The Sun.
London, England, 1824-07-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 1.
CORONER FOR SHROPSHIRE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had consulted with
the Judges, and that he and they were unanimously of opinion
that the election could not stand, that a new writ must issue,
directing the Sheriff to proceed to another election.
EARL OF PORTMORE.
Thomas Charles, Earl of Portmore, appeared on the bench,
and took the oaths of allegiance with the usual forms.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 1.

CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE COUNTY FIRE,

OFFICE.

THE KING V. THOS. THUHTELL AND J. B. SNOWDEN.
Mr. SCARLETT moved the judgment of the Court on the
defendants, found guilty of conspiracy with John Thurtell, to
defraud the County Fire-Office of 1,9131. by claiming a loss
from the fire at Thurtell's premises, in Watling-street, which
had not been sustained. The defendants appeared on the floor.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN said he was prepared to address the
Court on behalf of Thomas Thurtell, anti move for a new trial,
should their Lordships be disposed to hear him.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the Court would hear very
patiently any thing the Learned Serjeant bad to offer, if lie
really had any point upon which he could impeach the verdict.
His Lordship then read his notes of the trial. The facts of the
case are well known to the public.
Serjeant VAUGHAN endeavoured to, sties there had been
some misconception with respect to the evidence, but finding
the Court not disposed to disturb the verdict, confined himself
to matter of mitigation. He had affidavits to offer, by which it
would appear that Thomas Thurtell had been coniii.,(l eight
months.

The Lout) CHIEF JUSTICE said, not on this charge. He
has been confined for debt.
Sergeant VAUGHAN admitted that the imprisonment had not
been on this charge. The deponent had a wife and two chil-
dren reduced to the greatest wretchedness and misery. His
health was bad, and upon the whole he was a pitiable object.
--The Court in its mercy, would not forget the suffimings of the
prisoner with respect to his late relation, and perhaps feel that
strict
%justice did not require them to crush a bruised reed.
Affidavits were then read in corroboration of the above
statement, and particularly one from a clergyman, which spoke
in favourable terms of the defendant.
Mr. GURNEY then put in the affidavit of Snowden, who de.
Glared that he had no knowledge of the conspiracy on the part
of the Thurtells. He had acted only as a broker employed to
sell goods upon commission.
Mr. Scan LETT, as Counsel for the prosecution, asked the
Court, whether it was necessary to address them on the sub-
ject of a new trial ?
The Lour) ()rims JUSTICE said there was no occasion fbr
that. The Court did not sec any ground for a new trial.
Mr. SCARLETT was then heard in aggravation. Thomas
Thurtell took the dwelling-house. He executed the policy, and
verified the loss by his own affidavit. This insurance was effected
before a single order was given, or any goods purchased. Upon
a close examination of the facts of the case, it would appear,
that Snowden was deeply implicated in the transaction. Ile
did not ask for a larger punishment, because John Thurtell was
not alive, but he did ask the Court not to lessen the punish-
ment of the defendants on that account. It was a most gross
and scandalous conspiracy to defraud the Fire Office. One of
the defendants saw what goods were in the house a short
time before the fire, and the other said that a grand explo-
sion would soontake place. From those circumstances it
was quite clear they were both implicated. On the whole,
it was one of the greatest frauds ever practised on the public.
He expressed a hope that the Court would feel that Mr.
-Beaumont had done his duty to the public, under circum.
stances which might have deterred many other men.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY, delivering judgment, said, it was his
painffil duty to pass on the defendants the sentence which the
Court felt called upon to pronounce, for the offence of which
they had been found guilty. If the least doubt could have
been entertained of the propriety of the verdict of the Jury, he
should have listened with the greatest satisfaction to any thing
calculated to remove that doubt, but he thought the evidence
so clear against each of the defendants, that lie considered
it utterly impossible for any prudent Jury to come to a dif-
ferent conclusion. He did not enter into the question whether
this fire was accidental or not ; .his hope was that it was ac.
cidental, as the defendant would have less to answer for
hereafter ; but admitting it was accidental, that it was a foul
attempt to rob this office by claiming for goods which were
not on the premises, no man could doubt. Shortly after the
tire, a claim was made by 'Phonies Thurtell. With great pro.
priety that claim was investigated by the office. Inquiry en-
sued, and an affidavit was made of loss, amounting to a sum
of nineteen hundred pounds. That did not satisfy the par-
ties. They required the invoices, and in the details respetThig
those invoices, facts transpired which left no doubt on ins mind
of the guilt of both prisoners. The fire took place on the 26th
of January, and as early as the Bth of February there was as
Tpplication on the part of Thomas Thurtell for the whole loss.
hat prisoner must have known at the time, what goods had
been left on the premises, and that property of the value °NOOI.
had been withdrawn from the premises before the tire. With
knowledge that the goods had been taken from Watling-street
to the house of one Margrave, and undersold by Snowden, the
claim was made. On the part of Snowden, it was said be did
not participate in the transaction, but was merely the dupe of
the parties. But did that prisoner act like an honest man, when
lie attended Mr. Beaumont, and was asked whether lie sup.
plied any goods ? He should bare said lie supplied some, and
sold others,e
csot
cese notrwerliaeilin
suspicion.
al iaddo Itte
ofnc
o u
ilihis
removeduoti
be
aen
inds
supposed
psi
the
olcods
enulnptiiiirleaarc
conspiracy
anyc rto.
defraud this office of their money . The Learned
il.actlptuopftiolligienediciedeftnirdaigaunidhiod.tt
the
consider
get
si stechittotleieutit
lire
fiiewerooequtfnuol question,
es thett
oofknpei,rteswmcpal
iirresoee
stph
property,
r the defendants were implicated
iriTteyrlt:tlitentriewslwai isarsienanotvslerirtgdi
have the effect of deterring others. They could not help re-
gretting that in these cases the wives and children suffered, but
the Court could not on that account withhold punishment ap-
portioned to the crime. The -Court, taking into consideration
all the circumstances, did order and adjudge that the prisoners
should be severally imprisoned in his Majesty's gaol of Yew.
gate two years.
The defendants bowed, and were then taken out of Court.