The Sun.
London, England, 1817-12-03 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX 'ESSIONS, DEC. 2.

FRAUIL-LONG V. COUSINS.
• • The tieffndant, Robert Cousins, was put to the
bAr nn-an iwlietment chargine. him with fraud,-
leintly olitaining a check for 501. from Mr. John
• Long, the proprietor of Long's Hotel, Bond -
street, under the folk,viog, circumstances

the month of June, 1816, the prisoner calkd noon
the prosecnfar, anti informed him that his (the
pioseenToF's) nephew was hirested, and con-
fined in a lock-up-lionSe in Carey-street, Loi-
coin's Inn'-fields, and that he had requested
him. to and inform. the prosecutor of
it ; at the same time observing, lte•could obtain
his discharge for 50/. The'proscCutor accordingly
gave hint' a check for that stint on his banker. In
about two hours after the prisoner returned; and
said that the 501. would not be ehough, and that
he mast have a hundred. The prosecutor accord-
ingly wrote another check for that sum, and re-

tiotsted to he put in possession of the previous
check for 50/. but was informed by the prisoner
that be had torn it to pieces, and thrown it
away. From circumstances that transpired, the
prosecutor obtained pOssession of the check for
one bombed poun:ls, but was assured, in the most
positive manner; that the first check had been de•
stroyed. The prisoner afterwards took the benefit
of the Insolvent Debtors' Act, and was opposdd
by the nephew on account of some transactions
bet wren them, but discharged. On the clay
t welvemonth after the bill was drawn, it was pre-
sented to the banker, and cash received for it. A
warrant was immediately issued, and .the,defend-
ant talt.en into custody, when he acknowledged
baying got the money-for the bill:
Mr. ALLEY, 011 the part of the prisoner, took
an objection to the indictment on the ground that
the cheek not -having- been paid to a third person,
1V49 of no more value thaua blank piece of paper,
.but ti,e,Court over-ruled it,.
Messrs. John and Joseph Long.were then.called,
who proved the fac.s 'above stated bitter
:Geti.tleman ((eclat-lug Gat be ban never authorised
the pri,oner to apply to his uncle in his.behaff,
nor had he, the prisoner, beets in any manner ac-
cessary to his (Lischarge.
Mr.. ALLEY at great„leneb cross-examined the
witnesses. acid a.ddresse.d the Jury in the prisoner's
htinalf. lie called two persons to give him a
character, one of whom had known him two years
and a half, and considered him to have, been a
'strictly honest character.
- • The Jury, after ceinsulting a taw. minutes, re-
turned a.verdict
Mr. WATSON, .Cbairman„.• 'after ftling the
opinion of the Bench, adtkessed the prisoner .as
follows :—" Yon, thiliert'Cousins, have been,in-
.dicted for a fraud,:a.vd_ by, I am sure, as attentive
a Jury as es'er sat in. that box, Who have found it
their duty t4i -retnra, "a verdict of Guilty against
you.. It is theref`ore the Imperative duty of this
Count, on:the' behalf_ of the public, however pain-
ful it, :May be.froui the variety of the chsum-
staaces developed, and the great 4eceit with which
yon isaye acted, von having" harlpnieed in your
tor.a r:wel vymonth... the crime of which you
hAve heel' convktej, to pass an exemplary sentence
'on you. The sentence of (he Court therefore on
you is, that you he transported beyond the seas I
fur the term of seven years."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

eiOURT 6F• RING'S BENCH,.

PARKER V. LEE.

This was an action for a Bill of.Excliange; • ac-
cepted by the defendant for 3091.. ' •
The hand-writing of the defendant being proved
as acceptor,

Mr. bEsmAN, far tlidefendant; stated., that the
defendant, Mr. Lee, was a very thoughtless young
man, Of considerable expectations, and the plain-
tiff a very prudent old ma's. The bill in question
was an accommodation bill, for which the delenr
dant had received no value, but which Mr. Parker
had discounted, he vein;; a person who loved to
mane his money as productive is possible. At the
time the bill becatne due, there, were other trans,
actions bet wren Mr. Parker, the plaintiff, and
defendant. In short, Mr. Parker held two warrants
of attorney for 7001 of the defendant, and his
Attorney, Mr. Varman, had sent to settle the ac;•
count. Mr. Parker accordingly received the ac-
count of what was due from Mr. Lee, and-at the
bottom of that account he inserted the present
bill of exchange. Mr. Vattnan inquired of him
what the bill meant. Mr. Parker said, that it.was a
bill which Mr. Lee had accepted, but that he did
not hold him at all responsible for it, as he had
,other securities for it, a Major's word, and a war-
'rant of attorney from an Irish Baronet. ;Upon
this assurance Mr. Yatman-paid off the „warrant
of attorney. This converSation, Mr.'• Denman
said, he apprehended, amounted to a renunciation
by the plaintiff of the liability of the defendant as
an acceptor. Afterwards, however, Mr. Parker
said, he had not been paid by the. other parties,
and that he should resort to the defendant .as'ac-

• „
ceptor.. •
The Court held that he bad not ,inlerms-re'=.
flounced the• liability of the.acceptor, and that be
was entitled to recover the sum tor which he held
the bill, namely, 1681. and a verdict- was taken
fOr that sum.