Star.
London, England, 1818-06-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE I.
PARISH PECULATION,
AND ABUSE OF PUBLIC-HOUSE LICENSES.
THE XING V. JOSEPH MERCERON, ESQ.

This being the morning appointed for the attend-
ance of Mr. Mercerou to receive the judgment of the
Court for the two offences of which he was found
guilty during the sittings of the last Term; the Cour-
was crowded at an early hour.
Mr. SCARLETT moved for the judgment of the
Court upon the defendant, who immediately stood
up in front of the Jury-box.
Mr. Justice ABBOTT then proceeded to read his
notes of the first trial, viz. that upon which Mr. Mer-
ceron was charged with having surreptitiously ap-
plied 9251. of the parish money to the payment of the
bill 'of costs of Dann and Crossland, his solicitors, for
conducting his defence upon indictments previously
preferred against him. The facts of this case bare
been so recently detailed in our columns, that it is
unnecessary we should repeat them.
The reading of this report occupied an hour and a
quarter, and at the conclusion

Mr. SCARLETT said there was another indictment
against the. defendant, the proceedings upon which
he requested might also be read.
Mr. Justice Assort then read his report of the
trial of the defendant upon the second indictment,
which imputed to him the offence of granting licences
to public-houses improperly, upon which he was also
found guilty.
The report having been gone through, the defen-
dant was asked whether he had any affidavits to sub-
, mit to the Court?

The defendant answered in the affirmative, and
his solicitor handed in several, which were read by
Mr. Barrow.

The first was an affidavit sworn by the defendurn
himself, and James Wilmot Lush, of Wench:Le.
s-uare. In this the defendant, for himself, stated,.
that for twenty years last past and upwards, he had
been a Justice of the Pcace for the County of Mid-
dlesex, and Deputy Lieutenant of the Tower Ham-
lets ; hat for the same space of time he had been a
Commissioner of Sewers for the Holborn and Fins-
bury division, and for the Tower Hamlets ; and dur-
ing the last seven years he had been annually elected
as Chairman to the latter division. The affidavits
then went on to enumerate a variety of other highly
respectable offices which he had held—such as, a
Commissioner of the Land Tax, Commissioner of the
Income and Property Tax, &c. and finally, that he
Ind held the office of Treasurer to the parish of St.
Matthew, Bethnal Green, for a space of thirty years,
the duties of all which he had gratuitously performed.
In consequence of the Resolutions of the Vestry, of
August '23, 1814, and not till then, he had felt him-
self-authorized to enter in his accounts as Treasurer
the sum of 9251. Is. 3d. being the amount of expenses
incurred in defending prosecutions which had been
instituted against him in his official capacity. He
then went on to state, that from what had passed on
his trial, he had, with as little delay as possible, re-
funded the said sum of 925/. ls. 3d. to the use of the
poor of the parish, by causing the same to be paid
into the Bank of England, in the names of Mr. R.
Wrightson and the four other trustees of the poor of
the said parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green ; and
that it having since been suggested to him that inte-
rest ought to be paid on the said sum, he had, on the
25th of May, paid into the Bank, to the account of
the same persons, the further sum of 2191. 14s. being.
the interest for five years from the 25th day of Au-
gust, 1813.
Mr. Wlt.ssoir Lusts confirmed this affidavit, so far
as it referred to the payment of the sums in question.
A great variety of affidavits were then read—from
George Byng, Esq. M.P. William Mellish, Esq. M.P.
L. Cotterell, Esq. and James Wynn, Ell. Commis-
sioners of Sewers for the Holborn and Finsbnry Di-
vision. Thos. Mashiter, Esq. Thos. Winall, Esq.
Magistrates and Deputy Lieutenants of the Tower
FHamlets ; Robert Helrne, Esq. and fourteen other
persons, of the highest respectability, holding vari-
ous official situations. All of whom spoke in unqua-
lified terms of the honour, zeal, assiduity, and inte-
grity of Mr. Merceron, in the various offices which

he had Red.—These affidavits all applied to the first
indictment.

There was another series of affidavits respecting
the second indictment, the first of which was sworn
by the defendant himself, in which he stated, that
the ale-houses in which he was interested had been
underlet by him to respectable tenants, and that he
could have derived no benefit from their being im- '
11
properly licensed ; nor had he any prospect of ob-
taining new leases. The remainder of the affidavits,
which were to gene.-al character, were precisely the
same as those already mentioned, and were not read.
Mr. TOPPING now addressed the Court in mitiga-
tion of punishment; having spoken at considerable
length, he said he should now content himself with
adverting to the names of those Gentlemen in the
affidavits—same of them he had the honour of know-
ing, and he believed they were known to some of their
Lordships—they were Gentlemen of high honour and.
unimpeachable character.
Lord ELLENBOROUGII—Ybu have a right to sup-
itierfe from those affidavits, that upon some former cc-
PaSions the defendant ecroditeted hitt selleiaTily art 4
perhaps meritoriously.
Mr. TOPPING coniiiJed.—The best possible proof
was the number of the affidavits, and the high res-
pectability of those by whom th2y were made ; and
he trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would, in
their judgment, take those circumstances into their
serious consideration; for it would appear from the
affidavits, that, for a long period, the delimdant had
filled high offices, and had discharged the duties re-
posed in him by virtue of the of with ability,
fidelity, and scrupulous conscientiousness. With
these observations. he should sit down, trusting they
would be duly estimated by their Lordships in their
final judgment upon the defendant.
Mr. COMMON SERJEANT also addressed their Lord-
ships on behalf of the defendant.
Mr. RICIIARDSON followed on the same side.

Mr. SCARLETT replied on the part of the prosecu-
don ; and went over all the strong facts substantiated
on the trial. He concluded by urging that the evi-
dence was sufficient to prove that the conduct of the
cLfeliclant had been influenced by tho Twist base and
~ordid motives—that he had been guilty of an
ille-
~;31 and clandestine application of the parish money.
The character of the country, the support of the
magisterial dignity, required that he should be vi-
sited with such punishment as would tend to preclude
the recurrence of such shameful offences.

Lord ELLEN3OROUGH said, Le should have been
glad to put an end to the busine-s on that day, but
the Jury was waiting, and he had occa,ion to attend
in another place. The Court would giv.e their judg-
ment on Wednesday.