The Sun.
London, England, 1812-01-20 00:00:00

I misappropriation on his part weeild`constitnte fe!ony.
I Here was no- foci of extortion or mistepiesenemon,..
except such an implied representation as We her
held out, that they will safely keep their customer's
'money:, He therefore submitted, that here thefe-.
to y pus intent did nut qualify the taking so as to Con-
-stitote a hirceny. ,Tierilly, the Learned Counsel
should sboulti contend, .that a felonious intent on 'the part.
of the taker "was not sufEeient, it.the.ownee had
parted' with both the property- and the possession ;
and quoted the case of Rex v. Nicholson, froM Mr.
East's Pleas of the Crown, 669, and also ,the, case
of Catherine Colman, ibid.. 672, who went to a
neig.hboio's house,; and procured change for half—ei
guinea, 'tinder the pretence the shat would send the
half-guinea presently. The prisoner obtained the .
silver, and never returned; and this was holden no
felony, bei(g in truth aloan of the silver, upon the •
faith that the amount would be repaid at
"another
'time : it was money obtained ona false pretence.—
The 1.. nder'did not expea. back the len and
. .
sixpence,. but something else ::sO did .the prosecutor
here expiel, not' fire
.Bank notes, but.the Exchequer
Bills. Seeposei the prosecutor had patted with the
, 22 B itn •Poies Out of. his. drawer, he would have
Railed with both the property and the possession;
and, therefore, they •ii•ouldhave-been no longer his
"property, to constitute ihe taking felony. And Mr.
Gareow had_ omitted a material'point in hi's state-
ment of the cane of Aickcles, which was, that the
owner there did net intend to Part even with the
posessiOn of hie bill, and SO the Jury foetid.
The LORD (-ULF Bototse—He watched it all the
way. .
Mr. SCARLETT assented ; and added, that in this
case the Solicitor-General, of whom the Learned
Counsel could only speak with
,respect ~Rd rever-
ence,
,With all the confidence of an honourable
mind,' placed the most implicit trust ip the_prisoner,
a circumstance which made this case most mainly
differ froin that of Aickles, where no • credit was
for a•tnement given to the prisoner. The individual
Bank notes which were. paid by the bankers in -dis-
charge of the check, were never the Solicitor-GC-
. nerar ; :he had a general credit on Messrs. Goslings,
but it was indiflereet with what notes his demands
were paid. If the prisoner had been the prosecutor's
servant, sent to 'receive a chebk for him, the notes.
Would certainly have been the' prosecutor's the mo-
ment the sersant received them.; but it was• no part
of the prisoner's contract with the prosecutor that
be should. take this c.reck to his bankers, •arid re-
ceive fur the prosecuter the money for it. e
Mr. ALLEY was about to follow on the same side,
' but—
The LORD CpIEE BARON was quite satisfied that
there were serious and sober doubts as to this point
of law, and was-not for stretching farther the doc-
trine of.Constiuctive larceny. All tha, the. prisoner
could be convicted of new was, of what he confess-
ed in his letters ; and the point of law wouid be
reserved.
Mr. ALLEY W is anljous that the verdict of guilty
should not go against him, since then he would be a
recorded felon, and the.attailt could only be remove
eel by the Royal pardon. If this were in arrest of
judgment upon the record, lie would not press it ;
but where it was one of fart for. the Jury, he was
pressettto save the conviction of felony.
After some farther observations, it was agreed to li
accept a special verdict from the Jury, subject to
future argument, or the 'opinion of the twelve
Jukes,
-CertEF, BARON MACDONALD then shortly address-
ed the Jury, and told them, that strong doubts had
arisen in This case upon a question of law, whether
the crime chareeit- was a • larceny or only a ,
breach ol :a civil contrati. To setilt;_this point ulti-
mately, two modes had been proposed. The one
of- special argument in a future term, which. would
be attended with much greater suspense and embar-
rassment to the prisoner : the other, to reserve the
question for the decision of theeewelve Judges, if the
Jury sliduld'eensia the prisoner. The fad, then,
for them' to decide was-, whether the prisoner, pre-
viously to his obtaining possession of the check from
Sir T. P. fur the prOfesSed purpose of purchasing
Exchequer had formed in his own mind the
fraudulent projeet of embezzling the money to his
own account. The better to enable the Jury to•
make up, their minas on this', question, he would
recapitulate the parts of the evidence that bore im-
mediately on the point, if they did not wish to hear
the whole summed up. The Jury agreed.
His Lordship then recounted the circumstances of
the prisoner having bargained for the, purchase of
11,0001. in 'American Stock so. far back as the 29th
of November,. and - his having agreed for tire pur-
chase of aOOl. of Portuguese coin on the 2d of De-
cember—and this while he wite-ruined Man, and,
as he afterwards acknowledged, wholly destitute of
property, and while be. had in contemplation the
obtaining of 'Sir T. Plomer's money. His having
acknowledged in his 'letters the, intention to defraud
somebody—first, a Mr. o—, and erfterwards Sir
T. •PloMer ; his having come from-his house in the
country on the very merning.of the 5 h of Decem-
ber, with baggage for a long voyage ; his subsequent
purchase of stockings and night-caps for the purpose,
before he obtained the possession of Sir T. Ploiner's
money ; and his afterwards acknowledging his set-
tled intention for the purpose-to
.have been fixed ;
taken together could leave no doubt that the fraudu-
lent- project had been formed in his intention long
before he aetually received_ the check. The Jury
would, therefore, consider their verdile.,
Without hesitation they returned—Guil.N.
The points rem is for the twelve Judges to
decide.

An uncommon circumstance in the annals of
Juries occurred on Thursday. The case of the
ship Anna Maria came on to be tried at Guildhall ;
after which the Jury retired to consider of their ver-
dict, Mr. G. BARCLAY being their foreman. When
the Court closed, the Jury had not made up their
minds on the subject. They continued in the Irish
Cha,liber ail night, and Friday morning they were
as undecided as ever. Towards the afternoon, Mr.
B. HUTTOtT, one of the Jurymen, petitioned the
Court, to be 'released, which was attended to.. We
understand that a new trial will be necessary.
By a late decision of Government,• Regiments
stationed at Ceuta and Tarifa are in future to be
placed upon the same footing, in regaid to rations,
as' the troops at Gibraltar.