tenor of which said paper.
partly printed and partly written, is as follows, that is
to say (setting forth a bill for 5001., No. 835), which
said paper was, then and there, belonging to the said
Governor and Company, and of the value of 500/., and
which said sum of 5001. in the said paper mentioned
was then and there unpaid and unsatisfied to the said
Governor and Company, the holders thereof (the indict-
ment then set forth two other bills in like manner, No.-
2,694 and No. 1,061, each for 1,0001. ;) and that the
said Robert. Aslett, so then and there, being such officer
and serf of the said 'Governor and Company, and so en-
trusted as aforesaid with the said effects so as aforesaid
belonging -to- the said Governor and- Company, did then
and there, .with force and arms, feloniously secrete, em-
bezzle, and run away with the said effects so as aforesaid
belonging to the said Governor and Company, and of the
value of 2,5001., against the statute, and against the
peace, &c.
- There were other counts in the indictment, some like
the first count above setiorth, only not stating the paper
to be of any value, and others not stating any value, but
stating that the Governorand Company had, on the credit
and security of the paper, partly printed and partly
written, advanced a large sum of money, which money
was unpaid and unsatisfied to the Governor • and Com-
pany, the holders thereof.
There were also another set of counts, calling the bills
securities instead of effects.
It was admitted on the part of the prosecution that
those bills were not valid and legal Exchequer Bills,
having been signed with the' name of Lord Grenville,
the auditor of the Exchequer, by a person not legally
authorised to sign them for bim. But that they had
been issued as good and valid bills, and the Governor
and Company of the Bank had bought them and paid for
them as such.
Judgment was respited that the opinion of the JUDGES
might be taken, whether these bills or papers were effects
or securities within the Act of Parliament, 15 Geo. IL,
c. 13, s. 12.-
On the 16th of February, 1804, this case was argued
by Erskine for the prisoner, and Giles • for the Crown.
Two . points were made ; first, that the 39 Geo. lIL,
e. 85, had virtually repealed the 15 Geo. 11., c. 13, s. 12,
as to the punishment of death inflicted on the offence-in
the latter Act. Secondly, as these were admitted not to
be valid Exchequer Bills-, they were not effect's within
the 15 Geo. 11., c. 13.
The JUDGES were unanimous that the -39 Geo. 111.,
c. 85, had not repealed the 15 Geo. U., c. 13, -and a
majority of the JUDGES held that these bills and papers
were EFFECTS within the 15 Geo. 11., for they were is-
sued under the authority of Government as valid, Bills,
and the holder had a claim on thejustice of the Government
for payment.