The Sun.
London, England, 1804-04-18 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

KlNG's BENCH,. GUILDHALL, APRIL 76.

£ITTING3 BLFORE LORD ELLFNBOROUGH AND A

PY`ECIAL JURY.

THE Kitid-ou: strPHtNs Atm AGNEvr.r.
This was a Criminal Infrirmation agAinst James
Stephens, Esq. and John Agnew, Esq., stming, that
on the Ist of January, 1794. and for a lnn‘y, wive
of time then next ensuing, until the 29th of Novem-
ber, 1795, the Defendant Ste hens held.ard xe r _
cised the office of Supervisor of the Provinc,". of Ma-
labar, in the East Indies ; and 11,e Defendant Ag-
new, the office t f Commercial Resident at Calicut,
in the East Indies, under the United Company of
Merchants of England trading to rite East Indies.
That being such Briti,h stibjqls, the. Defe!dants,
while they held and exercised the said offices, and
while they resided in the East Indies, did, before
the filing this information, to wit, on the z9th No-
vember, 1795, receive from a certain person in the
East Indies, called the Sarnonty, otherwise the Za.
morin Rdj,ili, a large sum of money, namely,
100-,000 rupees, of the value of .12,5001. a.; a gift
and present ; whereby, and by force of the Statute,
they committed extortion, and forfeited the sum of
12,c001. There were counts for demanding and
receiving other sums of the Rajah.

The ATTORNF.Y.GENERAL stated the case on
the part of the Crown. lie expatiated upon the
offence of extortion by the .servants of Govern-
ment, and its evil tendency in territories so re-
mote fotin the Mother C: untry as our East India
Posses ions, and inferred the extreme tiifficulty of
proving its commission to the satisfailion n a Jury.
In the present in.tance, he entertained no doubt that
the charge wotrid he substantiated against both the
Defendants. He stated that the Sovereignty of
-Malabar f-rmerly belonged to the late Tippoo Sul-
taun, after witoi.e decease it was ceded to the East
India Company, who appointed persons, stibjeCt to
the controul of the Presidency of. Bortin.sy, to ex-
amine into the stare of its revenues. At this time
the Province of Malabar was divided into a great
number of Principalities, having certain hereditary
Princes tributary to the S,wereign power. The
chief of these Principalities belonged to the Za.
en;_%rin family, who were Hindoos. They held
several valuable distrifis, and were the most im.,
portant of the tributary Princes. Upon the cession
of the Itialabar country, Governor Duncan deter-
mined that the revenues should be colleeted by Offi-
cers of the Company, in conjurt-lion with the Na-
tive Princes, el the whole paid into the Company's
Treasury, from %hence a part was afterwards issued
for the support of the Fa_ilts and their families, and
the maintenance of their dignity. Such was the
system pursued with regard to the revenues at the
time the Defendants were appoiwed to their re.
spedive offices, but it was afterwards determined by
the Got ernor and Council, that the Native Princes
should be put in possession of their territories,
under leases, for certain rents to be paid to the Corer.
pany. The arrangement- of this plan seas commit.
ted to the Defendants, who, abusing the trust re-
posed in them by- the Company, extorted bribes and
presents from a number of the tributary Princes,
particularly the AcliM of Paillghaut; the Coolparah
sflt Nahir, the R:ith of Cochin, the Rjah of Cdortn-
rnaed, and from Zsmorin, for putting them into
possession of their countries, in pursuance of the
orders they ,had received frein the Governor-
General, through the Government of Bombay.
—The,extortion with regard to the Zamorin had been
Wetted as the subjed of prosecution, not only on
account of the magnitude of the sum, but beciate
the fief rt..% mere ca-y of dire& prJol, it having
been raid by Sl,armeuth 11!int, the Prime Minister,
or Servadi Karrightar f Z,morin. Having stated
these circumstances, he proceeded to prove them.

The evidence consisted entirely of examinations
taken in the. East Indies, befote a Commission ap-
pointed for the purpose d inquiring into the abuses
praAised in the tb.tne of the Cowpony.
Mr. PLONIF It a! d Mr. DALLAS a,idressed the
Jury (al behalf of the Defendants—they contended
that the evidence of -the Rajah's agents, upon
which the charge was founded, was not entitled to
credibility ; that they were interetett in the deci-
cisio.n, as well as the Rajah himself, who doubtless
expeded, upon the cenviCtion of the Defendants,
the sums they were supposed to have received as
presents. They adverted to the very excellent and
very honr,urable eharafler the Defendants had sus-
tained while in India, and argued the improbability
of their contravening the laws established for the
protection of the natives. The defence was not
supported by any evidence, either oral or writ.
ten.

The Ayroar:r Y-GitNEEt kr, replied, contending
that his proposition of the Defendants' guilt had been
distinaly proved, and by no means contradiEted ;
'and that the Jury had therefore no alternative but to.
determine in favour of the Crown.
Lord ELLEN BOROUGH observed, that the Legis.
lature had no other means of obtaining evidence of
illegal proceedings in India, than by procuring the
testimony of witnesses such as that which, the ,Jury
had then before them. They could not bring a
from the coast of Malabar to a Court of Jus-
tice in England ; therefore they were compelled to
adopt written testimony, and as far as that went,
he thought in the present instance it was,corred.
After summing up part of the evidence, the• Jury
expressed themselves pettedly satissied, and, with.
out hesitation, pronounced both the Defendants
Guilty_Misdemeanor.

This Trial lasted from-half ptst nine in the morn
in until past eleven at night.