The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1855-12-15
THURSDAY MORNING, DECEMBER IS, 1866.



OF our honest business men, and prejudicial
to our fair fame abroad. We abhor impris-
oninent for debt, because it is punishment
of men merely because they are unfortu-
nate.
But enactments for the prevention, detec-
ton and punishment of yfraud, however strin-
gent and severe, and however sternly en-
forced, are in our judgment essential to the
prosperity of every commercial community.
They purify public morals, prevent crime,
promote and encourage credit and inspire
confidence. What can be more necessary to
the growth and permanent advancement of
a new State?
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN
ENGLAND-TRIAL AND SENTENCE
OF STRAHAM, PAUL AND BATES.
On the twenty-fifth of October last the
trial came on before Mr.. Baron Anderson,
assisted by Baron Martin and Justice Will
les.
The defendants appeared in Court, atten-
ded by Sir Frederick Thesiger, Mr.. Ballan-
tyne, Sergeant Byles, and other almost
equally eminent counsel.
The Attorney General appeared for the
prosecution, and the evidence adduced at the
trial disclosed the following facts:
DIR. Griffith, the prosecutor in the proceed
ings,. and who, at the time of the failure of
the defendants, had money and securities on
deposit with them to the amount of f22,OOO
about five years ago empowered them to
purchase for him ON three different occasions
Danish five per cent. bonds to the value of
$4,000. The defendants purchased the bonds
upon which they regularly received the div-
dends, and credited DIR. Griffith with the
same on their looks. This continued, until
March, 1854, when Sir John D. Paul, to re-
lieve the embarrassments under which the
firm were laboring, sold these securities, to-
gether with others with which they were
entrusted, and appropriated the proceeds,
amounting to fl2 GOO, to the use of the firm
This, as we have stated, was no offence at
common law, and the indictment was pre-
ferred upon statutory provision found in
the 7th and 9Th of George ~, Cap. %,
which provides
"That if any money, or security for the
payment Of money, shall be entrusted to
any banker, merchant, broker, attorney, or
other agent, with any direction in writing to
"PP'y SeASAA INV VI oiiy POI tuCICOl, VI tllC
proceeds or any part of the proceeds of such
security, for any purpose specified in such
direction, and he shall, in violation of good
faith, and contrary to the purpose SO speci-
fled, in any wise convert to his own use or
benefit such money, security, or proceeds, or
any part thereof esrectively, every such
offender shall be guilty Of misdemeanor,
and being convicted thereof, shall be liable,
at the discretion of the Court, to be trans
ported beyond the seas for any term not ex-
ceedlnS fourteen years, nor less than seven
years, or to suffer such other punishment, by
fine or Imprisonment, or by both, as the
Court shall award; and if any chattel, or
valuable security, or any power of attorney
tor the sale or transfer of any share or in
terest in any public stock or fund, whether
in this kingdom, or of Great Britain. or of
Ireland, or of any foreign state or in any
fund of any body corporate company, or
society, shall be entrusted to any banker,
merchant, broker, attorney, or other agent
for safe custody, or for any special purpose.
without any authority to sell, negotiate.
transfer, or pledge, and he shall, in violation
OF good faith, and contrary to the object or
purpose for which such chattel, security. or
power of attorney shall have been entrusted
to him, sell, negotiate, transfer, or pledge, or
in any manner convert to his own use or
benefit such chattel, or security, or the pro-
ceeds of the same, or in any part thereof or
the share or interest in the stock or fund to
which such power of attorney shall relate,
or in any part thereof every such offender
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, being
convicted thereof shall be liable, at the dis
erection of the Court, to any of the punish
ments which the Court may award, as here
inbefore last mentioned"
We quote the section in full for the bene-
fit of home legislators, or defaulting bankers.
The rigid severity of the penal law in
England on this subject will be better appre-
ciated when we add, that the bonds were
replaced by Others of equal value in the
June following their Misrepresentation, Just
one year previous to the failure of the firm.
and that the indictment only charged the
defendants with Incorporating them in
this single instance, although it was shown
that the second set CT bonds were again sold
for the use of the firm in April 1855, DR..
Griffith having, in the interval, regularly re-
ceired his dividends ; so that, although the |
firm might be perfectly solvent at this mo-
ment, the fact that they had sold the bonds
in March, 1851, even if they had replaced
them in June, 1854, and had credited DR..
Griffith with the dividends on them between
those dates, would still render them liable to
an indictment. The case, therefore, over
looking the final incorporation of the
bonds, and the failure of the firm in 1855
was narrowed down to the single issue
whether they had been sold in 1854 without
the consent of DR.. Griffith.
This was clearly proved against Sir John
Paul, who had conducted the transaction per-
sonally, and to whose private account the
f12,OO0 odd, derived from the sale of secu
rites, including those of DR.. Griffith,
March, 1854, had been placed. The other
partners, however, pleaded ignorance of the
transaction or non-participation therein, and
it was contended on their part that sufficient
evidence had not been adduced to show that
they had been privy to the misrepresentation
of the bonds in 1854. The court, after ex-
planning to the jury the distinction between
the civil and criminal liability of partners.
charged them that it was question of fact
for them to determine, whether so large
sum as $4,000 could be placed to the pri-
vate account Of one of the partners Of firm
without the knowledge of his co-partners-
The latter had the means of knowing the
Facts of the case in the present instance, and
the jury alone could decide whether thew
availed themselves of their opportunity.
Another very ingenious defence was set
up by the counsel for the defendants, upon
which they seem to have relied for . verdict /,
n their favor. By another section of the