The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-10-25 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

COIIkT OP IMO'S Uefce, WEIITMIXIIITZIP. OCT. 24.

RANSDILN AND OTHERS O. •SNTON AND OTTERS.
This was an action of debt by farmers of Post Horse
Duaiee, to recover the amount of certain duties due to
them from the defendants, for the letting of horses in
the year 1821.
Mr. GURNEY and Mr. P. Pommel were the plain-
tills; and Mr. SCARLITS and Mr. PULLER for the de-
fendants.
defendants were licensed to let honer, and resided
.n Bray's-inn-lane. The object of this action was to try
'two important questions, as to the liability of person
letting horses for funeral solemnities, to the duties pay-
able in respect of horses so employed :-1. Whether
horses let for the conveyance of hearses and mourning
coaches beyond the bills of mortality, and within 10 miles
of London, are liable to a duty of Is. 9d. per diem only,
or to one fourth the sum paid to the persons letting, for
a day's employment, where the distance is not ascertain-
ed ? And 2. Whether hearses and mourning coaches,
which require a hackney coach license within the bills of,
mortality, are liable to duty, when the number of horses
employed in the conveyance of such carriages exceed a
pair? The plaintiffs insisted upon the affirmative of
both propositions, which depended upon the construction
of time 9th Ann. c. 23. and L Geo. I. Stat. 2. C. 5. S. 3.;
24th Gee. 111. C. 27. S. 7; 32d Geo. III.; and 42d Geo.
C. 37. Several Undertakers were examined as to
the facts necessary to raise the question, anal to the stip,
gemtion of the Learned Judge, it was agreed that a special
ease 'tmid be framed for the opinion of the King's
Bench open both questions.
A verdict fur the plaintiffs for nominal damages was
ta4en, subject to a case.
THE SING 0. COWARD AND GIS'S.
This was an indictment against Messrs. Howard and
Giblet, charging them with a conspiracy to defraud and
cheat by subtile means and contrivances, R. M. Weisel!,
of 1,1071.
Mr. SCARLIT T, who stated the case, said the Prosecu-
tor was a most respectable tradesman carrying on the
business of a Stationer in St. Martin's-court. The pro-
'renter had occasion as early es 1812, to employ the de-
fendants as bis Agents. Messrs. Howard and Gibbs un-
fortunately for the Prosecutor and others, bad become
persons of great notoriety, and it would appea;that Mr.
Dartnell had smarted under the superior ingenuity of
Shea. Gentlemen. Hie object was to obtain interest for
Lis mooey,and he consequently placed various antes in
their hands, to purchase annuities. During three or
four years they returned him ten per cent., and he was
satisfied. In the course of this transaction, the Mar-
quess of Sligo, being desirous of redeeming 30110 annuity,
taill the money to Howard and Gibbs, who were author-
ised by the Prosecutor to receive it. Mr. Dartnell ap-
plied several times to obtain payment, but they constant-
Jr evaded paying over the money, by promises to belle
it.—The Prosecutor at last was told that the Duke of
Marlborough was borrowing ntaney upon bis revenue
derived from the Post Office, and that they would take
care the Prosecutor should have his mosey laid oat to
advantage. Mr. Dartnell never gave them authority to
lay out Ilia money in the purchase ofthe Marlborough an-
nuity, yet they applied it to that tranastioo, and gave
the Prosecutor a debenture. These annuities afterwards
proved not worth any thing. A Mr. Davis baring car-
ried &suit into the Court of Chancery, the Lord Chancel-
lor decided that the Duke of Marlborough had so power
to dials use of his interest in a grant made by Parliament
to the great John Duke of Marlborough, and his heirs.
The grant was intended to support with splendour the
honour of Blenheim. After that decision the Proseca.
tor los: his money, and be should call evidence for the
purpose of chewing that emu the time the Duke of Marl-
borough executed the annuities fur a consideration of
10,0001. the whole of the money was noi...psia over by
Moward and Gibbs to the- Doke" but Pert of it went tma
answer demands they had themselles on the Doke. He
should also endeavour to prove, on the part of the pro-
'rendes. that these annuities granted by the Duke of
Marlborough in January, ISM were pressed opus per-
sons by Howard and Gibbs as ralid securitea, though
known at the time to be worth nothing. The Learned
Criensel then called
Mr. nsrtnell, the Prosecntor, who detailed his trans-
actions with the defendants as stated.
Other witnesses were also called in support of the
prosecutiaa.
The S miactuou-GENERAL, addressed time Jury, and re-
quested their attention to a fair statement of facts. Mr.
Dartnell had been in the habit of advancing various
sums of money to Messrs, dowsed and Gibbs, to be coo-
✓e-ted into annuities bearing considerable interest, and
-when the Jury were informed that eleven percent. was
his share of the profit, they would readily believe that
'the transactions out of which such profit arose were not
Cur moat stable. Messrs. Howard and Gibbs had been
ltrig engaged in receiving annuities from the Duke of
Dl.trthorough„ and in one of these annuities Mr. Dark-
Eel I's name became inserted under the following circum-
smnces ;
The Margate's of Blandforal, berme he became Duke
of NI arlhorough, was in the habit of applying to Howard
red Ohl's for relief under pecuniary euaharassments.
Tap Noble Marquess wished to raise 10,000 f. upon his.
l'u.st-olfice Annuity of 50 OtAd. per annum, which hue en•
jaayed as the successor of the great Duke John. The an-
unite haul then only an incumbrance of 35,0001. ayear,
and steer hag to legal purposes, obtained by Howard
act: GRAN it was competent for the Duke to mortgage
Hs lad interest for any annuities he might wish to exe-
cute. The Doke, upon the transaction, received 10,0001.
eml debentures were received by the owners, 111 r. Dart-
cell being one of the number. Some time after a Chan-
cery suit was drought by a dlr. Davis again-; his Grace,
for arrears due upon annuity deeds. It appeared by the
Lord Chancellor a judgment that the Duke coulu not
by law encumber the Post-office pensions with any of
its debut, that being expressly granted by the 2J of
Anne, to enable the Dukes of Marlborough to maintain
with splendour the honours of Blenheim. Time moment
the judgment was proaouneed, Howard and Gibbs did
Al they could to secure the holders of Debentures, and
obtained from the Duke a power, by which all the estates
of his Grace would he vested in General St. John to se-
cure the nhisnate discharge of the debeutures, affected by
'the &vision of the Court of Chancery. It would appear
to the Juq-, under theae circumstances, that Howard and
Gibbs COlllti DOt be charged with fraud. The Jury ought
to banish from their initials ail the unfortunate conse-
quences of the defendants' bankruptcy, and decide as if
that event haul out happened.
&In ard Howard, jun. the son of the defendant, said
be saw the Dub- of Matlhorough execute the deed (pro-
duced) on the 10th of J out wry, l&18, at Blenheim. Ile
CM the Duke, at the same time, give the receipt for
the consideration. It was paid by 31r. Gibbs, tu his
presence.
• Cross-exainineul by Mr. SCARLIITT. —lir went to Blen•
brim with others; he was nut a clerk in bus father's
office; be could nut B.y how much money his lather
brought back.
The Curer JUSTICE.—When the deed was executed
dal you leave the room ?—I diul, my Lord.
And left Gibbs there?—Yes.
The deed was attested by another?—l'es.
Who urea he ?—A servant belonging to the Duke.
Stephen Gibbs, a Conveyancer, was consulted by How-
tad anal Gibbs on toe Duke of Marlborough's affairs.
Ile was consulted in 181;', as to the ability of the Uuke
of Marlborough to make good payments under a grant
et his revenac from the 1%13: lie gob C AU upaniaH