The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-28 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, and a Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN V. MARSHALL AND OTHERS.-THE ILLEGAL

SALE OF COAIMISS4ONS IN THE ARMY.

The hearing of this case was resumed this morning.

Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., who appeared for Mr. Marshall,
said that, before addressing the jury for his client, he had
to contend that there was ne legal evidence against the
latter. The learned counsel proceeded to argue that " the
taking, having, and receiving money" for an illegal pur-
pose, as set forth in the 23 counts of the indictment, was
not proved according to the provisions of the 49th of
George 111., a statute under which the present proceedings
were instituted. He then addressed himself to the
evidence, and said that according to the statement
of Pugh, Mr. Marshall was not to receive any por-
tion of the £4OO paid for Mr. Cunningham's commission,
and that he retained the £lOO out of the £2OO that was to
be paid to Pugh in consideration of certain transactions
between them previously. And how was the commission
obtained ? According to the Clear and explicit statement of
his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge and Sir Chas.
Yorke, his commission was granted solely in consequence
of the meritorious testimonials that accompanied the last
applieation made on behalf of Mr. Cunningham. They also
had on record the statement of Sir Charles Yorke, that it
was impossible that any undue influence could have been
exercised in reference to the commission. In fact, all that
Mr. Marshall had to do with the transaction was merely
placing Mr. Britson in communication with the firm of
Armstrong and Co., and endeavouring, as an army tailor,
to obtain an order for the outfit of Mr. Cunningham
when he received his commission. He might as well
attempt to implicate Mr: Edwards in the affair, as he was
the originator of the whole transaction, having advised Mr.
Britson to apply to Mr. Marshall, as being a person likely
to carry out his object relative to the commission. He
contended that the jury had nothing to do with anything 4
that occurred subsequent to the gazetting of Mr. Cunning-
ham, as the indictment referred to what had previously oc-
curred respecting the obtaining of the commission. It
could not be shown that Mr. Marshall pretended that he
had any influence whatever in facilitating the procuring of
commissions; and the only scrap of evidence against him
was a suggestion which he made in a letter to Mr. Britson
that £2O might be given in addition to the £4OO with ad-
vantage. With respect to the counts charging Mr. Mar-
shall with conspiring, if the act imputed to him was not
illegal, these counts fell to the ground. What induced the
other defendants to plead guilty he could not say. Per-
haps they believed that their conduct was such as
brought them within the operation of the law,
but it was most unjust to implicate Mr. Marshall with the
transaction. He would contend still further that an army
agent might be justified, not in receiving an exorbitant
amount, but a reasonable sum, for any services he might
render to aspirants for commissions, which, from his
knowledge and experience, he was in a position to afford.
There might be very considerable doubt on the evidence
brought forward whether the other defendants, Mortimer
and Eicke, had committe4 any offence or impropriety
throughout the whole of what had taken place respecting
the commission in question. However, as regarded Marshall
there was no evidence to show that he had entered into a
contract to obtain this commission, for he merely pointed
out a course that would probably enable Mr. Britson to
effect his object. With respect to Mr. Cunningham, the
fact was that the public service had sustained no injury
from his appoindment, as he had passed a most creditable
examination, and the time- had gone by when any but
a qualified person could obtain a commission in the
English army. The learned counsel concluded by mite- $
rating the arguments he had previously used and calling
on the jury to find a verdict for his client.
Mr. Edwin James replied en the whole case, and main-
tained that Marshall was the most culpable of the parties
engaged in the transaction which led to the present indict-
meat. By the Bth section of the act the commission of Mr.
Cunningham was violable as soon as the facts of the case
were proved, and the act was passed purposely to protect
the public from beingdefrauded by persons like Marshall,
and the parties trading under the fictitious title of Arm-
strong and Co. the defendants had no influence whatever
at the Horse Guards, or elsewhere, to enable them to pro-
mote the obtaining of commissions, and they did not know
to what extent they had succeeded in defrauding ignorant
pirsons of their money. The only service rendered to Mr.
Britson was drawing up a letter for him and telling him
to enclose certain testimonials, and yet for that he was
called on to pay £4OO. Would not Mr. Cox or any other
respectable army agent give this advice if asked without
demanding money for it ?

Mr. Marshall, in a very excited state addressed the
court and said, that he could have proved a case in which
Mr. Cox accepted money for obtaining a commission.
His Lordship said that he could make any statement he
desired through the medium of his counsel.
Mr. Marshall said that Mr. Chambers refused to enter
into that matter.

Mr. M. Chambers explained that he did not feel justified
in doing so.
His Lordship considered that the learned counsel had
exercised a wise discretion.

Mr. James resumed and denounced the conduct of the
defendants, which, he contended, was calculated to induce a
belief that They had the power to corrupt officials in high
quarters, and to rob young men of their money under false
pretences.

His lordship having read the section of the act which
constituted the sale of commissions a legal offence, ,and ex-
plained the law relating to conspiracy, charged against
Marshall in some counts of the indictment, went through
the evidence in detail.

The jury, after a brief deliberation, found a verdict of
guilty against the defendant.
Mr. E. James applied to the court to pronounce judg-
ment.

His lordship said the case was one of much public im-
portance that he thought it better that judgment should be
de3lared by'the full court.

Judgment was accordingly deferred.
The recognisances of the defendants were enlarged, and
the proceeJings terminated.

COURT OF DIVORCE.

The full Court for Divorce in Matrimonial Causes will
sit at Westminster en 30th June, 1859, and on the Ist, 2d,
4th, sth, 7th, Bth, and 9th July, 1859. The judges consti-
tuting the full Court will be the Right Hon. Sir William
Wightman, Knight, Senior Puisne Judge of the Court of
Queen's Bench ; the Honourable Sir Edward Vaughan
Williams, Knight, Senior Puisne Judge of the Court of
Common Pleas; the Right Hon. Sir Cresswell Cresswell,
Knight, Judge of her Majesty's Court of Probate.
The Right Honourable the Judge Ordinary has directed
that in all the causes directed to be tried before the full
Court of Divorce in Matrimonial Causes the parties pro-
ceeding shall, by themselves, forward to the judges con-
stituting the full Court, copies of the pleadings.
On Wednesday, 29th June, the Judges will sit at Cham-
bers at 11 o'clock, and in Court at 12 o'clock.

THIS DAY'S MARKETS.

HAY MARKETS.

SMITHFIELD..--3102d0W hay, £2 lOs to £4 10s ; clover,
do., £4 Os to £5 8s; and straw, £1 Sc to £1 lOs per load.
Trade rather slow.

CUMBERLAND.—Meadow hay, £2 10s to £4 10s; clover
do., £4 Os to £5 88 ; and straw, £1 5s to £1 10s per load.
A slow inquiry, at late rates. Supplies short.
WHITECHAPEL.—Meadow hay, £2los to £4 lOs ; clover
do., £4 Os to £5 10s ; and straw, £1 4s to £1 9s per load.
A moderate demand, at our quotations.