The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-09-29 00:00:00

17 X lON-HALL.—ileary Palmer, who good charged-
by Sir Thomas Champneys with having fraudulently
obtained from him upwards of 2,00111. in hills, came
up yesterday, accompanied by his bail, for final ex-
amination.

Mr. ALLEY, as counsel for the prosecutor, commen-
ced the proceeding by calling Sir Thomas Cliampnevs,
who proved that none of his property had been re: nrned.
Sir 'l'. Chainpneys was cross-examined by Mr. Adol-
phus, the defendant's counsel, and stated that he had
not received any watches from the defendant. and that
there was not the least pretence for saying he hail, nor
had he received a sum of 150/. He accepted one of the
bills for 201. to buy stamps for the other hills.
Mr. ALLEY then addressed the Magistrates. The
result of a very long consideration was, lie said, tlm
ant's
firm conviction upon his mind that the Le f 1
conduct amounted to a felony at common law. The
definition of felony was, he stated, a fraudulent ob-
taining of property against the will of the owner. Sir
'P. Champneys had proved the manner in which the
property had been obtained by the defendant, and
there was not a particle of evidence to contradict his
testimony. Sir T. Champney, in confidences, on the
defendant's representation, had given him hill to the
amount of 2,0001. and a bill of 201. for stilly:. The
defendant had promised to return the bills or the
money, in one instance in ten days, in the other in 7
days. The only question to constitute the felony was,
had the defendant obtained the bills against the will
of the owner? To a common observer it would ap-
pear that he had not, as Sir T. Champnrys had freely
and unsaipectingly given them to him ; hat the law
said, that if he obtained them by a fraudulent contri-
vance, it was not with the owner's free will ; and
though he had the actual, he had not the legal posses-
sion. In the case of Eccles, Mr. Edwards from whom
he obtained the bill, on the promise of getting it dis-
counted, gave it to him freely, though on eonsidera-
ti,in be sent his clerk to follow Eccles. E.:cles made
away with the bill, and it was decided that he had
been guilty of felony. In the case of Campbell, the
mistress of the house in which lie lodged, sent to him
to his room a 25/. note to change. He said he had
not the change, but took out the note to obtain it.—
lie did not return, and it was decided that lie had
committed a felony. Such was also the case of Walsh,
who had been entrusted with the sum of 50,0001. by
Sir Thomas Planter, and having run away with the
money was found guilty of felony. The Learned Gentle-
man quoted many similar cases, which he contended all
proved that Sir T. C. had never given the defendant
legal possession of the bill in question. lie hail only
given the actual possession on a fraudulent represent-
ation made by the defendant, and the 100 guineas
which the defendant gave to Sir T. C. on the first bill
of 5001, must be considered as a part of the artifice by
which he obtained the 15001. subsequently given ; and
if this should he the opinion of a Jury, there was no
doubt that the defendant's conduct amounted to a
felony.
Mr. ADOLPHUS, in rely, said the defendant had
been in basieess for years on the'lloyal Exchange,
and had never absconded for a moment. It was ad-
mitted by Sir T. C. that be gave the bills to the de-1
feadant to get them discounted ; that he had received
a 100 guineas on account, and that one of them lead i
been applied to the payment of stamps and expences ;
if the defendant bad no other claim en the bills, be
• was justified in .boiling them tilt these sums were
paid. The Learned Gentleman here read a letter of
.Sir defendant, dated the- 2Stli of Aug.

Mr. A i.t.Ev said, he-had no wish that the defendant
should be committed to prison till the Assizes; he
might be tried at the Sessions. It was most untruly
stated abakOif T.4,l,:bad reeei wed faun the defendant
3001. worth of wa'eltes, or any property of any kind
except the hundred guineas, and he had a gentleman
in Court who could prove that the defendant had him-
self acknowledged, on the sth of September, that he
never gave Sir T. C. any thing butthe 100 guineas.
Mr. AbLes, one of the Magistrates, desired Sir T.
Champn'rto em plain how he- came to know that the
bills were in Mr. Park's possession, and whether it was
at his desire they had been given by the defendant to him?
Sir T. Champneys stated, that when the defendant
called on him toe second time about the Canteen, he
said it was Mr. Par.:'s property, that he was a man
whose bills would pass for '20,00111.: that if Sir. T.
C. would go to the extent of 2,000 L, a . negociation
might take place; that led to the introduction of Mr.
Park, hot Sir T. C. positively declared that Le bad
never taken property or money from him in any way.
The claret that had been mentioned was never in his
(Sir T. C.'s) possession. The defendant told him it
was bought from Captain Golf. Some time a ter Air.
Park called on him, and ea ntioned him against the de-
fendant; said that be knew that he (Sir T. C.) had
been used, but declared that he should not sleep till
he ha•i brought bins 1,50/. Park then said " !ou t
aliont tee claret in my cellar ?" Sir 'l'. C. expressed
great snrerise at hearing that Park had the claret,
the defendant having tul,l him in Leicester-spare.
Sir T. th,n sail to Park, as lie had the wine in his
pessession he (Sir T. C.) would authorise hisn to keep
it till he 'twilit be paid the 1501. he promised to ad-
vance, and in l'ark's presence he wrote an acknow-
led,.cement of haying reeeived that son from him, and
a consent for his keeping the wine till lie should be re-
paid. This note he sent to Park by his servant, ex-
pecting to receive the money in retnrn; but Park came
the next day, and said the defendant had taken the
wine out of his possession. Sir T. Chatnpneys pro-
seeded to state further particulars of his transactions
with the parties, to which, in the present stage of the
proceedings, it might be proper to give publicity.
After Sir T. C. had concluded his statement,

Mr. ALLEY said, it appeared to him that a sufficient
case had been made out against the defendant to send
him to trial for a misdemeanour ; and after some dis-
cussion it wis determined that he should stand out un
his present hail for 48 hours, within which time be
should give bailie the amount of 2,0001. for bis ap-
pearance at the next Sessions to take his trial.
Mr. ADOLPHUS made, a proposal on the part of the
defendant, that he should lodge all the bills in the
hands of an officer of the Court, provided Sir T. C.
would lodge 5501., which the defendant had advanced
on them, and abide the result of an arbitration or trial
at law, to determine the justice of the defendant'sclaim.

Mr. ALLEY rejected the proposal with indignation.
He said it was an insult to public justice, after the evi-
dence Sir T. C. had given, for the defendant to make
such a proposal. He, for his part, should feel, himself
disgraced if he were to become a party to such a com-
promise.
After the examination was concluded, Mr. Park,
who was present while it was going on, came forward,
and said he courted inquiry into hie conduct.
In the course of the examination Sir Thomas
Champneys said, that by a late valuation, his property
was estimated at 350.0001.
M•TRIMONIAL CoNsot.artox.—At Antrim Assizes
on the 14tb instant, A. Stewart was conVicted of steal:
ing a hat, and sentenced to be ttanspottzd for seteil
yesrs. The prisoner, er► meeivieglesteace, said," ft
,*is better than I bad marriage."

r