The Sun.
London, England, 1844-09-25 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

On Monday Jacques Besset, who under the firm of
Pricener and Co., general merchants, of No. 73, Fen-
church-street, and against whom a warrant was ob-
tained on the 13th instant, was brought up in the
custody of Stephen Thornton, of the A division,
charged under the law of France with the offence of
fraudulent bankruptcy.
Mr. James, the barrister, and Mr. Robinson ap-
peared for the prosecution, .and Mr. M. Chambers and
Mr. Humphreys, the solicitor, for the accused.
Mr. James said, that as the prisoner was in custody
under the warrant granted by the Lord Mayor,
which was founded on a warrant issued by Sir James
Graham in pursuance of the convention ratified be-
tween England and France, he now had to request
that the prisoner be committed and given up to the
French authorities.
Mr. Chambers wished to know on what ground the
warrant had been granted ?
Mr. James having stated the nature of the warrant
which had been issued by the Secretary of State, as
well as the documentary evidence taken in Paris,
Mr. Chambers said he should like to have the whole
of the documentary evidence read.
Mr. Goodman, the chief clerk, then proceeded to
read the whole of the documentary evidence, consist-
ing of the copies of 16 letters written by the prisoner
in pencil, and the examination of the several witnesses
taken before the above judge.
Mr. Chambers wished to know what proof existed
that the copies of the letters which had been read were
true copies of the originals ?
Mr. Jwries—The copies contained in the deposi-
tions have been duly authenticated before the judge of
the tribunal who issued the warrant.
Mr. Goodman then read the depositions of Mr.
Aiatthieu, a French advocate, which appeared in our
paper of the 14th.
Mr. Matthieu was then „called, and cross-examined
by Mr. Chambers—The definition of a fraudulent
bankrupt was to be found in the 598th and 599th
sections of the " Code Commercial." The penalty
for that offence was to be found in the " Code Penal."
Considerable difference existed between a simple
bankrupt and a fraudulent one. The 403 d section
of the " Code Penal" made no distinction between a
fraudulent bankrupt and a " complice." The pri-
soner, in his opinion, was a " complice." This opi-
nion he founded on the 59th, 60th, 61st, and 62d
sections of the " C xle Penal." The punishment
awarded to a fraudulent bankrupt as well as to a
" complice" varied from 5 to 20 years' imprisonment
in the galleys.
By Mr. James—Nearly the whole of the deposi-
tions were taken in witness's presence. He saw the
parties whose evidence had now been read sign them.
He had examined the whole of the letters which had
been read, and upon the evidence they contained he
had no hesitation in saying that if the prisoner was in
France he would be charged as a fraudulent bankrupt.
Had he not committed such an act the warrant would
not have been issued. The buying of goods in the
• manner described by the documentary evidence was
-sufficient in France to establish an act of bankruptcy.
• The whole of the evidence which_ had now been read
- .• *as given before the judge, and that before he issued
.. -.his warrants, s '
Dufour deposed. that he. is a 'merchant, and re=
- ..aides it Paris. He hal. seen the prisoner several
• - -Vines in who came he company With Regis
- Gerinain and parchased goods ; they were-directed to
--- be sent tb:l3eulogne, and he was never paid for the
- • - g9oci3; receited a. bill of, exchange from Germain
the prisoner said what goods were to be bought.
• • ". Sinew her had been; in • London ;he heel endeavoured. tel
• e frost oat the firtn•tif Pricener sand Co., but they had
.abseonded; the :inn 'only existed ten day's. -Dela
Marcotelly had absconded to :America ; 'had he 'met
',.lt Eirithemouid have given hine ihtocnstody.
- Ity Mr. Chambers—The bill is' in 'Paris. Gods
• "'were ordered of him up to the very day.of the bank-
, -rtiptcy ; thence arose the. act, of .fraudulent bank-
ruptcy.
By Mr. James—An act of bankruptcy was the
same in France as in England.
Mr. Chambers—That is by running away.—(A
laugh.)
Mr. James now prayed for the prisoner's commit-
tal; should his Learned Friend urge any objections
he should reply.
Mr. Chambers said, that although this was a most
• important question, yet he would submit that it was
not one of a difficult nature to decide, and he would
at once submit to the Lord Mayor that in the first
place he possessed no jurisdiction, for neither the
treaty nor the Act of Parliament founded on that
convention set forth the peculiar offence which was
now attempted to be made against the prisoner. In
proof of this, the treaty contained the nature and
description of offences for which each Government
Was to give- up. persons who stood charged with any
of the crimes thus enumerated. The treaty was en-
tered into on the 13th of February, 1843, and was
ratified on the 13th of May following. But the
offence was not stated, besides which no such offence
was known to the English law ; he had been informed
that the prisoner had been apprehended in Surrey;
there the Lord Mayor had no control. To remove
all doubt, he would examine the officer.
Stephen Thornton, No. 26 A division, deposed that
be apprehended the prisoner on Friday afternoon
about a quarter of a mile beyond Kennington-com-
mon ; he had no warrant; he could not say whether
it was SOO yards beyond the boundaries of the city
of London.
Mr. Chambers, in continuation, said, he would refer
to the jurisdiction by and by; there could be no doubt
that the•parties who were appointed to draw up the
treaty had paid very great attention to the subject,
for the offences enumerated were murder, assassina-
tion, parricide and infanticide, forgery, and fraudulent
bankruptcy. Now, with the exception of the last
affence, the other crimes were known to our law, and
o magistrate here could have no power to adjudicate
on an offence for which, if committed in England, he
could not commit for trial. Upon the act of fraudulent
bankruptcy, even the French penal code was not very
clear, therefore it was too much to say that the justice
here could commit, for the only offence here known
was that of conspiracyrthe course of proceeding against
which; wes by indictment. To enable the warrant to
be' acted on, the offence committed was of such a nature
is would enable the magistrate, if committed here, to
send the prisoner -for trial. According to the French
codes the prisoner was charged with being a complice,
• and the French advocate who hail been examined was
mot very clear in the law on this point, for he had tOrefer
the " Cole Commercial" and the " Code Penal " for
an explanation. The Learned Counsel then, at great
length, proceeded to analyse the French laws,
which, in many instances, he declared were copied
from the English code, and, in support of this view,
cited Archbold's "Principles of Law," and then pro-
. -oeeded to contend that, admitting an offence to have
been committed, and which could only be founded on the
letters which had been adduced, yet, to bring that offence
within the laws of France, the letters must have been
written there, instead of which they had been written
in London ; therefore the act was not committed in
France, but here, and the act not being in England
an offence, the prisoner could not be committed, and
yet the Lord Mayor was called on to make that legal
here which was evidently irregular before the French
court. There was another ground which he intended
to urge ; it was essential, by the convention and the
• Act of Parliament, that the same offence should he
stated in the original warrant and in the one issued
by Sir James Graham. Now, in the original, the
prisoner was charged as a complice, while in the war-
rant of the Secretary of State he was designated as a
fraudulent bankrupt Again, the arrest took place in
Surrey,' when the warrant was directed only to the
Lord Mayor. No person would deny that treaties
were entered into with, grave deliberation, and that
competent persons were employed to watch that im-
proper words should not creep in, but while we had
entered into a treaty to give up persons guilty of cer-
tain offences, England was surely to be allowed to
shelter those who had only been guilty of a civil
crime. The present proceedings were certainly im-
13ort'snt; for, with the exception of a case arising out
of a similar treaty with America, which occurred
last year, this was the first time the convention was
attempted to be put in force. Looking at the whole
of the case, he submitted it did not come under his
Lordship's jurisdiction.
Mr. James said, his Learned Friend had made a
very long and able address, which he did not intend
to Follow.' He would merely refer to the heads. his
Learned Friend had said that fraudulent bankruptcy
was not known in• England ; but here was known the
crime that if the bankrupt absconded, he was guilty
of felony, and the only difference between the offence
• charged against the prisoner from that known in
England was in the term given to the offence. So
' clearly was this offence established, that the judge
took the whole of the evidence before he issued his
warrant. His Learned Friend had confined himself
to subtle disquisitions on the French law, which no
• doubt would; be highly advantageous to the prisoner
if he (Mr. Chambers) went over to France to defend
• him. Had the prisoner been found in France he
would have been deemed as a principal, but being out
of the country he was termed a complice. If the
prisoner had not committed a fraudulent act of bank-
ruptcy, that would have been shown, for there were
several of his accomplices in Court who could give
• that evidence. Surely his Learned Friend could not
' be serious when he argued that the original warrant
and that of the Secretary of State differed in stating
the offence. If they were wrong, the prisoner could
raise the question in the courts of France.
The LORD MAYOR said, that he had been called
'; upon to carry out an important treaty which had been
entered into between the two countries, and that the
/prisoner was charged with an offence which would
lave to be decided in France. When he was first
!applied to, he enterte.ned great doubt as to whether
art offence had been committed in France, but that
..doubt was removed on hearing the evidence which

LLOYD'S SHIPPLNG.