sum appeared to be one of those paid by Messrs. Gosling. Mr. Fearn proved that the prisoner applied to him, on the 2d of December, for the purchase of 5001. in Portuguese doubloons, but after wards, on the 5th, diminished his order to 3001. which he then took and paid for in notes, which were proved to have been paid for at a banker's, in change for one of the 10007. notes before mentioned. The whole of the notes received by the prisoner for sir Thomas Plomer's check at Messrs. Goslings' having been proved to be thus disposed of by him for his own purposes, the remainder of the evidence traced him to Falmouth, where he was found by Mr. Jenkins, sir T. Plomer's solicitor, and where he surrendered to him the American debentures, and the bag of doubloons, acknowledging his intention to abscond from the country. The evidence for the crown being closed, Mr. Scarlett now rose, and was proceeding to address the court upon some points of law in this case on behalf of the prisoner; when Mr. Garrow said,. that although he was ready now to argue any points that his learned friend might offer, yet exhausted as the court was, after so many hours of attention, and as it was probable that, if the arguments of his learned friend should go to any length, it might lead of course to a long reply; he thought it would be better, as most probably the arguments on both sides would ultimately lead to a more extended discussion next term, or be referred to the opinion of the twelve judges, it might equally well answer the purposes of his learned friend to state shortly to the court the leading points of his objections. To this the court also acceded, and Mr. Scarlett proceeded. He said, that in looking to the objec tions he was about to offer on behalf of the prisoner, no man who knew him could suppose he entertained an opinion different from that of every honest man as to the moral turpitude of the prisoner's conduct. Indeed, the prisoner himself had in his letters acknowledged that turpitude in its fullest extent, and, he was convinced, must feel with the utmost compunction the full depth of the disgrace in which an act so fraudulent had involved him. But it was not the criminality of his moral conduct that remained at this moment to be discussed, but the construction of law upon the fact as it stood, and the question, whether the evidence this day adduced was sufficient to sustain the charge of felony, as set out in the indictment? The indictment consisted of seven counts, which, however, resolved into two charges; the one for stealing the check of sir Thomas Plomer upon his banker, and the other for stealing the bank notes afterwards; and it was stated in the indictment as the property sir T.Plomer.-With respect to the former, he should maintain that no such charge as that of larceny could be sustained by the evidence; for it appeared that the check itself was freely and voluntarily given to the prisoner by sir Thomas, and applied in part to the uses for which it was given, so far as obtaining for it the payment at the banker's, and applying a considerable sum to purchase exchequer bills and other stock, as he was directed, which were duly deposited for sir Thomas's account. By the act of the 2d of Geo. II. cap. 25, which defines the crime of larceny, it was necessary to show that the party charged with (B 3) of the the offence had, by some previous contrivance or circumvention, obtained the property from the owner whereas it was here in proof that sir Thomas had given the check to the prisoner of his own accord, and confidentially in the way of his profession as a stockbroker; and consequently, that how ever the prisoner might be afterwards tempted to apply the check to other purposes, his mode of obtaining the possession could not be considered as a theft, however it might be as a debt. And as to the second point, that of stealing from sir Thomas the bank notes obtained from the banker for this check, it could by no means be considered as stealing from sir T. Plomer; for he had no property nor control whatever in these identical bank notes, for he never had any possession in them; any other notes might have been given for this check by the bank; or the prisoner might have changed the check with his own broker, or parted with it for any other property, in which case it could not be maintained that he had stolen such property from sir T. Plomer. The fact was, that the check could not be available to sir Thomas so long as it remained in his own hands, and must lapse to the possession of another before it could be.of value, The moment he gave it in trust to the prisoner it became a debt of civil contract, for which he expected to receive in return, net bank notes, but exchequer bils, to be purchased for his account in a professional way. The prisoner, therefore, became responsible to him for the check in part; and if he failed to perform his instruction, he became answerable only as for a debt. Eccies's case, cited by his learned friend Mr. Gar. Fow, was materially different from this; for there it appeared that the prosecutor never intrusted Eccles, but sent his servant to watch him, and virtually never quitted the possession of the bill. Here the con trary was the case; for the check was actually turned over to the prisoner in trust for an express purpose. If sir T. Plomer had sent his servant to the bank, expressly for bank notes, and that he had embezzled them to his own use, the case would then, indeed, be quite different, But the prisoner was not the servant of Sir Thomas, but merely empow ered by him in the way of an agent, and responsible to him, only in the way of civil contract debt, for the performance of his commission. For these reasons he contended that the charge of larceny was sustained. After some further observations from Mr. Alley on the same side, it was agreed to accept a special verdict from the jury, subject to fu ture argument, or the opinion of the twelve judges. Baron Macdonald then shortly addressed the jury, and told them, that strong doubts had arisen in this case upon a question of law, whether the crime charged against the prisoner was a larceny, or only a civil contract? To settle this point ultimately, two modes had been proposed. The one, of special argument in a future term, which would be attended with much greater suspense and embarrassment to the prisoner. The other, to reserve the question for the decision of the twelve judges, if the jury should convict the prisoner. The fact then for them to decide was, whether the prisoner, previously to his obtaining possession of the check from sir T. Plomer for the express purpose of purchasing exchequer bills, had formed in his own mind the fraudulent project of embezzling the money money to his own account. The better to enable the jury to make up their minds on this question, he would recapitulate the parts of the evidence that bore immediately on the point, if they did not wish to hear the whole summed up. The jury agreed. His lordship then recounted the circumstances of the prisoner having bargained for the purchase of 11,0001, in American stock so far back as 29th Nov. and his having agreed for the purchase of 3001. of Portuguese coin on 2d Dec.; and this while he was a ruined man, and, as he afterwards acknowledged, wholly destitute of property, and while he had in contemplation the obtaining of sir T. Plomer's money. His having acknowledged in his letters the intention to defraud somebody; first, a Mr. O, and afterwards sir Thomas Plomer; his having come from his house in the country on the very morning of the 5th December, with a baggage for a long voyage; his subsequent purchase of stockings and nightcaps for the purpose, before he obtained the possession of sir Thomas Plomer's money; and his afterwards acknowledging his settled intention for the purpose to have been fixed; taken together, could leave no doubt that the fraudulent project had been formed in his intention long before he actually received the check. The jury would, therefore, consider their verdict. Without hesitation they returned-Guilty. The points, of course, remain for the twelve judges to decide. 19. A shock of an earthquake felt at many places in Oxfordshire, and the adjoining counties. At Telsworth, Islip. Bletchinden, Radley, Wolvercot, and many was other villages, the windows were much shaken, and in many houses the shock was distinctly felt. It was accompanied with a deep rumbling noise, similar to a discharge of heavy ordnance. In some places this noise was heard for upwards of ten minutes. SPECIAL COMMISSION. Sessions Louse, Horse-monger-lane. 20. This being the day named for opening the special commission issued for the trial of the seamen taken on board the French ships at the capture of the Isle of France, on a charge of high treason, the chief baron, who was appointed the head of the commission, accompanied by sir Simon Le Blanc and sir Alan Chambre, took his seat on the bench about eleven o'clock. The grand jury having been sworn, the lord chief baron delivered his charge to the following effect: He stated, that his majesty had thought it necessary to issue this special commission, to inquire into offences of no ordinary magnitude, in order to show in this, as well as in every other instance, his anxiety for the protection and sal vation of the country. He was sorry to say, that the persons charged with these offences were members of those illustrious and honourable professions, the royal navy and marines, to whom the house of parliament were in the habit, session after session, of presenting their thanks for distinguished skill and valour, the recurrence of which was recorded in almost every daily paper. Still the duty which juries owed to their country obliged them to attend to cases of this nature, let the parties be whom they might; and his lordship was so welt acquainted with a grand jury of the (B4) county county of Surrey, that he should not think it necessary to detain them, except to explain so much of the law as was requisite to carry them through that preliminary inquiry. All the prisoners stood committed for the same offence; so that the jury would not be puzzled by any variety of crime:-it was one of the species of high treason, the highest offence of which a man in civil society could be guilty, because thereby the whole community might be injured, and the laws and constitution be totally subverted. Anciently the law on this subject was ill-defined and ill-arranged, till the statute 25 Edw. III. distinctly enumerated and ordained, that acts to the exclusion of all others should be deemed high treason in future. This statute was wholesome, wise, and just; for, in proportion as the punishment was heavy, the crime should be certain. By this statute, all former treasons, which were before as numerous and extensive as the caprices of the sovereign of his ministers, were reduced to several; and though some were added by subsequent parliamentary enactments, yet all that were fundamental were to be found in the statute of Edward. The first three treasons, which were compassing the king's death, violating his consort, and levying war against him in his realm,-were such as tended directly to the subversion of the state. The fourth, of which these persons stood charged, was that of adhering to the king's enemies; to assist whom, in their plans of conquest, was more destructive to the constitution than even the levying of war in the realm; for a rebellion might be consistent with a due administration of justice and the protection of pro perty, as this country had expe rienced in the century before the last; but subjugation by such an enemy as ours, would be followed by the destruction of all property, and certainly of all liberty. Such was the preliminary inquiry; and if there should be any reasonable ground for the charge, the prisoners would be put to explain their conduct. The statute required, first, that the particular acts of treason should be distinctly set forth in the indictment; that the overt or open acts should be proved by two witnesses; and all collateral facts, not tending to the proof of the overt acts, might be proved by one witness only. Assistance might be afforded to the enemy by fur nishing them with arms, ammuni tion, and necessaries-by giving them intelligence-by conspiring to assist them in invasion-and in some cases even by dissuading them from making an hostile attack. He mentioned these things, not so much for the instruction of the grand jury, as for the purpose of warning to some of the persons who might be called together on this occasion. It would be incumbent on the prisoners to show, that what they had done, was done under fear of death, or under duress; and that the compulsory force continned during the whole time, as well as existed at first: not that they would be called upon to ac count for every day; but they must show either that they had attempted to escape, and had been prevented; or that they had been pursued and brought back; or that they had been narrowly watched; or that the attempt would have been attended with great difficulty and danger, so that upon the whole it would have been impracticable, although although it might not appear so at the actual moment. These, and such reasons as these, if satisfactorily proved, would be considered a sufficient defence: but the apprehension of great damages to property, or of grievous inconvenience, or hardships which might be inflicted upon them as prisoners, would not excuse them. He mentioned this, the rather because greater hardships and oppressions were now used against prisoners than had ever before been known in modern warfare, for the purpose of inducing them to enter into the enemy's service. It was fit, therefore, that the law should be exactly explained, that persons in a situation similar to that in which the prisoners had been placed, might know what was expected from them by their country. In short, nothing less than actual compulsion, or a wellfounded apprehension of death, would be esteemed a sufficient justification. The lord chief baron then concluded, by hoping that the prisoners would be able to explain their conduct satisfactorily to the petty jury. The witnesses were then sworn, and the court adjourned. The prisoners are by law allowed ten days for the preparation of their defence, after the finding the bill of indictment. BOW-STREET. 21. At a late hour on Saturday night, 13 of the men who have uttered the forged certificates of their services in the royal navy, and defrauded the governors of Greenwich hospital in connection with Gawler, the clerk, were brought before Mr. Graham, and admitted to bail, themselves in 501. each, and two sureties in 251. each. Some of their certificates stated them to have served longer in the navy than they were years old. Others stated them to have served eighteen, twenty, and twenty-one years, whereas they had only served about four, five or six years. The men appeared extremely penitent for what they had been led into, and hoped mercy would be shown them. They principally reside in the neighbourhood of Spitalfields, where Hopeton, the public-house agent, also resides, who was connected with Gawler in procuring the men, and Gawler manufactured and got passed the forged certificates in the office. LEEDS SESSIONS. New interpretation of the toleration act. 24. Mr. Robert Wood, a preacher inthe methodist connection, presented himself before the magistrates, and requested that the oaths might be administered to him, that he might make the declaration required by the toleration act, to qualify him to officiate as a dissenting teacher." The bench inquired if he was appointed a teacher to any specific congregation? The rev. Mr. Wood, sen. who is also a travelling preacher in the same connection, replied, that his son was to preach at Bramley. Recorder-Suffer the young man to answer the question himself. Mr. Robert Wood.It is intended that I should preach at Bramley, Armley, and other villages in the vicinity. The recorder, after some conversation with the bench and the counsel near him, resumed-" From a report of a case just published, it appears that the court of king's bench have decided, that a protestant dissenter, who states himself as one who preaches to several congregations, without showing that he |