Star.
London, England, 1828-12-08 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dic. 6.

THI ATTORNIT GiNKRAL b. MARTIN.
This was an information filed by the Alma, y Gene•
rel against Maurice Martin, who carried on the business
of a paper stainer, in Regent-street, ch..rging him with
various frauds on the &cite; the principal of which
were, that he bad counterfeited the stamps or marks
generally used by Excise Officers for the purpose of
sparkii;g paper during the process of its being stained;
and also that he had sold stained paper having these
counterfeited marks on it, for the purpose of evading
the payment of the Excise dirty.
. The indictment contained 17 counts, and the penalties
charged to have been incurred by the defendant
amounted to 89.0001.
The SOLICITOII GZIERIPAL shortly statecisthe case for
the Crown.
_Golding Bird, a general Surveyor of Excise, proved
that the defendant followed the business of a paper-
stainer in Regent-street, and had a manufactory for
stained paper in Smitlisryard. The 'witness detailed.
the manner in which paper is stamped by the officers
O 1 Excise to denote its being paid ; and proved having
gained, in the mouth of October lau year, 155 pieces on'
the defendants premises in Smith's-yard, and 97 pieces
in, his house in Regentpsueett on all of which the marks
denoting that the duty had been paid were forged; and.
in the month ref February, this year he seized 98 pieces
with forged stamps in Smith's-yard, and 67 in Regent-

street.
This witness was corroborated by three other Ezci-el
Officers, who accompanied him at the time of making
the seisures. All the witnesses stated that the defendant
was not present at either seizure, and that he WAS fie-
quently. confined by illness, and absent from home. He
had, been tried, at the Old Bailey. fur forging the stamps,
aed acquitted.
'filr.,Sergeant Jowls addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant, and iruplored them not to consign a resprcta-
Isle tradesman to ruin on evidence so dcfective. It was
rowed that the defendant was frequently absent from
his business from inevitable necessity, and no man could
be safe if he were liable to be ruined by an act which
any one who had access to his premises might cnnsmit
in his absence, and without his knowledge.
The Jar 7, without hesitation, found a verdict for the
Crowaon all the counts

THE ATTORNIT•GiNIRAL V. ROOK&
This was an information filed against the defendant,
George It charging him with being concerned in
unshipping some illegally imported 'spirits, and wjtk
harbouring the same, by which he became liable to thine
times the duty.
;The SOLICITOR GENERAL, in stating the case, said
that smuggling was now carried to such an extent as to
make it necessary, for the protection of the Revenue, to
proceed against every individual of the numerous gangs
who assicied in carrying on'that desperate trade.
It bppeared clear, from the evidence of two witnesses,
that on the night of the 30:h ri November, 1827, the
defendant *as a very active member of the party who
wete landing tubs of brandy from a ship off the coast
of Devon. He was also seen at the house of a farmer
pained Hoyle, in the parish of Prentishowon the next
morning, with t greet comber of those who had been
his fellow labourers on tbe previous night... Verdict for
tbs. Coma


COURT OF COMPIMATION, Demon C.
pePlitArltliENTS 4$ FfIR artaNth
This day a case of compensation was tried in the
Guildhall, Westminstkr, before the High Bailiff of
Westminster and the Deputy Bailiff, Mr. Sathru.s.e.—
It is the first of the description which has arisen out of
the projected improvements in the &faun. The case
which engaged the attention of the Court was that
of Mr. Sunlit°, a vintner, who held a lease under
the Duke of Bedford. It appeared, from the evi
dente adduced before the Court and Jury, that
the family of Mr. Shil:it had been tenants of a house
in the Strand, under the Duke of Bedford, fur upwarsls
of sixty years. The lAA lease which he had obtained
from the Duke was dated 1820. By the terms r f that
lease it appeared that he paid a premium of 25(11. and
was subject to a tent r f 861. a year; there was a cove.
flans in the lease obliging the tenant to repair. The
term of the lease was fi t en years, at the expiration of
which the tenant calculated on obtaining a renewal of
it on payment of the same premium, at it was the
cu.tonr of the Duke of Bedford to grant a renewal of
leases to tenants who held for any considerable length
f time under his family, on terms which had refetence
rather v.) the value of the premises at the time at which
the lease was originally made, than to the value at'
the time of making the renewal. Mr. had
underleased a principal portion of the tenements to a
Mr. Hardy, and to others, and had been paid a premism
of 1,2001. and a rent of 901. a-year, that portion of
it which included the shop for carrying on the business
of a publican. Mr. Shilito occupied two rooms in the
house, which he valued at SOl. a year, and had also let
a parlour and another room, fJr which he received a
rent of 254. a week ; Mr. Hardy had received already
2,5001. for his interest in the premises, and the preset.t
claim was made by for the various interests
above streed,which he had under the le sse of the Duke of
Bedford, and for the expectancy which he entertained of
an advantageous renewal oft at its expiration. An offer
of 1,2001. had been made to Mt. S. for his interest in
the lease and in the reversion,ou the part of the Cro.vn,
which he declined, as he put forward a claim for
1,7001. as compensation for the injury which he would
sustain by the loss r f the premises, which he and his
family had occupied fur s.) many years. Three Sur-
veyors called on the part of the Crown valued it at
about 1,20 1. and three, called on the part of the
claimant, estimated the value at about 1,6001. Ttris
variance in the estimates appeared to arise principally
from the circumstance of the Surveyors called on the

part of the Crown not including the advantageous re-
newal which Mr. Shilllito expected on the expir,tion of
the present lease, in 183.5, in the basis on which their
'estimates were formed. _ _

Mr. HARRISON appeared on the part of the Crown,
and espres,ed the willingness of the Commissioners
under the Act of Parliament, to give a fair, just, and,
he would say, a liberal crimpeasatiun for any injury
which claimants miy,ht sustain in catrying that Act of
Parhamer.t into force. But he submitted to the Jury
titai the offer which had been made was a sufficient and
ample compensation for the interest of Mr. &Mhos in
the premises io question. At the same time that fait
compensation should be given to the occupant ousted
fr.ins his tenement, a proper caution and vigilance ought
to be exercised over the disbursement of the public
money.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS appeared on the part of Mr. ShilHto,
and urged with much ingenuity and eloquence the bard-,
ship which his client sustained by being driven from a
tenement which he and his family bad occupied for 60
years, and to which be was attached by strong natut al
partialities.
Mr. SaIRDLRY (the Deputy Bailiff) seed over the evi-
dence to the Jury, accompanied with the single remark,
that on the one hand they would award a just, fairiand
_ .

liberol compensation to the subject, eonsicfeting that be
was deprived of possession of bis premises by the strong
arm of 11,e laws and, on the other hand. that, in giving
their verdict, they would give due consideration to the
circumstAnce, that the occupant was deprived of posses-
sion for the purpose of promoting public improvements.
The Jury then withdrew, and. after a consultation
for about an hour, returned a verdict of 1,5001. as cotta.
pensation for Mr:Shinji°.
Mr. Hart, landlord of the Puncheon, in the Strand,
the corner of Burleigh-street, held under the Marquis
of Exeter, conspromised with the Commissioners for
2,7504
A claim set up by Mr.DoVer was also compromised
for 1.0001. •
MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Dr.o. 6.

Warne Appleby, a respectable looking man, of about
/ears of age, was indicted far a fraud, in falsely pre-
teding to John Cleminson that he was a Mater in
Chancery, and could recover certain monies (from the
Court of Chancery) which had been left to the said
John Cleminson by his brother, whu had died in the
East Indies. The facts, which are• already before the
•public, were proved by witnesses.
The CNAllftitriu, in summing up the evidence, ob-
served to the Jut y that this was a case that had attracted
tie most serious attention of the Court., The prisoner
4t the bar was charged on twenty-two different counts,
.any one of which, if proved, would be sufficient for hit
conviction. If the evidence adduced could be relied
on (and there was no reason as he could perceive, to
doubt, it), the defendant had been platy of sacs. cruel
conduct in taking aduntage of tile ignorance of a poor
old man by imposing upon his credulity, and falsely
representing to him that be (the defend.nt) could put
him.io possession of. immense wealth, and by these vile
means deprieektOrp of all, the mow be could scrape
together, to the almost uuer ruin of his family.
The Jory 'Mined a verdict ri Guilty. and the Chair-
man sentenced the prisoner tgbe 'imported for seven
years.