The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-23 00:00:00

THE KING V. JOHN GROVE.

The prisoner in this case was tried at the Central Cri-
minal Court, and found guilty upon a charge of embezzle-
ment. An objection was then taken by his Counsel, and
Mr. Mahon now appeared in support of it. From the notes
of Mr. Justice Williams (who presided at the trial), the
prisoner, it appeared, was cashier at the house of Master-
man and Co., bankers ; that it was his duty to take the
money paid at the counter, and each night to insert in his
book the amount received during the day. Upon the 29th
of August there appeared in his handwriting the usual
entry of moneys received, amounting to 1,7621. In con-
sequence of some suspicion having rested upon the prisoner,
he was next morning called to pay in that sum, when he
could only render an account of 1,309/. That he admitted
to a person named Oxley that he was deficient 9001., which
he stated he had lost in a speculation with a Mr. Gibbs, and
besought forgiveness. The prisoner was indicted upon two
counts, one charging him with embezzlement, the other
with larceny : the latter the Jury negatived, but found him
guilty of the former.
Mr. Mahon contended that the evidence in the case was
not sufficient to warrant a conviction, and objected to the
finding upon three grounds :—First, no particular person
had proved that the sum which was alleged to have been
embezzled was received. Secondly, it was not embezzled,
even if the crime had been committed ; and thirdly, the time
when such embezzlement took place was not specified.
There was no statement how or when this deficiency origina-
ted, nor was it proved that a specific sum had been received,
from whence it might be shown that this had been taken.

It was doubtless accruing from year to year, as the prisoner
was not called on to rendr his accounts at any stated time.
It might have. been lost by the many errors incidental to
the keeping of books ; in truth, it was but a mere statement
of accounts and moneys, which latter might never have
existed, and if the principle ex nihilo nihil fit at all avails
the prisoner could not be said to have taken that which
was not in existence. Then, as to the admission, it
was vague and indeterminate, and such as ought not
to be hld sufficient for conviction where it had not been
shown that some moneys were received by the prisoner
which he subsequently could not account for. If he could have
been found guilty at all, it must have been of larceny;
the money he received at the counter he deposited in the
till, which, being his master's, he could not be said to have
embezzled the sum charged, but to have abstracted it. Had
the money so received at the counter in transitu been taken
by the prisoner, it was unquestionably embezzlement, but
under the circumstances, if taken at all, the Jury could
have only found him guilty of the larceny ; upon this he
had already been acquitted : and as legal guilt could only be
established by legal evidence, that which would go to prove
one thing and proves another, differing from it, would be er-
roneous. Under these circumstances he claimed the
of the objection for his client.
Mr. LEAHY, for the prosocution, argued that the convic-
tion was a legal one, and perfectly within the provisions of
the 7th and Bth of Geo. IV., under which the prisoner was
indicted. By the 47th section those requisites which his
Learned Friend, Mr. Mahon, deemed essential to obtain a
legal conviction, were not set down. It would have been
different, he admitted, by the 30th Geo. 111., but that was
repealed by the statute to which he alluded.
Mr. MAHON shortly replied, and the Judges retired.
Judgment postponed.

ARDENT PROOF OF AFFECTION.—On the even-
ing of Monday last a house was discovered on fire in the
street of Baldoyle, and had it not been seen in time, and
effectual means taken to prevent the flames from communicat-
ing with the adjoining cabins, all of which were thatched,
the entire range in the street might have been destroyed.
Upon investigating its cause, it was ascertained that it had
been committed by a young man named Edward M'Cabe,
who had been for some time paying his addresses to a fair
lady, residing in the place, and whose disinclination to en-
joy " Love in a Cottage," with him, had so stirred up his
jealous anger, that he would have sacrificed her house,
and all that it did contain, to tine disappointment of his
wounded feelings. He has been taken into custody, and
will most probably be sent to stand his trial at the next
Kilmainham sessions, for his rashness.—Freeman.