Star.
London, England, 1808-06-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT KING'S BENCH, ?UNE 12.
Till kind Y. PL. t.THabeiow.
This was an inclictMent against the Defer.dant for
rectifying money upon false pretences.
Mr; Se-jeant Bur, for the prosecution,. said, that
in ;be year 1805, a toeing was for Med called the Phi.
lanthropic Annuity Institution, the object of Which
-Itras, the granting of annuities at the reasonable rate
of £8 per cent. with a view to oppose those establish-
*lents of the sate natttre, *het' no less a sum than
15 or 16 per cent. was constantly and openly obtain- ,
Ed, to the great, injury of those individuals who had
Unfortunately beconle the dupes of such associations.
At the time of the formation of this OA, the Defen-
dant was among its Most forward promoters ; and to
this conduct, at least, Mr. Thompson, at a future pe-
riod, might loOk back with satisfaction. The neces-
sary sums having been advanced by the different
members, a meeting was held, and various laws were
adopted for the regulation of the Society. At this
assembly the Defendant procured himself to be elected
• Solicitor to the Establishment, but was never chosen,
as he had subsequently pretended, Solicitor and Ma-.
nagerto receive the different subscriptions. Besides the
Solicitor, there were a number of persons who were
appointed Directors ; and by the bye-laws it was ex-
pressly declared, that they, and they only, should have
the disposal of the funds of the Institution. Certain
regulations were afterwards made respecting the infe-
rior officers ; and it was directed, that all sums re-
ceived should, on the same day that they were so re-
ceived, be paid into the hands of the Cashier, and from
him transferred to the Banker of the Society. Not-
withstanding this order, and notwithstanding the De-
fendant was Made acquainted with it, on the day after
it was made, he received the sum 'of 1171. and instead
of paying it to the Cashier, as was his duty, he kept
it in his own possession, aild refused to deliver it to the
proper officer. He had likewise been paid 251. at a
subsequent period, of which no account had to this
time been rendered. These facts had shewn that Mr.
Thompson was no longer worthy of the trust reposed
in him ; but the Society, instead of commencing a
criminal prosecution against him, in consideration of
his activity and zeal in the formation of the Institu-
tion, contented themselves with appointing another
Solicitor, to check and controul the proceedings of the
Defendant. After this nomination, the Defendant,
if possible, conducted himself still worse, and a meet
ing was called for his removal. At that time 80
members were present; and when Mr. Thompson
had been 4occused, and had made his defenCe, 78 of
the number voted against hir:i; the remaining two
being Mr. Thompson himself and a near relation.
He was then required to deliver up the papers, with
which he refused to comply; and the hous• in which
the business had hitherto been carried on belonging
to Mr. Thompson, it was found necessary to remove
the office of the Institution to Leicester-square. Mr.
Thompson, still, however, continued to advertise him.
self as Solicitor and Manager, and to receive subscrip-
tions. Under these circumstances, it was requisite to
take some vigorous measures, and the Defendant was
brought before a Magistrate, when the defence he set
up was, that he had received the various subscriptions
for account of a separate Institution of his own. This
assertion, would, however, destroy the defence that
was to be made to-day, viz. that he was so fixed in his
office, that it was impossible for him to be removed,
but by his own deed ; for, by the 18th article, it was
said, that the meetings were to be summoned by the
Solicitor. This conjecture, however, was erroneous,
because the meetings to be convened by the Solicitor
were only such as were requested by the Proprietors ;
and the Directors likewise had a power of calling
meetings of the members of the Society. Under these
circumstances, the only method left was to try the
question, by bringing the Defendant before the Jury.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—" All this shapes extremely
well for an information in the nature of a Quo war-
rant° to determine by what authority he holds the
office of Solicitor and Manager of the Society?"
Mr. Serjeant Bnsr resumed, that the offencecharged
against Mr. Thompson was made out, by his preten-
ding that the offi.:e of the Society was continued in
Pall Mail, when in fact it had been removed to Lei-
cester-square.
The CHIEF JusncE expressed himself of opinion,
that the subject was more a question of law than of
fact, and that the better way to determine the point
would be by an information.—A verdict of Not
Guilty was accordingly entered.
JUNE 13.---. RILEY V. WEEKS.
The Plaintiff is the Administratrix of a Mr.
Richards, respecting whose will our Readers will
perhaps recollect some extraordinary proceedings. in
Chancery. The Defendant was formerly a stage-
coach-keeper, and master of the Bush Inn, at Bris-
tol ; he is now a stage-coach proprietor and wine-
merchant. This was an action of trover, brought
to recover the possession of certain mortgage deeds,
on their value.
Mr. Gastatavi said, that Mr. Richards, to whom
the Plaintiff was Administratrix, was a man, who,
at the advanced age of 80 years, was put by Mr.
Pember, and others, into a public hospital, in order
that he might catch the contagion of the small-pox, a
disorder which through his protracted life he had en-
tirely escartd. Mr. Pember was a gentleman very
well known to Mr. Jekyll and others of his Learned
Friends, accustomed to the Western Circuit. Al-
thaligh Mr. Richards. escaped this terrible distemper,
he continued to live only a very short time after his
escape from that scene of danger, and a bill of in-
dictment was preferred against Mr. Pember, and
sonic other persons, for the murder of this old man.
—The bill was not found, and it was supposed that
a Mr. Edwards was very useful to the parties. The
title deeds, which were the subject of the present ac-
tion, as belonging to Mr. Richards, devolved into
the hands of the Defendant, and were properly de-
posited with him, while he claimed under the will ;
but it having been shewn that the will was obtained
by duress, and the Learned Counsel believed also by
forgery, the will was set aside, and the next of kin,
vho was the present Plaintiff, was allowed to admi-
nister. It would be proved, that the-Defendant had
admitted that he had the deeds of Poole's mortgage
in- his possession; that these deeds belonged to Mr.
Richards ; and further, that they had been regularly
demanded of the Defendant. When this evidence
lite Jury would find their verdict in such
a sum as would make it the interest of the Defendant