The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-02-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER,_WESTMINSTER HALL,
SATURDAY, Ise. 4.
THE RING V. R. WALSH, ESQ. H. P.
This day the point reserved by the Court in arrest
of judgment, in the case of Mr. 'Walsh, namely,
Fwhether the offence of which he had been found
guilty was larceny, or a breach of trust merely,
came on to be solemnly argued before the Twelve
Judges, in the Exchequer Chamber.
Mr. SCARLET, on behalf of the Prisoner, in an
I elaborate argument, urged by a great variety of cases,
which he maintained were of a class similar to the
present, contended, that the offence imputed to his
client was not felony, but simply a breach of trust.
: The chief ground upon which he proposed to main-
,: tain this proposition,_ was a just consideration of the
I relation which subsisted between the Prosecutor and
the prosecuted, at the time the offence was alleged to
have been committed. The Prosecutor had employed
the Prisoner in the way of his trade, to purchase for
; him a certain number of Exchequer Bills, with a
j certain sum of money, or a warrant for the receipt
of money. In giving that warrant to the Prisoner,
• he was invested with a species of property in it ;
be received it, not to return it again in the shape he
had received it, but to bring back Exchequer Bills
in lieu thereof. The nature of the property which
could . have constituted the subject of a larceny,
merged in the instant of its transfer to his hands,
into a mere'act of trust. The draft came to the Pri-
saner's hands lawfully in the first instance, and con-
-1
sequently the idea of a felonious taking or convert-
ingl was at once done away. Could the Honourable
I Prosecutor have charged the Prisoner with feloni-
i oasly stealing from him 42,0001. worth of Exchequer
I Bills, had the Prisoner so laid out all the money en-
trasted to him ? Certainly be could net. In order to
recover the possession of them, he would be obliged
Ito have recourse to a civil action. The iudictmeut
I charged the Prisoner with stealing 22,0001. in Bank
lof England Notes. The check of the Prosecutor
was not converted into cash until after it came into
thehands of the Prisoner, consequently the idea of
a felonious taking that sum could not he supported,
unil that of the Prisoner itself made it a case upon
which larceny could have been committed. The Pri-
Isoner received it net as money, but merely as the
means of procuring money for the purpose of ese-
i
mating his trust. The I, served Centleman cited a
I great many eases in support of this doctrine, which
hecontended were decisive upon the question for
which he argued.
Hr. GURNEY argued the case in support of the
coaviction for felony, at considerable Length. lie
said the larceny in this case was the larceny of the
Bank-notes; and he contended, that the written or-
der of Sir Thomas Plomer upon his banker for
22,0001. was the same thing as if he had personally
accompanied the Prisoner to the banker's, and there
given him further orders to give to the Prisoner the
Bank-notes. The check was the means of getting
the money, and was just the sane thing as if a man
gave another the key of a strong box, authorising
lam to take out of it a sum of money contained there-
la, for a certain purpose. His Learned Friend had
argued, that the Prisoner had done this in the way
his business. But for his (Mr. G.'s) part, he never
knew it was in the way of a man's btisiness to rob
another, and convert that property,to his own use,
which had been entrusted to him for a certain pur-
, pose. The circumstance of its being done in the way
of business was no excuse whatever for this offence,
and no ground for removing a charge of felony.
That it was larceny he was prepared to chew by a va-
riety of cases precisely analogous. He denied that
' the cases cited by his Learned Friend (Mr. Scarlet)
bore at all on the present question. Those to which
he referred were cases wherein third persons were
concerned, and were clearly cases of mere fraud,
or breach of trust. But the present one was
characterized by a very different aspect. Here
there was no third person. The Prisoner had re-
ceived the money and converted it to his own
purposes. The Learned Gentleman then quested se-
veral cases, which contradicted the principle of Mr.
Scarlet, that the property was vested in the person
entrusted at the moment of transfer to his hands.—
They went to prove that the ultimate property of the
owner never ceased during the time it was out of his
hands in the possession of another. The Prosecutor
would have had a right to seize his property wherever
he should End it, end to have taken it from the
possession of the Prisoner himself at any time, had
he apprehended that his intentions were dishonest.—
He was proceeding to cite other rases to support this
doctrine, when the further hearing was ordered to
be adjourned.