The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-28 00:00:00

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
authoritprenewed 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 100,0001. 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 em-
bezzlement of the property and effects of the Bank, the
evidence adduced was nearly the same as the former.
Mr. Erskine, on behalf of the prisoner, took his previ-
ous 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 as 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 your 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 5001., belonging to the Governor and Com-
pany of the Bank of England ; also several other bills
for different sums, the whole of 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 of the twelve Judges have
since met in the Exchequer Chamber, and the ob-
i 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 deliberation.
There are two points that have been argued in your
favour, viz., that you cannot 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 object of the
Legislature in framing the Act, he said, was to
affard additional security to the Bank, and the prin-
ciple of the Legislature must ha 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 are fairly bought, and become the
property of the Bank for a fair consideration. Yet it has
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-
ce►ve them. If an insolvent debtor were to omit
placing any such bills in his schedule, every honest
mind would revolt at the idea. Ia short many cases
might be found to prove their value. It was argued
that if trifling articles belonging to the Bank were
considered effects under the statute, it might lead to
make old stumps of pens and blotting paper of that
description. But the Judges had only gone to such
effects as were entrusted to the servants of the Bank.
The rules in question fell under that consideration, as
the Judges are of opinion that they are effects, accord-
ing 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 attached 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 arc 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.
TIMES. —The failure of Messrs. Boggs, Taylor,
and Co., of London, is now supposed to be a much more
serious affair than was at first imagined, as their debts
are reported to exceed 100,0001., and they had a house
at Liverpool, which of course has also yielded to the
pressure. Their capital is thought to have been insuf-
ficient to meet the late fluctuations in the Indian trade.
With respect to the other failure that has occurred
within the last few dam that of Messrs. J. Nicholson
and Co., it is cited as one of the instances of ruin oc•
casioned by usurious interest.
_ _

SUN.—The transactions in British Securities were
limited, and prices varied but little, though rather tend-
ing downwards. Consols for the opening ranged from
89k to 88i ; closing at the intermediate value ; Exche-
quer Bills were steady at lls. to 13s. premium ; Bank
Stock was at 1654- ; and the Reduced Three-and-a-
Half per Cents. were worth 99 to 984.
Spanish Bonds opened rather heavily, but rallied be-
fore the close of business to 24 and 244. The other
foreign Stocks generally supported their value.
Portuguese New, were 33 ; and the Three per Cents.
191. Colombian Bonds were firmer at an improve-
ment to 20:1.and 20 . ; Mexican were at 26* ; and Pe-
ruvian at 14. Belgian Old Five per Cents. maintained
the price of 101 ; and Dutch Two-and-a-Half per
Cents. were at 514.
For Railway Shares the inquiry did not diminish, and
prices were generally well supported. So far, indeed, the
market seems in firm hands. London and Birmingham
Shares were at 77 ; New, ditto, at 26 ; York and North
Midland, at 40-1. ; Great Western, at 19i to 20i ; and
South Western, at 19i to 20* prem. ; Brighton were
114 to 111 ; Blackwall, 14* ; Midland Counties, 144 ;
and Eastern Counties, 141, dis.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MAN SION-HOU SE.
A City policeman named Edmonds, was charged before
Alderman Gibbs, with having assaulted and falsely
imprisoned Mrs. Levy.
Mr. nobler believing from her appearance that Mrs.
Levy was not a Jewess, and perceiving that she took
hold of the Old Testament when called upon to be sworn,
asked her whether she was a person of that persuasion ?
Mrs. Levy—No, Sir.
Alderman Gians—Why then do you take the Old
Testament in your hand ? Mrs. Levy—Because my
husband is a Jew, and women who are not of their re-
ligion and are married to Jews, are expected to do as
their husbands do.
Alderman GIBBS—To what religion do you belong
then ?To the Roman Catholic ? Mrs. Levy—No. To
the Protestant religion. There is no difference at all in
my opinion.
Alderman GIBBS—What ! no difference between the
Protestant religion and the Jewish ? Mrs. Levy—Not
the least in the world I do assure you, my Lord.
Alderman Ginns—Why, do you not believe in our
Saviour? Mrs. Levy—Certainly I do.
Mr. HoLler—And don't you know that the Jews say
there is no such person ? Mrs. Levy—l certainly think
differently in that respect from the Jews.
Alderman GIBBS—And you think there is no diffe-
rence between a Jew and a Christian ? Mrs. Levy--
None at all that ever I could see.—(A laugh.)
Alderman Ginns—Then I shall certainly not let you
be sworn at all. Mrs. Levy—Nobody amongst the
jews__,ever asked me whether I was a Jewess or not.
Alderman Girtris—l shall not swear you. You appear
to be neither the one nor the other.
Defendant—Then am I discharged, my Lord ?
Alderman Ginns—Don't be in such a hurry. Let
any other witness come forward.
Mary Jones niece of the owner of a public-house in
the district which the defendant watches, stated that be-
tween the hours of nine and ten at night she heard the
voice of Mrs. Levy in the street, calling aloud to her
uncle, and upon running out to ascertain what was the
matter, . observed Edmonds pushing or shoving her
against the shutters. Mrs. Levy was at the time bring-
ing two pounds and a half of cigars to the house.
,Ed-
monds then took Mrs. Levy to the station-house.
Alderman Ginas— How did he shove her ? Mary
Jones—He took her by the collar of the cloak.
Defendant—Did not your uncle desire you not to serve
me at all? Mary Jones—No. I have served you and an-