Star.
London, England, 1820-05-04 00:00:00

THE KING V. DANIEL NICHOLLS.

The prisoner in this case was an Excise-officer in
the Cambridge division, and was convicted of having
defrauded two poor persons, named Mills and For-
tescue, each of the sum of 16s. Mills and Fortes-
cue, as dealers in tea and coffee, were obliged by
law to take out an annual license for their trade; to
receive the money due for such licenses had been
part of the duty of the prisoner; and he had in-
duced Miils and Fortescue to 'pay him the amount,
on the pretence that he had already paid it, upon
their account, into the proper office.
The prisoner, in his defence, put in a written paper,
in which he declared his innocence of the charge
upon which he had been convicted ; and stated, that
he had actually, in many instances, so paid the
license-money in advance. He had been dismissed
from his situation, had suffered imprisonment during
131 days, and had a wife and children entirely de-
pendent upon him.
The LoaD CHIEF JUSTICE reminded the prisoner,_
that he should have thought of his wife and children'
before he committed the offence of which he had
been found guilty.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, that the crime of the
prisoner was aggravated by the circumstance of the
confidential situation in which he had been placed ;
and the sentence of the Court was, that he should
be transported for seven yfArs.

COURT OF• COMMON PLEAS, MAY 3.
GRAY V. SHILLING.

This was an action brought by the owner of two
coaches run%ing to Rye, to recover some tolls which
he had paid by compulsion to the defendant. It ap-
peared that the toll had been received by the defendant
on the 21st of June, 1819, for some horses drawing
one of the plaintiff's coaches, and that on their return
with another coach, on the same day, the toll had
been demanded, which the plaintiff was obliged to
pay to avoid being stop. The question intended
to be argued was, whether the same horses, drawing
a different coach, were exempted from a second pay-
ment on the•same day, by the 44th of George
This being brought before the Court by a demurrer
to the declaration,
Mr. Serjeant TADDry for the defendant, first ad.

dressed them. He stated, that by the of George
111. some exemptions were allowed as to a second
payment, the toll by that Act being due in respect
of carriages and not of horses. The 49th of George
111. had been passed, first, to alter the amount of tolls
to be demanded ; and secondly, to make the horses
and not the carriages liable to the demand. He con-
tended that the exemptions contained in the 2d of
George 111. had not been re-enacted, or, if they had,
that they could not apply in this case, as the subjec.
matter was entirely different.
Mr. Serjeant Bosemturr, for the plaintiff, sub-
mitted that no Act could impose any duties, unless
its words were clear and explicit. In this case the
toll for the horses had been paid on a certain day, and
on their returning during the same day, with a dif-
ferent coach (the coach itself not paying any tolls
whatever), a second payment was demanded for them.
Suppose the toll had been payable in respect of the
coach instead of the horses, it was clear, both from
principle and authority, the coach would not be liable,
although drawn by different horses ; this had been
decided in the case of Williams v. Sangar, 10 East's
Reports, 66, and the principle which had governed
'that must be recognised in this; he therefore con-
tended the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
Mr. Serjeant TADDY was heard in reply—when
The COURT determined that the case cited by the
plaintiff's Counsel governed this in principle, and
that the exemptions contained in the 2d George HI.
had been re-enacted in the 49th, and therefore gave
judgment for the plaintiff.
OLD BAILEI SESSIONS, MAY t.
Louisa Thorn was indicted for feloniously, knowingly, and
wittingly having in her possession and custody a forged one-
pound Bank-note.—The evidence against the prisoner was clear

and decisive.
In her defence she said, that before she was • placed in this
unfortunate situation she had been accustomed to service, and
had been lately deprived of her situation. She said, that meet-
ing with a Gentleman, he gave her the note ; and that when she
offered to pass it, she was much surprised to hear that it was a
forgery. She never had one before in her possession. She as-
serted her innocence, and threw herself upon the mercy of the
Court.—The Jury, without troubling the Common Serjeant to
sum up the evidence, found a verdict—Gstiky, but recommended
the prisoner to mercy.
The CONDON SERJEAET said, that he had no authority to
grant mercy, but it might come from another quarter. At pre-
sent he could only pass sentence in the usual manner.
Sentence of transportation for fourteen years was then passed
upon the prisoner.
Elizabeth Allßridle, Rosanna Pennington, T. Nicholls, I Baker,
W. Earl, and J. Batten, for having forged Bank-notes in their
posaeision, were also severally ordered to be transported for
fourteen years. 1
"George Greenwood was indicted for feloniously and knowingly
disposing of and putting away a forged Xi Bank-note, well know-
ing it to be a forgery.
It appeared that he obtained the note in the house where be
lodged. Several respectable witnesses gave the prisoner a good
chsracter; and the Jury, without troublingthe JUDGE to sum up,
pronounced the prisoner, who is a respectable looking young
man, Not Guilty.
J. Walianss, indicted for utteang forged lank-Dotes, was also
acquitted ; as were G. 4skrw, T. Williams, and G. Davis, but whir
remains to be indicted again.
Mr. Itirraor.ps congratulated the Jury that the capital prose-
cutions, at the instance of the lank of England, were, for the
present Session, closed.