The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-30 00:00:00

THE EXCHEQUER BILL FR&UD.
It is a somewhat remarkable coincidence that the
great atehetrier bill fraud of ISO 3, and the one
which has lateiy engaged public attention should have
involved amounts that may be said to be identical with
each other. The total, in Smith's case, so far as it has
dividend
been asee,tained, would appear to be 316,0001. At
the
dßnandk subsequentlymei ,heldtofotrhethe
trial purpose
boe fr
t Astlett, o
declaring
af
the Cashier's Office, it became necessary for the Chair-
man of the Court of Directors to state the loss the
Company bad sustained by that person. The actual
loss, he said, was 320,0001., or thereabouts. Some
78,000/., he added, had been employed in sources
from which the Directors thought they should he able
to recover, and they were determined to prosecute for
the purpose. In the meanwhile so prosperous was
the condition of the Bank, that no alteration
was male in the dividends. The property em-
bezzled amounted to nearly the sum payable for the
half year, but it v:,14 considered that the Board was in
no way answerable for the mal-practices of Astlett.
Ile succeeded in making away with the efineetA of the
corporation by interlining sums, and other artful con-
trivances, a very detailed explanation of which was
afforded. 'We shall give an outline of the trial, from
which it will be seen that the Bank was denied the
prompt and full satisfaction at the hands of public jus-
tice which the case seemed to cell for. Astlett was, in
the first instance, acquitted, on the ground that there
was some irregul irity in the signature of the Exche-
quer bills abstracted, a point that it may be as well
to keep in view, the more particularly as, in the
report of the proceedings, we do not find that a
syllable was urged on the score of stampings or sta-
tionery. Astlett was put to the bar of the Old Bailey,
on the indictment that he, a servant employed by the
Governor and Company of the Bank of England, was
entrusted with a certain paper writing, called an Ex-
chequer bill, of the value of 1,0001., another of the same
value, and a third of the same value ; and that on the
26th of February, he being such servant, &c., did felo..
niously secrete and embezzle the said Exchequer bills,
and did run away with them so belonging to the said
Governor and Company. There were no less than ten
different counts to the same effect. Mr. Garrow was
counsel for the prosecution, and Mr. Erskine
for the prisoner. The former stated that the
Bank being in the customary habit of purcha-
sing Exchequer bills on account of Govern-
ment, such bills were either brought to the Bank
by one particular house or by the Bank broker, who
purchased the bills in the market. On the delivery of
these to the cashier, Mr. Astlett, he gave an order for
payment, and the Exchequer bills remained with him
till a sufficient quantity was collected, and made up into
bundles to deliver into the custody of the Directors in
the parlour. These bundles were then counted, and a
voucher given to the cashier on their delivery. They
were placed in a strong closet, shut under three keys,
and two of the keys were kept by the Directors.
Conformably to this practice, on February 26, 1803,,
these were transferred from the custody of Mr. Astlett,
the cashier, to the parlour, one bundle to the value of
100,000/., another to that of 200,0001., and a third to
that of 400,0001. Au entry was made in the parlour
book, and its correctness vouched by the signature of
two Directors. The entry thus vouched was, neverthe-
less, afterwards found to be for bills to the amount of
200,0001. more than the actunl value of the bundles.
On this discovery it came out that Mr. Astlett •had
been re-issuing some of those bills to raise money.
Mr. Bish, the stock-broker, who had been applied to
with some of them by Astlett, suspecting that all was
not right, gave intimation of his suspicions to the Bank,
when Mr. Astlett's criminality became evident. After
Mr. Garrow had gone through his case, Mr. Erskine, on
behalf of the prisoner, showed that Mr. Jennings, who
had signed those purloined Exchequer bills, had not the
authority renewed to him for so doing, as required by the
Act of Parliament. He further stated that Government
had, since the commitment of Mr. Astlett, passed an
Act to remedy the omission. The Chief Baron Mac-
donald observed that the charge was for embezzling a
valid bill of exchange. However great the crime, and
the magnitude of the sum embezzled, though every one
must regret the cause of it, and the effect upon secu-
rity, yet it was the bounden duty of the Courts to de-
termine according to the regular, ordinary, and constant
course of the administration of justice. It was quite
clear that the present indictment was not to be main-
tained, as the charge therein alleged could not be
proved. The late Act of Parliament had recognised
the invalidity of the bills which the prisoner embezzled.
The other Judges concurred in this opinion, and the
Lord Chief Baron directed the Jury to acquit the
prisoner, who was accordingly found " Not Guilty."
Mr. Garrow applied to the Court to detain him in
custody, it being the intention of the Bank Directors
to issue civil process against him for 100,000/. and
upwards, as money paid for the bills which he had con-
verted to his own use. Astlett being put upon his trial
under a new indictment, charging him with the ern-
bezzlement of the property and effects of the Bank, the
evidence adduced was neatly the same as the former.
Mr. Erskine, on behalf of the prisoner, took his previ-
-0113 ground of objection, namely, that the Exchequer
bills embezzled had been informally issued, and were no
more than waste paper. Mr. Justice Le Blanc said he
would leave that point to be determined by the Judges.
The jury found the prisoner guilty on the facts, the
point of law remaining to be decided. Astlett, being
brought up again, was addressed by Mr. Baron Hot-
ham nearly us follows :—Robert Astlett, you have been
tried and convicted at this Court for embezzling Ex-
chequer bills, you being an officer employed in the
service of the Bank of England, and having such bills
in sour care and custody. The indictment states that
you, being an officer, was entrusted with certain papers
commonly called Exchequer bills, one of which was for
the sum of 500/., belonging to the Governor and Com-
pany of the Bank of England ; also several other bills
for different sums, the wholes cif which you, being such
officer, did feloniously secrete and run away with. It
is admitted on the part of the prosecution that the
Exchequer bills were not legal, not having been
signed by a person duly authorised by Government,
but you were convicted, and your judgment was re-
spited in order that your Counsel might submit to
the Judges what appeared to them proper relative
to your case. Eleven cf the twelve Judges have
since met in the Exchequer Chamber, and the ob-
jection taken by your counsel was ably and legally dis-
cussed. The Judges have since in conference sat
together on the subject, and it is now my duty to
inform you of the result of their mature eeliberation.
There are two points that have been argued in your
favour, viz., that you cal•aot be convicted under
the 15th of George 11., as the 39th of George
111. repealed that statute. In the present instance it
is unnecessary to dwell long, as the Judges are
generally of opinion that there is nothing in the
last-mentioned Act that can repeal the other.
The question was, whether the bills were effects
within the meaning of the Act. Here the
Learned Judge read the preamble of the Act to
justify the decision. The great objeez of the
Legislature in framing the Act, he said, was to
afford additional security to the Bank, and the prin-
ciple of the Legislature must be applied with regard
to the general utility; and when this law is con-
sidered in the large and liberal view in which it was
prepared, the recollection of the enormous weight of
Exchequer bills in circulation must impress upon every
individual that they arc fairly bought, and become the
property of the Bank for a fair consideration. Yet it loss
been argued that they are not such bills as come under
the Act of Parliament, and though the bills, upon the
face, do not carry legal value, yet they carry a validity
of the greatest importance to the Bank. It is expressly
stated in the Act that the offence of embezzling
them is not larceny, but felony. The bills are such a
species of securities that no man would hesitate to re-
ceive them.
If an insolvent debtor were to omit
placing any such bills in schedule,lnsb
orteveryhonestcases
mind would revolt at the idea.
value. It was manyargued
might be found to provetheir
ebelonging to the Bank were
that if trifling articlesnd
he state it might lead to
considered effects t g
f th t
old stus of pens and blotting paper o a
make
But the Judges had only gone to such
description.
effects as were entrusted to the servants of the Bank.
rules raresio fell under Is t-at consideration, as
The ru
Judges of opinion that they are effects, as
jog to -
the 15th of Geo. 11., and that the embezzlement
of them by you subjects you to conviction on the count
upon which you were found guilty. The count was
that which charged the bills as effects belonging to the
Bank, and subjects the prisoner to the pain of death.
It must strike every one that, as the Bank failed in
its first prosecution of Astlett, on the ground that
there was an informality in the signature attacnea to
the Exchequer bills purloined, and was thereby de-
barred from making that example of the criminal which
the future security of its negotiable assets required,
the Directors had a right to call upon Government for
a restitution of its loss. There was no delinquency in
the Exchequer-office, but certainly just that sort of
negligence which is so frequently and properly made the
basis of civil action. If the Bank refrained from pro-
ceeding on a charge of informality, we are at a loss to
see with what hope of a favourable result those who
have suffered by the frauds of Smith can proceed where
positive crime is the thing to be compensated for, es-
pecially now that the guilt of the party committing it
has been visited with the heaviest punishment that the
law can inflict. The Bank authorities, with a wisdom
worthy of imitation, on finding that they had been
robbed by Astlett, lost not a moment in ferreting out
what they could of the plunder.—post.

On the evening of Friday week, as the Rev.
J. A. Park, Rector of Elwick, was returning homeward
from Castle Eden, he was rudely assaulted by several
fellows, who in a most insolent manner demanded his
money. The Rev. Gentleman, nothing daunted by their
menacing latitudes, unbuttoned his coat, and placing his
hand in the breast pockct, told them in a firm and deli-
berate manlier, that the first who advanced should in an
instant breathe his last. This had the desired effect.
The villains were intimidated. The Rev. Gentleman
reached home in safety, although he had not at the time
either pistols or other arms in his possession.—Tyn
Mercury.