The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, May 30.
. (Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. BLARE AND TYE.

The following is a fuller report of this case tlianwe gave in
our paper of yesterday : ,
This was an information filed by her Majesty's Attorney-
General against the defendant, for a conspiracy to defraud
the Customs revenue. The defendant Blake was a landing
waiter at the Customs. The defendant 'Tye had been a
partner in the house of Sherer and Tye, Custom- house
agents. That house had been the agents for a great many
firms in the City, and as such had received their imported
goods, entered them at the Custom-house, declared their
value, and paid the duty on them. The case was tried at the
Gsitutiilidighsalla,ftwehr
elnasitt
alippilearn Tdthermat,
tbheesfoerepaLrtoierd Denman,
shadconsp at
ine
to defraud the revenue, and had effected their purpose
through the means of Blake making false " sight entries," by
which the goods were allowed to pass, on payment of the
sort of duty which the description of goods mentioned in the
sight entry required, when in fact they were properly liable
to a higher rate of duty. The fact of a conspiracy or com-
bination between these parties having been fully established,
twe pieces of evidence were offered by the Crown. The first
was that of an entry made by Tye in the books of
Sherer and Tve, to correspond with the sight entry of
the same goods at the Custom-house, and relating to a
transaction that formed one of the acts done in consequence
of the alleged conspiracy. The other was the butt or
counterfoil of a cheque given by Tye to Blake, which de-
scribed the amount in the cheque u Blake's share of the
profit made on the transactions in which they had been en-
gaged. .A part of the money received from the bankers was
proved to have been afterwards paid away by Blake to
tradesmen and tax-gatherers, at his residence. The counter-
foil contained a statement of the items which made up the
amount for which the cheque was given, divided that amount
into two equal portions, and then described the cheque as
being drawn to meet the sum so found upon the division to
be due to Blake. This evidence was objected to at the trial,
on'the ground that both were acts done by one defendant,
not then on his trial (Tye had absconded), were not proved
to have been known to Blake, or assented to by him, and
could not therefore be now produced to affect hill. Lord
Denman, on being pressed by the Attorney-General, ad-
mitted both pieces of evidence, but expressed his strong
doubts whether the butt of the cheque was properly re-
ceivable, since it appeared to him to have the character,
not of an act done in furtherance of the conspiracy, but
of a mere statement of a fact after the conspiracy had
taken effect. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and
a rule had since been obtained to set aside the
verdict, and have a new trial, on the ground that these two
pieces of evidence had been wrongly adinitted at the, trial,
for that the first of them must be considered an act done by
one person, without any proof of the concurrence or assent, of
the other, and that the butt or counterfoil of the cheque was a
mere declaration made by one of the parties, which was
clearly incapable of being used to fix the charge upon the
other.

The Soucrrou-GmgEnAL and Mr. F. Potakcx now showed
cause against the rule. •
Mr. Com-maul and Mr. WARREN, in support of the rule,
were stopped by
Lord DEIsmA_N—I do not entertain any doubt upon the
first point. My impression was at the trial that the evidence
there was admissible, because it was evidence of something
done in the course of a transaction then going on,
which must be laid before the jury in proof of the per-
formance of the act charged, and which would not, per-
haps, be possible to be proved in any other manner.
But with respect to the second matter, I felt at the trial
that there was at least considerable doubt on the subject, and
I only admitted it when the Attorney-General pressed it on
me. The principle on which I thought it possible that this
evidence might be admissible was, that it was evidence of an
act done, or necessary to be done, in order to give effect to
the conspiracy. But it is clear that that was not so in fact,
for full effect might have been given witlaeut any reference
whatever to what was done with this sum of money. The
verilAiswerLthr.hntt of the cheque was the same as if the
party had stated in a memorandum that he had paid the sum
of 821. to the defendant, in order to put him in possession of
the fruits of the conspiracy—a statement which would clearly
have been inadmissible. 'This is an act, or rather a state-
ment by one of the parties, not tending to the advancement
of the general object of the conspiracy. If we were to re-
ceive evidence of this kind—a mero statement of one of the
conspiratorsas towhat had been their objectwe should often
find ourselves subjected to many causes of embarrassment by
his nuking statements which would go to exonerate himself
from all blame, and to throw the whole guilt upon the other.
In the case of the King v. Watson the circumstances were en-
tirely different, for there the Court required to be satisfied
that the papers had been prepared in furtherance of the ob-
ject of the conspiracy, and had not been put into the room
after the prisoner was taken into custody, and being satisfied
on that point, admitted the evidence. The paper there was
more connected with the object of the conspiracy than was
the paper in the present case, and it was in existence before
the object of the conspiracy was put in a course of attain-
ment. I am, therefore, of opinion, upon principle, that a
mere statement made by one conspirator when in conference
with a third person, or when he thinks proper to do that by
himself, which is not necessary for carrying out the object of
the conspiracy, is not evidence admissible to effect any other
of the parties charged.
Mr. Justice ParrEsom agreed with the Lord Chief Justice
on both points. There was no doubt that a conspiracy must
bbleieinhgedr
egvaidgenedee in
ofth an e coeunt
be established before the act of any one individual could be
given in evidence to affect any other individual charged as
spdiroanc)e.. by oWhenone
t
lY
the asesatda-
vancement of the conspiracy might be given to affect the
others. But here the butt of the cheque had not been pre-
pared to further the object of the conspiracy, but was merely
a declaration made after the conspiracy had taken effect. It
was, therefore, not admissible in evidence. -
Mr. Justice WILLLULS was entirely of the same opinion on
both points. With respect to the first, he agreed that it was
impossible to state any general rule as to the proof that must
be given in every case of conspiracy, but this at least was
clear, that when the fact of a conspiracy had been established,
the detached acts of each of the parties done in furtherance
of the conspiracy might be given in evidence. But such acts
must be clearly in furtherance of the conspiracy. Evidence
of acts done when all the conspiracy was at an end was
clearly inadmissible. These two rules decided the present
application. The entry in the books was clearly an act done
in furtherance of the conspiracy, and was, therefore, admis-
sible in evidence. The butt or counterfoil of the cheque was
no more than a declaration made by one of the parties when
the conspiracy had been completed and was at an end, and
was, therefore, not admissible in evidence.

fir. Justice COLERIDGE was of the same opinion. No evi-
dence of an act done by a co-conspirator could be received,
unless such act was done in advancement of the object of the
conspiracy. No such evidence could be given of an act done
after the conspiracy had been completed.—Rule absolute.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 30.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE DISPUTED WINNER OF THE DERBY.
PEEL V. WEATHERBY AND ANOTHER,

Mr. OGLE was instructed to apply to the Court for an
interpleader rule in thin case on behalf of the defendants.
The application was made on affidavit, which disclosed to
the Court that the defendants were the stakeholders of a
large sum of money, which was run for at the last " Derby
race," and that a. horse called Running Reih having come in
first, and another, named Orlando, the second, the present
plaintiff, Colonel Peel, had claimed the stakes on behalf of
Orlando, and Mr. Wood on behalf of Running Rein. The
deponent then went on to state that a writ of summons was
served by Colonel Peel on the 25th inst., and that on the
28th another writ was served on the defendants at the suit
of Mr. Wood, in the Court of Common Pleas. Under these
circumstances, as the defendants were most anxious to pre-
serve their character for impartiality, they had deemed it
their duty to apply to both the Courts for their protection
under the interpleader statute, in order that the real parties
to the matter .in dispute might have an opportunity of
testing the merits of their respective claims to the stake in
question.
The Couar—Your clients are ready to bring the money
into Court to abide the event ?

Mr. Ociut—Oh, certainly. A similar application will be
made to the Court of Common Pleas, the writ in which Court
was issued subsequently.to that in the present action.
The CHIEF B.LacirrYou may take your rule.

SPRING ASSIZES, 1844.

The Judges of the different Conrts met in the Exchequer
Chamber yesterday morning, and chose their respective Cir-
cuits on the ensuing Spring Assizes. The following is the
arrangement :
Midland—Lord Chief Justice Denman and Mr. Justice
Coltman.
'Oxford—Lord Chief Justice Tindal and Mr. Justice Erskire.
Northern—The Lord Chief Baron Pollock and Mr. Justice
Cresswell.
Home—Mr. Baron Parke and Mr. Baron Gurney.
Western—Mr. Justice Pattesoa and Mr. Justice Wight mr
n.
Norfolk—Mr. Baron Alderson and Mr. Justice Williams.
North Wales—Mr. Justice Coleridge.
South Wales—Mr. Baron Rolfe.
Mr. Justice Mettle remains in town, and will attend to busi-
ness at chambers.

THE SUPPOSED MIIIIDEU AT WlMBLEDON,—Yes-
terday afternoon, at three o'clock, W. Carter, Esq.,- the
Coroner for East Surrey, opened a Court at the Dog and Fox
inn, Wimbledon, to inquire into the circumstances attending
the death of Charlotte .Hall, aged thirty-eight, who, it was
alleged, had met her death by strangulation, by the hands el'
her husband, who has since absconded. After a long investi-
gation, in which, however, no facts of any importance were
elicited beyond those which have already appeared in our
columns, the jury, after nearly an hour's deliberationireturned
a verdict—" Died from natural causes." Notwithstanding
this verdict the police will not relax their exertions in ap-
prehending the accused.