Star.
London, England, 1808-12-08 00:00:00

LAW IN'T'ELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING', BENCH, DECEMBER,.
THE KING v. ALEXANDER DAVISON.
This long-expected case came on to be tied is
day, before Lord ELLENBOROUGH and a Special Jur!,
when the following Gentlemen were sworn :
R. GLASSON, Esq. ROUGRREAD, fit+
Lis. SALT, Esq. Jo. JACKSON, Esq.
RIM GRACE, Esq. Jos. PIAUI, Esq.
Jos. Scossisa, Esq. Jo. Storrs
HoRTON, Esq. Jo. KIRK
JOS. WILSON, ES JAS. SWAINS.
Mr. ABBOTT stated that this was a criminal infix
mation filed against the Defendant, which alledgd
that he was employed by his Majesty to parch= ni
litary stores, in which employment the only enrols,
ment he was to derive, was a commission of tin
and a half per cent. ; but that the Defendant, vial
an intent to defraud his Majesty, delivered a sal
considerable part of such stores, viz. bedding, has
his own warehouse, and of his own manufacture;
and that he did fraudulently produce, for the i)litiele
of gaining the allowance of this commission, fib
invoices and receipts, purporting to be the receipts of
persons of the names of Watson and, Allen, to dt
Defendant, for payment of such stores.
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, fertile prosecution, WI
the history of the case. In the year 1797, Gelled
Delancey, then Barrack-master-General, on behalfS
the Barrack-Office, applied to the Defendant to undo
take to furnish all the Barrack stores of which he dui
be in want, by purchasing them of dealers, and to
veying them to such Barracks as General Deland
should appoint. This the defendant agreed to‘
and required for his agency a commission of to
cent. adding in his answer to the General's leas
" this I mean and intend shall be, lona jas tla
' only emolument I shall receive from the cototh,_
evidently intending not to act as a merchasOtt
himself. To sendthese goods to the barracts'oft,
country, there was a packer employed of the tactsg
I Lodge ; and with every parcel of goods then
sent delivery notes. Lodge made half-yearlyttell
of all the goods he had packed ; and the several"
rack Officers, to whom they were conveyed, gent!
ceipts for them to Lodge. From these accounnt
Lodge, the Defendant made out his half-yearll,
turn to the Barrack Office : this return contained"
the quantities, and not the prices ; but thae.,ll
another paper, called his half-yearly account, Oa
contained the prices, and not the quantities; 011
these two papers were made to correspond by ad"
bers to every item which answered to each otlo
[ The account contained a charge of commission 001
per cent. ; and referred to an abstract of the bills
1, parcels which was sent with it. Besides these, lb'.
was a general account of the Defendant's half-yam
receipt and expenditure, which embraced the 71:
of his employment with Government, the parrj
account relating to bedding only. The gen%
account included a charge of Commission on 011;
' particular ; and the fact was, that many of the
which were pretended to be furnished by other law.
mrn, came out of the Defendant's own stoles t 5
that upon them, he had both a Merchant's profit P.
' an Agent's commission. A man of the nameonntl
' Sheddon was the Defendant's chief manager, at
by Lodge,
the nameinßedfor of Sheddond-street;an appeareddin as
almost all atbreetensige.

wwl
na
CA

which were actually supplied 111
, however, was no merchant;
instead of inserting his name in
• Office, made use of those of
/his inferior Clerks. Watson
the Learned Counsel believed
Defendant ; he could never
receive the money for them ;
Allen, bills of parcels were

~geed their receipts, as received
defendant ; whereas is was untie.
- never received a farthing.--
bile he was deluding Govern-
- was w tching against fraud,
,uder ; d gave himself an
market, hich he had taken
1r to keep down. The Lear-
to know what defence could
ion. He had been told the
Government here no losers
c if other persons than he had
Government would have paid
• he charged no higher than
. of this the Learned Counsel
defendant was no check to other per-
-.possible that he would suffer the
.., throukh his hands cheaper than
fluty the defendant undertook was to
. oest and cheapest goods he could from other
,s; the manner in which he performed that duty,
4 toprovide a considerable part of the goods out
ihis o stores, charging them at the same price as
wn
then a, so that it was utterly impossible he should
c any check upon them. But in addition to this, the
endaos had charged commission upon his own.;
,eds . this, the defendant had hinted, was a mis-
,6 ; that it was always intended to render back
his; and that in a subsequent account it would be
- - the defendant's last account was de-
%not till 1806, that he thought
Is, it might be said, was a
Learned Counsel had evidence
hand writing. In Decem-
was examined before the
Enquiry, when he stated
goods himself, but that for
, charged ; and the fact was,
render some goods after 1802,
came from his warehouse in
. which he did charge no
Defendant then be permitted
his own goods till 1802,
which he always intended to
the answer was that in Dec.
sissioners found the Defen-
several particulars ; and the
:vestigation was set on foot,
set in what he called a supplemental account in May
MS, dated 1804, but correcting errors as early as
1797, in which he debited himself to errors in former
accounts 15,4,791. making a balance against him of
6,4
71. whereas the balance was formerly in his favour
9068/. and yet this supplemental account did not
contain his error of charging Commission upon goods
furnished by himself. The Learned Counsel did not
ention this to create any undue prejudice against
e Defendant; but to shew that the idea of return-
the commission could not have been thought of
after the formation of this account in 1806. The
dam thought this undue charge of commission
would not be detected, since if bills made out in other
names for the different articles were rendered, the
Commissioners must be perfectly satisfied. After
this too, when the Commissioners for Barrack Ac-
cants called upon the Defendant for his Cash Ac-
comt, he excused himself from delivering it, saying
dut bis accounts had all been examined and settled,
sad their balance had been paid in ; so that Govern-
mm transactions with him were at an end.

Cameral Delancey's letter, dated December 28,
11N, proposing the employment to the defendant ;
Ed& defendant's answer to it, dated January 10,
as, accepting the commission of 2i per cent. were
is put ;- and read.

0 1
ril
,le

a put in
Mr. Bonnor, Secretary to the Commissioners for
Barsck Accounts, produced the defendant's half-
return of bedding from December, 1797, to
me, 1798, which was put in and read; and the,
mme of George Watson, as one of the suppliers,
appeared to be written upon an erasure.
William James, who lived with Lodge, the packer,'
!Roved the bedding to have always passed through',
their bands ; and that they rendered accounts of it
to die defendant, on every 24th June and 24th De-1
ember, stating the names of all persons from whom
they received goods. Mungo Sheddon, one of these ,
names, managed the defendant's army business in
Bedford-street ; the witness knew him in no other
character than as such manager ; the goods opposite
his name came from the defendant's warehouse ; the,
witness also knew Watson, a clerk in the same ware-
house, of about 22 or 23 years of age.
Upon his cross-examination by Mr. DALLAS, he
raid that Lodge himself was ill. The witness knew'
the Defendant was engaged in other concerns. The
name of Sheddon occurred uniformly when the arts-
des came from Bedford street.
Mr. Bonnor then proved the signature of the De-,
reactant to an account of charges for the same half-
year, in which the name of Sheddon did not occur to
a charge, answering to the corresponding number
(10) in the other account, and amounting to 15,1361. $
but is which the name of Watson was substituted.
The account charged commission upon the whole
amount ; and referred to the bills of parcels (No. 10)
aid to be " bought of George Watson," the receipts
of Which were expressed to be " of Alexander Davi-
son, Esq. for George Watson, signed) John Allen."
• Bonnor next proved .he signature of the de-
'want to a general account of receipt and expendi-
t4re from Dec. 1797 to June 1798, which account
was likewise pwitness next
in and read.
J he same proved the signature of the
nerendant to his examination in Dcc. 1805, before the
Conunissioners of Military Inquiry, which was like-
Wise put in and read.
William James, upon being re-examined, said, the
iler" wore deposited in Lodge's warehouse immedi-'
nte,
from the merchants, and were from thence sent
to the several barracks.
The snobernental account of May, 1806, was then
led, pat in, and read ; as was likewise the defen-
dant's letter of 19th November, 1806, to the Com-
%loners for Barrack Accounts, declining to pro-
nee his accounts to the Commissioners.
41 was next proved, that in 1803, the defendant

provided bedding, upon which he charged no corn.'
mission, by the account of that period, Well was ve- I
rifled, put in, and read.
The subsequent seven halfyearly accounts to 1802,
in all their parts, were then successively verified, in a
similar manner, in all cf which the names of either
George Watson or John Alien occurred as suppliers
of goods to a very large amount.
John Allen said he had been in the Defendant's

employ since 1800, and had the management of his
books in his army cloathing concern. Watson either
was, it the time alluded to, an apprentice to the de-
fendant, or had been. Neither he nor the witness.

carried on business on their own account. The reccjpt
for 15,1361. dated Dec. 31, 1798, signed by the wit-
ness, and importing to be for bedding furnished
Watson, the witness did not write till 1800. The
witness did not receive any money, and did not know
of any supply by Watson—he signed the paper by
the desire of Mr. Bowering, the Defendant's clerk, at
his office, in St. James's-square. Mr. Bowering dic-
tated it to the witness. Sheddon had mentioned it

first to him at Bedford-street, and desired him to go
to St. James's-square upon the business. The witness
signed similar receipts in half-yearly accounts for
four or five years, besides the early ones bein all
done at one time. They were for years during which
the witness had no acquaintance with the subject or
the parties. The latter receipts he signed as the half
years came round. He always went from Bedford-
street to St. James's-square to do this, by the desire
of Bowering.

Mr. ATTORNEY-GENZRAL here stated, that the bills
and receipts from the 24th June, 1800, were as from
Allen himself, but he too had never received from the
Defendant the money for which he had signed receipts
—nor did he, at any time, supply bedding to any
amount whatever. The articles so supposed to have
been supplied were sent from the Defendant's ware-
house, in Bedford-street.

Upon Allen's cross-examination by Mr. Witsow, I
hesaid, the Defendant wasconcerned in other branches
of business, and his general office was in St. James's-
square. Bowering was the Defendant's general clerk,
and was generally in St. James's-square. Bowering
told him, as a reason for requesting the witness to
sign the receipts, that the Defendant could not appear
both as buyer and seller in the same account. Tlie
witness knew that some of these transactions were
before his time. The Defendant kept four Or five
clerks in Bedford-street, about one hundred work.
people in the warehouse, and employed many hun.
dreds out of it. The goods were sent to Lodge from
the Defendant's warehouse, without any charge of
secrecy ; and the witness knew of no instance where
goods were brcught from any other merchant's to
Bedford-street.

Upon his re-examination, he said that Watson was
absent a considerable part of the year, in which the
witness signed the receipts as for him ; but the wit-
ness did not know whether he was absent at the pre-
cise time of such signing. The witness was not in
London before 1800.

Mr. DALLAS then spoke at great length in behalf
of the defendant ; he said, that previously to she year
1795, the business which the defendant had lately con-
ducted was carried on by Barrack Masterson the spot,
who, in addition to their regular salary, received a
commission of five per cent. In consequence, how-
ever, of the inconvenience which was found to be
occasioned by the suppliers of stores refusing to be-
come answerable for the delivery and damage of the
articles, and in consequence of many frauds practised
by the Barrack Masters, for which some were sus-
pended and others dismissed, General Delancey
thought of changing the whole system of supply,
and applied to the defendant, whom he knew only
by his general honourable character to undertake
the situation he had lately held. General Delancey
applied to the defendant, and the Learned Counsel
wished this to be particularly understood, as several
calumnies had gone forth, which this assertion might
tend to counteract.
The Learned Counsel thought it would not be
amiss to consider a little what the charge against the
Defendant was not ; and here he took occasion to re-
probzte the premature persecutions which the Defen-
dant had undergone, in the shape of publications,
calculated not to inform, but to inflame the minds of
the public upon this subject. The Jury, however, he
trusted, would dismiss these publications from their
minds, if they had read them, and confine their atten-1
tion simply to the evidence before them. First, it
was not a part of the present charge, that the Defen-
dant, who, as a Contractor, was stated to have de-
frauded the public, had charged above the market-
price for those articles he furnished ; and the Learn-1
ed Counsel would prove that he had charged below
them, so that the public were in fact benefited by this
supply. Secondly, it was not imputed that the De-
fendant had been guilty of a fraudulent participation
with any one merchant, although nearly a million of
the public money had passed through his hands. And
if the Defendant should be found, on every other oc-
casion, to have conducted himself properly, where he
might have easily done otherwise, it was to be consi-
dered that he actually had no intention to defraud.
• Under the original agreement, the Defendant was
not allowed to furnish his own stores and charge com-
mission and was it not most extraordinary that du-
, ring four years of this transaction be should never
have presumed to Furnish a single article, and then
turn round and change his practice ? The whole of
the case, therefore, could not be before the Jury ;
and it would have struck the mind of the Learned
Counsel, had he known nothing of this information
before he came into Court, that it was very singular
that the Learned Counsel for the prosecution had not
called General Delancey to tell them what the real
facts were. The General was, however, present, and
the Learned Counsel would himself call him. The
Defendant did not employ his own stores till 1798 ;
and the General would tell the Jury, that there was,
about that time, so considerable an increase of bar-
racks, that this General, not being able to procure suf-
ficient stores, bad a conversation with the Defendant
in the latter end of the year 1797, in which he au-
thorised the Defendant to supply his own stores. The
present information stated only the first agreement
between the General and the Defendant ; and there-
fore the Learned Counsel submitted that the relation
between the Defendant and the public was not clearly
set forth in the information, and that the Defendant
must be acquitted upon the present information, not
in point of form, but in point of substance. The se-

tend agreerslea expressly was, that the Barrack Ofg-
sets should Have the Defendant's patterns and pricel
sent them, and determine whether they would take the
articles from his own stores or not.

_
Lord ttZENBOROUGH here interposed to draw the
attention-of Mr. Dallas to one of the queries of the
Commissioners of Military Inquiry, to which the De-
fendant's answer stated, that he had no other agree-
ment with General Delancey but the two letters which
had been read.
Mr. DALLAS resumed, and contended, that if he
produced General Delancey's evidence as to this se-
cond agreement, there could be no doubt left upon
the Jury's minds that it had been entered into. If so,
then the question was, whether the Defendant was
entitled to Commission or not ? and, upon the equita-
ble construction of both agreements, the Learned
Counsel contended, that he was as much entitled to
commission upon the one as upon the other. Whe-
ther he was entitled to commission at all, and whe-
ther he made a fraudulent charge to support that ti-
tle, were two different questions. Tithe Jury should
be of opinion with the Learned Counsel, that the de-
fendant was intitled to commission, the question of
fraud fell to the ground ; if not, was this claim cf
commission a claim so completely without the colour
of right', as to be called fraudulent ? The length of
the argument to prove that the Defendant was not
entitled to commission, both in cases where others
provided the storesand where he himself did, would

go to say, that if the goods came from a Merchant's
warehouse, next door to the Defendant's, he was en-
titled tncommission, and if from his own warehouse
he was not. The Learned Counsel, however, denied
that there were no instances where profit and ,:.
mission were both claimed ; and even if there were,
there was no resemblance between the case of a com-
mon agent, and one with all this truNt and riske The
Learned Counsel instanced the cases of Insurance

Policies, where the broker was generally the under-
writer too, and derived commission and profit from
the same concern.

The Learned Counsel further urged, that, from
the nature of the contract, if any man was employed
to buy stores, in which he himself was a considera-
ble dealer, he must, if he does not consume his own
goods, raise the price of the article by an artificial
scarcity, to the great injury of the public. If the
Defendant had not sold his own goods, he would
clearly have been entitled •by his first agreement to
commission, and therefore the public would be not
at all injured by the payment of that commission.
It had been asserted, that the Defendant's selling
his own stores kept up the market price; the Learned
Counsel should prove that the stores were purchased
by Government ten per cent. cheaper of the Defen-
dant, than they would have been, of any body elee.—
As to the fraud which the fictitious bills and receipts
were intended to cover, every dealing had been prov-
ed to be open and known to font Clerks, who were
not engaged to secrecy ; and the reason why the bills
of parcels were not delivered in the Defendant's own
name was, that Bowering thought of a difficulty in
not keeping the original agreement, if Merchants'
bills and receipts were not given with the goods, and
the Defendant's Clerks names were put in because
they knew the nature of the transactions. What
fraud was here ? The fiend must be, either to con-
ceal the-fact that the Defendant was seller, or to con-
ceal that he was not entitled to commission ; but, if
the Learned Counsel proved, that the agreement was
that the Defendant should furnish goods, and that
samples were continually sent to the Barrack Office,
in the name of the Defendant, every idea of fraud
must be done away.
Thes things remained till 1802, when Boweriag
suggested a doubt whether the Defentlant could sub-
stantiate his claim to commission, and that the De-
fendant had better not charge it in furore. The De-
fendant, upon this, directed Eowering to apply at the
Barrack, Office, and get back the accounts for rectifi-
cation. It was not when the Military Inquiry had
been instituted that these accounts were first asked.
for ; so that the disclosure is not got rid of by sup-
posing it to arise from dread of inquiry. The Learn-
ed Counsel would prove that this demand had been
made at the Barrack Office in 1802.
General Delancey proved, that in consequence of
the inconveniencies attending the old plan of barrack-
contracts, he applied to the Defendant, with whom he'
had no personal acquaintance whatever, to undertake
the concern entirely upon himself. The letters pas-
sed between the witness arid the defendant, which
had been read, and the defendant acted merely as
Agent till 1798, perfectly to the witness's satisfaction.
At this time there became occasion for new stores to
new barracks, and for replenishing stores CO old ones ;
and it having been stated that there was a difficulty
in procuring stores, the witness permitted the defen-
dant to send supplies from his own stores, in the be-
ginning of the year 1798. After this time, the witness
understood he did so ; and he was directed to send
patterns and prices to the Barrack Office for inspec-
tion. This was known in the office to Colonel
*Kenzie and Mr. Henry Castleman in particular :
these Gentlemen assisted the witness in the inspection
of the patterns and prices. In this change in the wit-
ness's agreement with the defendant, the witness
meant that the principle of his letter of 1791 should
govern the defendant's conduct still, his supplies
being the only alteration in the agreement. The
witness considered the defendant to have always acted
fairly, and had no suspicion of his having any inten-
tion to defraud the public. It was net the witness's
opinion now, that the defendant wes capable cf com-
mitting a fraud ; and if the witness were in office
now, he should be glad to employ the defendant.
Upon his cross-examination by the ATTORNEY GE-.
NERAL, he said he was informed of the scarcity of
stores, in 1798, by the defendant, and knew of it by
other means. The witness saw no objection to the
defendant's furnishing the articles from his own
stores, if he did it as cheap as others. The witness
did not authorise him to charge commission upon
what he had furnished; nor did he knowingly pass
any account containing such commission. Nothing
was said about commission. The witness could not
have passed such an account under his agreement
with the defendant ; but the defendant might have
made out a case of this claim, which might have re-
quired the consideration of the witness's superiors.
The witness certainly did not know that the defen-
dant was charging commission upon goods furnished
himself. ,
Upon his reexamination, he said he always consi-


dered that, with the exception of the defendant's right
of suppliance, the first agreement was to stand. A
common seller would not have considered h:raself re-
sponsible for t'le conveyance of the goods ; and it was
for this reason the mode of supplying the Barracks
was originally changed. The defendant certainly was
thus responsible as agent.
The General then proved an account examined by
the barrack office, containing a &large for commis-
sion, which, upon the faceof the witness's agreement,
would have been payable.
Upon his further cross-examination by the Arroa-
NET GENERAL, the witness said that in the general
account which the defendant signed, his particular
eitarges of commission would not appear. •
Upon his examination by Lord Eta.rsaonouotr,
be said, that he did not know that the names of spu-
rious persons were inserted in the account, and had
no idea that commission was charged upon sales made
by the defendant in the names of such persons.
John Bowering, book-beeper to the defendant's
house in St. James's.square, said., he drew up the de-
fendant's first ac_couat with General Delancey after
1798, and, being at a loss' how to state the accounts,
the defendant directed the witness to make ost the
accounts in Watson's name. The defendant's prices
of stores were lower than other persons, two and a
half to three and a half per cent. The witness be-
lieved the barrack orders at this time could not have
been executed, if the defendant had trusted to other
people for stores. The witness recollected the con-
versation between the defendant and himself, in
which he expressed doubts about the commission's
being allowed after 1798. The defendant said—
" Get the accounts back, and make the alteration ;

for if I err, 1 would rather err on the right side."—.
The witness applied almost immediately to Mr. Stan-
bank, accountant to the Barrack Master General ;
but he refused to let him have back the accounts.
The witness applied to him a second time, and told
him for what he wanted them. He replied, " Let
a credit be made in some future account current."—
The defendant then said, " Let it be credited in the
Barrack Master General's account." There was a
supplemental account in which this credit was not
made, wholly through an omission of forgetfulness on
the witness's part. After this the bits were made
out, " Alexander Davison, debtor to the Bedford-
street House ;" and no commission for these sales
was charged in the subsequent accounts.
Upon his cross-examination by Mr. GARROW, he
said, he did not notify the refusal of the accountant
to the Board by any memorial.
Mr. Stanbank remembered Bowering's applica-
tions, but he did not say for what purpose he wanted
the accounts.

Lord Moira was called to character. He had
known Mr. Davison for a great many years, but was
not particularly acquainted with him till he applied
to him to accompany the army which he commanded
in the last war, as Commissary General. He had
requested this of him as a favour, and his conduct
was punctual and delicate, for he often sacrificed emo-
luments to which he was fairly entitled. He had no
suspicion that he could be guilty of any fraud, for, if
he had, he would not have appplied to him to accept
of the office of the Treasurer of the Ordnadce, which
was no object to him ; for, by accepting this, he lost
his half pay as Commissary ; and the difference be-
tween the Lull pay of the Treasurer of the Ordnance,
and the half pay of Commissary, was only 701.
Sir Evan Nepean, Sir Andrew Hammond, Sir
William Rule, the HonourableWellesley Pole, Right
Honourable Charles Long, Mr. Huskisson, Mr.
Hunter Mr. Cowley, Mr. Smart, Mr. Davidson, Mr.
Black, Hunter,
Gilpin, and Mr. Jordaine, gave evidence
as to the defendant's character.
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL replied at some length.
He reconciled the evidence of General Delancey, by
discovering that the General signed only the general
account, as correct, which included all the particular
accounts ; and by the general account it would not
appear what was the commission on each particular :
the person who inspected the abstract of accounts,
thought the fictitious names were real, and so passed
I them.

Lord ELLENBOROUGII summed up the case very
carefully. His Lordship made some pointed re
marks upon the principal features of the case, and
said it was admitted, that the vouchers were false,
and that the charge for commission could not be al-
lowed. How false vouchers could be used with an
honest intention, could not be conceived, Honest ends
seldom if ever require dishonest means. As to a pro.
fesscd intention of rendering back the money in some
subsequent account, if the fraud was once committed
by the production of false vouchers, that would not
be a defence, but still if there was an honest intentiott
of repairing the error, that would strongly beat an
appeal to the hearts of all men to induce them to
suppose, that the original intention of producing the
vouchers was not fraudulent. This, however, did not
appear, for when the Defendant had a locus pani-
tenthe, and might have corrected the error with his
recollection brought back to the subject, be did not
eorrect the account. His corrections applied only to
£15,479 for other errors. As to the defence upon
the right to charge commission under a new agree.
merit, he said he waited for the evidence with great
anxiety, because it was not consistent with his own
oath, in the answer to the 6th question, and if such
an agreement had been proved, it would have been
open to great suspicion of a collusion with General
Delancey. The evidence of that Gentleman had,
however, disproved that part of the case.
After his Lordship had gone through the evidence,
the Counsel for the Defendant took an objection to
the information, that it stated that Mr. Davison was
entitled only to commission upon the sum charged for
the goods, instead of which he was to have a com-
mission on all charges of insurance, freight and other
sums advanced. But his Lordship thought this im.
material, as it was only necessary to state what was
material to the fact charged, and as it was charged
that he supplied goods to a certain amount, and re.
ceived 329/. as commission upon the price of those
goods, which was, true, it was immaterial whether In
ELct he made other charges and had other commissions.
He said he recollected a case of the name of Yate v.
(Yate v. Willan, we believe, in East's Reports)
in which that point was settled.
The Jury, between seven and eight o'clock, pro.
nounced a verdict of—.. Guilty.
The trial lasted from nine o'clock in the morning
• till nearly half after seven in the evening. [Tars over,

cheer
which
Drfendant. This man, I
the Defendant, instea
ions to the Barrack
and Allen,two of 1
t. s eery youl man, du
s. sheappeenuce of the
; (bele rods, and re
• by the *instance of
out, and Allen signe
Watson and the defenc
t• to add, Watson ne
e defendant thus, while
t with the idea that he I
himself the defrau
to keep up that m
himself to endeavour
a proud was at a loss
a •
see ap to this prosecuth
dant contended that
r• this practice ; and that
'hed these articles, G
, y the same sums, for
6 perfOnS; but it was
rOwned the defendan
6 ; for it was impossib
s of others to pass thrx
•▪
sou The duty the d
. _ pinp•And

:dud. But the defenda
ispedin 1802; anditwasn,
this paying back. This,
gassertion ; bu t the Lel
~ kin the defendant's own
: , 1805, the defendant
inioners of Military
e he had furnished some
no Commission was c
t tbe Defendant did rent
ch he openly stated, ca
ord-street, and upon
=mission. Should the D
say, that he rendered I
ng a Commission, w
d ? If he should, thi
1805, the Military Commi
dines charges faulty in se
Defendant, finding an inv