The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-11-10 00:00:00

, LAW I,NTEL.LWA

'a.

°r

(GE.

WM" OF KIN(;-$. lIVNCH, Nov. 9.•

THE. KING. V. DI YOZGE.
Mr. MAIM YATT moved for a Role to thew
cause why the verdict in this case shoulJ not be set
aside, and a verdict for the Defendaot entered.
The indictment under which 11,e D.fendant had
been tried, charged hint with purchasing the cur-
rent coin of Ow kingdom. at inure than the current
value ; a point had been say..d by the Noble and
Learned Lord who tried the cause (Lord lilleribo-
rough), but after the strong opinioit expressed by
his Lordship, he (Mr. Marryat 0 felt that he must be
obliged, in stating the case 'of his Client, to enter
into the shbi,:ct at some length.
Lord ELLE ,BonouGu. spared the Learned
Counsel, that lie was suite prepared to clian:te his
opinion if he should be convitseed that it was erro-
neous.

Mr. M Alt RYATT submitted, that the Ath and Gth
of Edward VI. by which the offence charged is the
exchanging *old or silver for more in value than
Such gold or silver coin is current for at the time,
could only be conceived to have reference to a
former Act of the 23(1 of Edward HI., by which
it was declared, that it should not be lawful to take
in exchange silver for gold, or gold for silver, re.
Ceiving more that, the current value of either. Who-
ever did so receive, br exchange apy gold or sliver
coin of the realm, it was, by the said Act, enacted,
should forfeit the same; and by the statute of• Ed.
ward VI., besides forfeittire of the coin so ex-
changed, this offence was to be punished by impri.
sonment for one year, and by fine, at the pleasure
of the Court. He admitted that the Defendant
in this case had received for fifty guineas fifty-
six Bank of England notes for one pound
each,' and a dollar, valued at five shillings,
being at the rate of 225. 6J. for every guinea.
lie admitted also, that this was an increased sum
above the valve of a guinea on the one hand, or tiiat,
it was a proof of the depreciation of ainit notes
on the other. .ILltit '‘e stilputtted, that this was no
offence. The question here to be considered was,
had the Defendant given more in value of coin for
coin !—lf he could buy a thing cheaper for coin
than otherwise, this was no offence. The value of
a Bank note was not fixed by law-7the public were
nut bound to take Bank
_notes, nor were they
esteemed a it•.;a! tender. What s'len will there to
hinder any man from s tying for what value or con.
operation he would take it ? This Was clearly the
interpretation to be put on the Act of Edward VI.,
as conneet:ng it with the statute of Edward 111.,
the former statute not inflicting any new prohibi-
tion, but only superadding penalties to those con-
tained in the former Act. The stitute dues not
say, that these penalties shall attach if a man takes
or gives goods or notes for more than their current
value, but 'confines itself to the case where a man
may take more than its value for the current coin of
the realm.'
. Lord ELLtxunaottost said, that the Court would
be glad to hear the Learned Counsel farther on this
point, if the time did not press. This was a motion
of great importance, and the Learned gentleman
might take his Rulo,
M !MYATT then staled, dot the Acts which
hail a bearing on.this,ease were numerous tieing more
than ten in number, and at the time these Acts were
pa-sed Batik notes hail no existence.
It *Bs then ordered that the Defendant should re-
main at liberty, on bail, till the qUestion, should be
filially determined.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated, that a case
which had been tried beford'gir James Mansfield, in
Staffordshire, and which involved thesame question,
had by his Lordship been reserved for argument be-
, fore the Twelve Judges. lie thought it might be
convenientthat both cases Might be argued at the'
• same time.
• Mr. MA R tATT agreed that his Client should be,
personally in' attendance at this argunicotl and thus
t the motion was disposed of.