Star.
London, England, 1807-12-03 00:00:00

L4ll, INTALLIGANCE.

SERJEANTS' INN, CHANCERY-LANE, NOV. 30.
BEFORE THE TWELVE JUDGES.
THE KING v. Butoom—The deter,dant being
convided of concealing certain effeds under a CAT
million of bankruptcy, to the value of tot. and tome
doubts having occurred to the Judges concerning the
law of his cafe, it came on to be argued this day.
Mr. Hoarroarr, for the prifoner, Rated the follow
ing objeaions to the convidinn
Firlt, That in the indiament it was Rated that a
commillion of bankrupt was awarded and iffued un-
der the Great Seal of Great aitain, whereas
fince the Aft of Union between Great Britain and
Ireland, the true title of the Great Seal is that of the
Great Seal of the United Kingdoms, and it ought
to have been fo defcribed. For which purpofe he
cited the Ad of Union itfelf, wherein the King is
anthorifed to order, either a new foal, or to permit
the ancient Great Seal of Ireland Rill to be ufed, as
the Great Seal there ; and he contended that by this
admillion, with yelped to Ireland alone, it was clear
that no fuch triage could be admitted here, or at lean
that the Seal (horrid be differently entitled.
Secondly, That the indiament Rated, that where-
as a commiffion ;trued, and the comniafioners, before
the day laid in the indidment, to wit, on &c. at &c.
met, and the laid James Bullock was then and there,
upon due proof on oath, before them duly declared
a bankrupt. On the contrary, he laid that the oath
taken before the Commiffioners, in proof of the ad
of bankruptcy, was that of a man who was a credi-
tor at the very time, and therefore incapable of giv-
ing evidence; although at the trial the fame man
was produced, and being paid his debt, was a good
winters.
idly, The commiffion was bad, becaure it iffoed
upon a petitioning creditor's debt, which arofe
quent to a prior ad of bankruptcy, and that ad of
bankruptcy was probed at the trial, and it was alf©
proved that the docket was &tick upon it, which
took the cafe out of Sir Samuel Romilly'slate Ratute
againit feting afide commiffion upon fuch ads of
bankruptcy committed previonfly.
4thly, The commillion Well was only upon a tre-
ble fixpenny, i. e. an eighteen penny Ramp; whereas
it ought to have been a gs. Ramp. He thawed that
in place of this is. 6d. Ramp there wqsufed formerly
a three-penny Ramp, under an ad of King William
111. which required fuch a Ramp upon all original
writs, mandates, or precepts, and othewprocefs, with
the feat of any of the Courts at Weitturnfter or etre-
where, holding pleas to the amount of 40$. He
Mewed that this defcription was ufed in Ratutes
which impofed the is. 6d. Ramp, and is now ufed
in the 44th George II!. c. 98, which imports upon
all like writs or mandates a Clamp of gs.
Mr.Gua may anfwered thefe objedions very (portly.
As to the firtl, he endeavoured to thew that the
Union with Ireland bore no analogy tar that with
Scotland, although it had been mentioned by Mr.
Holroyd in fupport of his argument, and that not
only was the Great Seal of Great Britain defcribed
as fuch in Cenral Ads of Parliament fabfequent to
the Union, but alfo in all commillians to hold a
Court of Admiralty, it is fo defcribed.
adly, He relied upon feveral recent cafes at ]sir
Prism, to thew that a prior ad of bankruptcy, not
followed up by a commitfion, does not defeat a tills-
Sequent commiffion.
3dly, He contended that although the warners
before the Commiffioners was incompetent, yet it is
every day's practice to receive other evidence in proof
of the at of bankruptcy on trials at law.
4thly, He (aid that the Ad of the 44th Geo. 111.
c. 98, repeals all former Stamp Ads, and the words
" mandate, &c. foaled with the feat of a C curt at
Weßminfler," do not apply to a Comnailion under
the Great Seal.
Mr. HOLIWYD fnortly replied.
The Judges deferred giving their opinion till a fu-
ture day, and it will probably be announced to the
Pri(oner during the Serf-ions, at the Old Bailey.
DECEMEEP. I.—THE KING O. GILSON.
Mr. KNAPP addreffed the judges, who met at the
above Hall for the purpofe of hearing arguments on
this cafe, which was refetved by Mr. Jullice Heath.
The prifoner had been convicted of the clime of
feting fire to his houfe in Bofwell Court, Carey.
greet, with intent to defraud the London Infurance
Company. The fads of the cafe were Shortly thefe:
The ()droner had caufed the goods in his houfe in
Wood-greet, Cheapfide, to be infured, and having
removed from thence to a houfe in Bofweil Court,
he caufed the policy of infurance to be applied to the
fame property which waaremoved thither, and an
indorfement was made upon the policy by which it
was continued from the 16th of December, tBos, to
the 16th of December, 1806 ; and further conti-
nued from the 24th of June, 1806, to the 24,h of
June, 1807. The prifoner was tried and convicted
of the offence of wilfully felting fire to his houfe,
with intent to defraud the London Infurance Com-
pany—a capital offence. The objedions to which
conviction were two : Firft, that the indorfement up-
on this policy of infurance being the engagement of
a corporate body, and figned only by two of the Di
rectors, was invalid, for that a corporate body could
not bind itfelf by any inftrnrnent, except that which
was under their common foal. Secondly (and that
was the moll important point), that this indorfement
was void for want of a Ramp. This point he argued
at confiderable length. One cafe he referred to was
that which was decided by Mr. Baron Parrot, at
Hereford, and Rated in Mr. juttice Buller's Nift
Prius, page 269, where a leak had been held to be
bad for want of a Ramp, although meant to carry
into effect a parol agreement, He quoted alfo the
cafe of Whowell v Dirddale, in Mr. Peake's Nifi
Prins, in which Lord Kenyon had held, that a paper
offered in evidence, and which was required to be
stamped, could not be received in evidence in a Court
of Juitice for ary purpefi whatever, and doubted whe-
ther the cafe of the King v. Hawkfwood, by which
a contrary &Chine was held, was found law.
MT. Ihßice Lawasacs.—" But after that, my
Lord Ken)nn agreed to the cafe of the King v.
Hawktwood, and was of opinion that the man was
properly coos if!ed."
Mr. KNAPP Paid, he was aware that there were
cafes by which the Court bad held, that the perfon
eilarged with a crienelhall not be permitted to avail
luinft4f of his own wrong when tried for that ctithe,
any more than in a civil alie), and that where he

was indifted for 6.rging a bill of exchange Or a pro. I
miffory note, he fhoold not avail himfelf of the cir.
cumdance that fuch inftrument was not properly
ttampt ; hut then he contended, that all thefe cafes
were confined entirely to forgery only. He main-
tained, that if the prifoner had fued upon this in-
dorfement on the oolicy of infurance, to recover the
lots he had fuftain.ed, he could not have fucceeded in
his action ; and if the inftrument could not be made
valid in a civil action, fo that a man filing under it
to recover his property would not be fecurcd, it lhould
not be enforced against his life.
Mr. Pouts Y, on behalf t f the profecution, obferv-
ed, that although the policy, in refpeet of the transfer
of the property to Clement's Lane, might be im-
,perfeet, (till it had been moil fasisfaCtorily proved
upon the trial, that the prifoner was fatisfied with it,
as good and binding. There was no doubt that, if
a policy of infurance was not cloathed with the legal
(tamp, that it was ufelefs and good for nothing, as
to all purpofes of recovering money upon it from
the Company ; but here the cafe was materially dif-
ferent ; here there was a fraud attempted to be
perpetrated, and in fuch a cafe, the law interpofed for
the ends of juftice, and declared that fuch an inftru-
ment fllould be ufed againtt the party accofed of the
fraud. The perfon accufed of courfe loft his fecu-
rity and his debt, and it could never be imagined,
that in a cafe, fuch as this, where a fraud was molt
evidently proved to have been not only contemplated,
but actually attempted ; there could be any redrefs,
where conviction had followed, as in the prefent in-
fiance: In fupport of this argument, he cited a trial
of a perfon, named Regulus, at the Old Bailey, in
1796, before Mr. Baron Thompfon. The prifoner
was indifted for uttering a forged note ef hand, and
it was fluted in the defence, that the note was not
(tamped. It was alfo argued that Regulus could not
be convieted of the crime, as the note was intrinfi
rally worth nothing, being mere wafte paper. The
matter was referred to the Judges, and Mr. Juflice
Grote reported their decifion, (Wing, that there was
no doubt of the prifoner's guilt, as it had been
proved on the trial that he had uttered the note,
knowing well that it was a bad one. The Learned
Gentleman proceeded to contend, that a policy of
infurance, like a bill of exchange,. was liable to for-
gery in the fame way, as the damp formed no part
of the inftrument, (tamps being impoled by the Le.
giflature for the purpote of railing a revenue for the
State. Upon thefe and other grounds, he therefore
fubmitted that the finding of Guilty by the Jury wa,
good, and that their Lordlliips ong,ht to futtain it.
Mr. Jultice CHANIZKE alked how the indiasnent
was worded ?

Mr. JulUce Li BLANC raid, it was for fitting fire
to the honk with intrnt to dcfraud the Infuranre company.
Mr. KNAPP replied, and depended chiefly nu the
general words of the Ad of Parliament of the 37
Geo. 3, which lays, "'That any intlrument requiring
a (lamp, ihail nut be available for ary purple what-
ever, in any Court of Law or Equity," without fuch
(lamp ; and there was no qualifying claute whatever
in, the A dt.

Here auditors were commanded to withdraw, and
nothing furthtt was heard upon the lubjed.

The decif►nn of the Judges on the above cafes was
not given yetterday.

The remains of the late Earl GREY were conveyed,
on Thurfday, from Fallowden Houfe, Northumber
land, for interment at Howick, where they were de-
patted in the family vault. The, funeral was attended
by the prefent Earl and Conniels, Mr. and Lady
ELIZABETH IVHITBREAD, the Hon. and Rev. Mr.
GREY, and the Honourable Commitlioner Gam
It has been faid of the late Earl GREY, that he was
the only furviving officer who aught with General
Woxas at Q2ebec. This flatement is erroneous.—
Enfign CHARLES BURNETT, of A.berdeenfbire, then
in the Frazer Highlanders, w;u in the battle in which
Wocrs fell, and is Hill alive in that place, upon the
half pay of that corps. At the very advanced age of
nearly ninety years, he remains without any other
provifion than the miferable pittance above mention-
ed, which has been his role fupport fince the peace of
5763. Amidft the general profufion and waile of
public treafure, it is hard that a gallant veteran, whole
early life was devoted to his country's fervice, fhonld
in extreme old age remain in• indigence, with scarce
wherewithal to fupport life.
Amortsta ARMED FOOTPACI..-Cfl Saturday fe'n-
night, about fix o'clock in the evening,as Mr. Nafit
and Mr. Rice, blth of Chicheiler, were returning
from Petersfield to that city, they were flopped near
a place called Crow's Hole, by a footpad, armed
with a gun, who jumped firdder.ly from a hedge by
the road fide, and demanded, with terrible threats,
their money. Mr. Rice, who had a very confiderable
fum in his pocket, clapped. fpurs to his boric, and
efcaped without being robbed ; but Mr. Nails, who
was not fo fortunately mounted, furrendered to the
robber his watch, a fcw !billings in filver, and tome
halfpence;. and on Tuefday evening a Gentleman,
named Brent, was robbed between Emfworth and
Havant, by a fellow armed with a gun, of his watch
and Crane filver.