Star.
London, England, 1812-02-03 00:00:00

L4IV INTELLIGENCE.

BISHOP OF LONDON'S COURT, DOCTOR'S COM-
MONS, JAN. Si.

POUGET V. TObfkINS.
This was a suit of nullity 1f marriage, which was
btougut on the part of Joseph Pouget, Esq. of the
pansy of St. Mary-la•bonne, the natural father and
guardian of his son, Wm. Peter Pouget, against Lu-
cretia Tomkins, his wife, on the ground of minority,
Wm. Peter Pouget, the husband, not being 16 years
of age at the time the marriage in question was so-
lemnized at the Parish Church of St. Andiew,
Holborn.

Sir Wm. SCOTT this day give judgment in this
case (the particulars of which have been already be-
tore ;he public), and, after stating the evidence with
great minuteness, and making several pertinent ob-
servations applicable to t' e question before him, said,
he was clearly Lif opini m that there had been a frau-
dulent intention and sudied suppression on the part
of both the parties, by ornitting the Christian name
66 Peter," in the publication of the banns, in order to
conceal from his parent the fact of marriage, which
he had a right to be informed of, as Peter was the
only name the party constantly went and was known
by his relations and acquaintances, almost to the to-
tal exclusion of the nisi William, by which the pro-
clamation in church was made, and therefore he pro-
nliunced, that the pubLcazion rf the banns was frau-
dulent and null, and consequently that the =triage
was void under the statute.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 20.

LIBEL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the judgment of
the Court aga'nst Mansell Phillips, Esq. M. P. for a
libel on the 11;shop of Derry.
The iibel in question, which stated that the Rev.
Prelate had been gazctted as a Bankrupt, and has
been already before the public, was then read by the
Officer.
Mr. BEVAN addressed the Court on behalf of the
defendant, by whom he said he was instructed to state
that he klt the deepest contrition at having been in-
strumental in spleading a rumour for which there
was not the least colour car foundation.
The ArrouNcy-GexiatAt. observed, he could not
_ .

be insemible to the judicious course which his Learn-
ed Friend had adopted for the interest of his client ;
and, after w:,at had been. !tared, little was left
Ifm to say. The great object of the prosecution had
been answered.

Lid ELLENBOROUGII then observed, that, under
. these circumstances, the course to be pursued would
e for the defendant to enter into recognizance to ap-
pear fcr judgment when called for.
Mr. Phil] ps then entered into a recognizance for
the sum of £5OO as directed by his Lordship, and
was discharged.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, l'L• STMINSTER HALL,
SATURDAY, FEB. I.
THE KING V. R. WALSII EsQ. AL P.
•

This day the point reserved by the Court in arrest
of Judgment, in the case of Mr. Walsh, namely,
whether the offence of which he bad been found
guilty was larceny, or a breach of trust merely ? came
on to be solemnly argued before the Twelve Judges,
in the Exchequer Chamber.
Mr. SCARLET"', 'on behalf of the prisoner, in an
elaborate argument, urged a great variety of cases,
which li? maintained were of a class similar to the
present, contended, that the offence imputed to his
client, was not felony, but simply a breach of trust.
The chief ground upon which he proposed to main-
tain this proposition, was a just cons.thration of the
relation which subsisted between the prosecutor and
-the prosecuted, at the time the offence was alledged
to have been come tied. The prosecutor had ern-
ployed the prisoner in the way of his trade, to pur-
chase for him a certain number"of Exchequer Bills,
with a certain sum of money, or a warrant for the
receipt of money. In giving that warrant to the
prisoner, he was invested with a species of property
in it ; he received it, not to return it again in the
shape he had received it, but to bring back Exchequer
Bills in lieu thereof. The nature of the property
which could have constituted the subject of a larceny,
merged in the instant of its transfer to his hands, into
a mere act of trust. The draft came to the prisoner's
hands lawfully in the first instance, and consequently
the idea of a feloniously taking or converting was at
once done away. Could the honourable prosecutor
have charged the prisoner with feloniously stealng
from him X 22,000 worth of Exchequer Bills, had
the prisoner so laid out all the money entrusted to
him ? Certainly he could not. In order to recover
the possession of them, he would be obliged to have
recourse to a civil acti.n. The indictment charged
the prisoner with stealing ee22,000, in Bank of Eng-
land notes. The check of the prosecutor was not
converted into cash until after it came into the hands
el the prisoner, consequently the idea of felonious
taking diet sum Could not be supported, until that
eif the prisoner itself made it a case upon whith lar-
ceny could have been committed. The prisoner re-
ceived it not as money, but merely as the means of
procuring money for the purpose of executing his
trust. The Learned Gentleman cited a great many
cases in support of this doctrine, which he contended
were decisive upon the question for which he argued.
Mr. GURNEY argued the case in support of the
conviction for felony, at considerable length.
said the larceny in this case, was the larceny of the
Bank notes; and he contended, that the written or.
der of Sir Thomas Plomer upon his banker for
£22,000 was the same thing as if he had personally
accompanied the prisoner o the banker.,', and there
given him further orders to give the prisoner the
Bank notes. The check was the means of getting •
the money, and was just the same thing as it a man
gave another the key of a strong box, autherising
him to take out of it a sum of money contained therein,
fur a certain purpose. His Learned Friend had ar-
gued, that the prisoner had done this in the uay of
his business. But for his (hlr. Gurney's) part, he
never knew it was in the way of a man's business to
rob another, and convert that property to his own
use, which had been entrusted to him for a certain
purpose. The circumstance of its being done in the
way of business was no excuse whatever for this M.
fence, and no ground for removing a charge of le;
Tony. That it was larceny he was prepared to shew
by a variety of cases precisely aualogotts. He de.