The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-01 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER, COURT.-(THIS DAY)

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THOMSON.
This was an information filed by the Attorney-General for
a breach of the Custom Laws. The trial was had several
Terms ago, when the verdict was for the Crown, and a rule for
a new trial was obtained by the defendant. It was argued last
Term, and judgment deferred.
This morning the Court delivered its judgment through
Mr. Baron PARKE. He said the information was filed against
the defendant for illegally unshipping a large quantity of
foreign silks in the port of Dover, without the duty having
been paid or secured. The facts of the case were these : the
goods, to the amount of 3,945 yards of silk, were unshipped
from a French ship about two miles from the shore, near
Dover, and charged to be within the limits of the port, as
laid down by the Commissioners appointed by the 13 and 14 of
Charles the Second. They were brought, in a boy, up
to London—to Ratcliff, where they were landed, and seized
by the Officers of the Customs. The objection taken by
the Counsel for the defendant was that the unshipping took
place on the high seas, and not within the United Kingdom.
The Court did not think it necessary, upon the present occa-
sion, to decide that point, because there was evidence ill the
cause of the hiring of the master of the French ship by the de-
fendant to put the goods on board the hoy, which of itself made
it clearly an illegal unshipping. The next objection taken was
set aside by the second count of the information—the goods
were seized in the riveriThames, and it must be held to be
within the body of some county, otherwise the Act of Par-
liament would become a dead letter, and no penalties could
be recovered in any similar gross case. The rule for a new
trial was therefore discharged.

IN RR FACLKENER.
Sir W. FOLLETT moved the arrest of an estreat upon the
above gentleman. He said his client was one of the partners
in the firm of Addlington, Faulkener, and Gregory, solici-
tors, who were employed to sue out a fiat of bankruptcy against
a person named Kensington, at the suit of a gentleman named
Jones. They were appointed solicitors to the bankruptcy, and
acted in that capacity. On the 28th of October last, they
were informed by the official assignee that their client
Jones had offered a sum of 5001. for a part of the bank-
rupt's property, which was for sale. A few days after
Jones wrote to the firm, and then gave them to understand
that his offer was 500/. down, on being put in possession
of the property, the estate to be burdened with all the expenses
attending the tranfer. Mr. Faulkener had interviews and cor-
respondence with both the assignee arid the official assignee
on the matter, who both perfectly understood the offer, as Mr.
Jones had informed him of it, and they quite agreed that the
expenses, 461., were to be paid out of the estate. The matter
then came before Mr. Commissioner Fane, who took an en-
tirely different view of the offer : he did not see what was the
understanding between the assignee and Jones' agents—the
letter of Jones in which the offer was contained was the
contract by which in law he was bound, and said that Mr.
Faulkener, who was acting as solicitor to the assignees, ought
to have felt it his duty to have told them that they were not
bound to pay one farthing of the expenses, and he would not
allow the estate to be a sufferer from his misconduct. At a
subsequent period Mr. Faulkener was summoned before Mr.
Fane, in the usual way, to give an account of the bankrupt's
property—there was then no business belonging to the bank-
ruptcy before the Commissioner—and Mr. Faulkener found
that he was brought there for the purpose of being repri-
manded, for not giving that advice to the assignees to which
reference was before made. Mr. Faulkener on that occasion
showed the Commissioner the letters he had had from the official
assignee ; these he would not look at, but in a very harsh
manner charged him with having sacrificed the interests of the
estate by improperly acting for both parties in the matter. On
the Bth of January a meeting was held for the audit of the ac-
counts, at which Mr. Faulkener's clerk attended, and Mr.
Fane again made use of some very harsh expressions before all
the creditors, relative to the conduct of Mr. Faulkener, and
desired the clerk to tell him that he had acted most impro-
perly throughout the whole affair. The clerk delivered the
message about six o'clock in the evening, and Mr. Faulkener,
feeling that such observations were undeserved, and
ought not to have been made before a large body
of creditors, immediately sat down and wrote a letter,
which was the groundwork of the fine which had been im-
posed. In that letter he told the Commissioner, that in his
opinion the observations he had been pleased to make were
perfectly uncalled for, and did not become a man holding the
situation he (Mr. Fane) did, &c. On the 22d of January (in
the mean time, nothing more was heard of the matter), Mr.
Faulkener received another summons in the usual form, re-
quiring him to give information of the property and affairs of
the bankruptcy. He attended, and said he had no information
to give ; but Mr. Pane refused to hear a word till he, Mr.
Faulkener, was sworn. As soon as that was done, Mr. Fane
took out the letter of the Bth, and asked whether that was his
signature. Mr. Faulkener at once acknowledged it, when
Mr. Fane produced a book, from which he delivered a judg-
ment on the case, fining Mr. Faulkener 10/. for the letter.
Mr. BARON ALDERSON.—DO you mean to say that the judg-
ment was prepared before the offence was proved—before any
evidence was taken?
Sir WM. FOLLETT.—It is so, my Lord.
Mr. Baron PARKE.—Mr. Fane prepared the judgment, be-
cause he knew there could be no doubt the letter would be at
once acknowledged.
Sir WM. FOLLETT.—Of course, knowing where it came
from, he could not for a moment doubt but that it would
be at once acknowledged—however, such were the facts. He
submitted that the Commissioners had not the power of fining
or imprisoning, or both, as claimed in the judgment.
Under the old law, the 6th Geo. IV. cap. 4, sec. 34, they had
no power to imprison, except in certain cases, under none of
which was it possible to bring the writing of a letter. The
Act 1 and 2 William IV. chap. 115. gave them power to order
rioters &c. into the custody of their officer ; but they were
immediately to be sent before an Alderman or a Justice of the
Peace, not to be fined or imprisoned at the discretion of the
Commissioner or any of them. He understood the Commis-
sioner meant to rely upon the Ist William IV. cap. 56, which
gave them all the powers and privileges of the Judges at
Westminster, by erecting their Court into a Court of Record
--there could be no doubt of that.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—You mean that the Court of Bank-
ruptcy has the same power as the Court at Westminster, but
that a Commissioner has no more power than a Judge out of
Court?
Sir W. FOLLETT—Yes, my Lord. The 7th section of the
Act clearly defines the powers which they are to have. It
says, " No single Commissioner shall have power to commit

further than to the custody of their own officers, who shall
bring the prisoner before a subdivision Court within three days,
where his offence shall be determined upon."
The COURT—Take a rule to show cause.