Court of Exchequer, July 3.Rex v. Hall.-This was a motion to set aside an extent in aid which had been obtained by Messrs. Oldacre and Co. of Worcester, who, as sub-distributors of stamps, had given a bond to account for stamps in their possession when called upon. It was sworn in support of the motion, that it was believed that Oldacre and Co. had given this bond for the very purpose of obtaining extents in aid against their debtors.

The Solicitor-General said, that he attended on the part of the crown, notice having been given to the solicitor of stamps. This extent in aid had issued without the knowledge of the crown officers, and he therefore should not interfere between the parties interested. He would only state, that he was informed that this bond had never been required on the part of the head distributor of stamps, but had been volunteered by Messrs. Oldacre and Co.: and he thought such bonds should be given under the sanction of some crown officer, and, when given, deposited with those who were to make use of them if necessary. This bond had not been so deposited. He left it to the Court, and retired.

Mr. Dauncey, in support of the extent, said he would not deny that this extent was issued, not for the benefit of the crown, but of the individua!. This is, said he, notoriously the case in almost every instance of extents in aid. No one in this court will deny it for a moment. In another place, this has been the subject of much animadversion. It is said this is a great abuse; and one might VOL. LVIII.

fancy, according to what is said on this subject elsewhere, that it is highly immoral for an active creditor to gain a preference be fore other creditors. The law allows this. Any man may gain a preference by suing a fieri facias. A crown debtor can do no more than others, only he can do it quicker and it is reasonable, for he is liable to be called on by the crown on a sudden; and he ought therefore to have a speedy process against his debtor. If the legislature thought proper to take away this right, he should have no objection; but while the law remained unchanged, the court would continue to do what it had ever done.

Serjeant Copley endeavoured to show, from the form of the bond, that the crown creditor had no right, because he was bound not to pay money due, but to account, and he had never been called on to account; but the court held that, being a bonddebtor, he possessed the right of other bond-debtors. The rule was discharged.

In another case of extent which had been decided the same morning, the court held that it is not necessary for a party applying for an extent to swear to what amount he is indebted to the crown, in order that the court may see that the debt to the crown is equal to the sum for which the extent in aid issues.

Edward Roche deposed, that in April, 1814, he was quarter-master on board the Thames East Indiaman. She had sailed for China, but he could not tell when she arrived there. The defendant was the chief mate, and Mr. Henry Ladd was third mate. When at China, several small boxes were taken on board by the direction of Mr. Ladd. There were from 17 to 20, weighing about 50 pounds each: they looked like sea boxes. Witness was called out of his hammock by Mr. Ladd to take them out of the Chinese boat. This was between two and three in the morning. One half was carried into Mr. Creswell's cabin, and the other half into the gun room. There was a bit of tin on each corner of the boxes put into the gun room. There was an iron mark on the others. Mr. Creswell was on board at this time, but he did not appear during the transaction. The ship arrived in England in August last; when off Scilly, a pilot boat came towards the ship, a small boat was launched from her, which came alongside the Thames, and some men came on board from it. Witness, by the desire of the boatswain, went to call the gunner; he passed Mr. Creswell's cabin, and saw some silks lying on his table, which were taken

from a box standing on the floor. The box looked like one of those which witness took in at China. The silks consisted of shawls ar d handkerchiefs. Mr. Creswell, Mr. Daniel, one of the mates, and Mr. Ladd, were in the cabin, as were the men who had come on board, smugglers he believed them to be; he saw these men in conversation with Mr., Creswell, and pay some bank notes, which they laid on the table. After this the men, six or seven in number, took the silks and wrapped them round their bodies and legs, under their clothes, and went off. There were still more s.lks emaining, and one of the men said these were to be left till they came back again for them. The box from which the silks had been taken, was sent to the cook to burn. Before the men went off in the boat, four boxes were brought upon deck, which were the same witness took in at ChiThe lid of one of the boxes was loosed, and witness saw it contain silks and shawls: he believed witness was ordered to put them into the boat alongside. The boat was then rowed off. The boat came alongside in the morning, and went away between two and three in the afternoon.

na.

George Lancaster, a seaman on board the Thames, corroborated the testimony of the last witness, as to the smugglers coming on board off Scilly, going down into the cabin, and going away again with the silk. The boxes put into the boat might contain about sixty pieces each. The boat came alongside at four in the afternoon.

William Eckloffstein was also a seaman on board the Thames :

was

was with her at China; remembered a Chinese boat coming alongside with some boxes; they were taken on board by order of Mr. Creswell; came to England in the ship; when she arrived off the Land's-end, a boat came alongside, and some men came on board, and went into Mr. Creswell's cabin; he saw them there, and saw some boxes of silk broke open. Mr. Creswell was present. Some silk shawls lay on the table; there were about 30 crape shawls, 20 silk shawls, and 12 pieces of silk; saw another box broke open, containing nankeen. The silk articles were sold to the men who came on board, and were taken away round their bodies; the men also took four boxes in the boat, one of which he saw contained silk. This was at halfpast four o'clock in the evening. About two hours afterwards another boat came alongside, containing six persons. Three of them came on board, and also went into Mr. Creswell's cabin. They inquired whether there were any silks or nankeens to sell. Mr. Creswell answered in the affirmative, and said they were very good, but very dear. Witness was called a little while after to fetch a rope's end, to hand seven boxes, which were in Mr. Creswell's cabin, out of the port. Three of these contained silk, two nankeen, and two tea.

Mr. Lock, surveyor of the Custom House, proved that silk India shawls were worth about 30s. each, a crape shawl 20s. China silk 3s. a yard. The value of a box containing such things as had been described might be 401.

The counsel on behalf of the defendant called

Captain Richie, the commander of the Thames. He recollected the ship being off Scilly in August; did not see any boat come alongside; had such an event taken place, he must have seen the boats. Mr. Creswell's cabin was near his in the ship; he did not often go into it, but, when he happened to go in, he saw no particular articles which excited his attention. The cabin was of such a size as to put boxes in it, but he thought they could not be concealed from view. Knew the first witness, Roche, and recollected his being punished three times, and once for insolence to Mr. Creswell. Did not hear the insolence; it was reported to him.

Charles Paris was servant to Mr. Creswell during the voyage in question, and had constant access to his cabin. Nothing could have been concealed in Mr. Creswell's cabin without his knowledge. Saw some boxes in the cabin, containing silks he believed. This was after they left China. These boxes continued on board till the ship got to St. Helena, when witness took them on shore, where they were left. Believed these were all the boxes of silk in the cabin. He had no boxes when the ship arrived off the Land's End; nor did witness see any silks in his cabin at that time, or any boats come alongside.

On his cross-examination he said, Mr. Creswell might have smuggled without his knowledge.

Mr. John Drake, second mate of the Thames, said, his cabin was opposite Mr. Creswell's. He was in the habit of going into Mr. X 2 Creswell's

Creswell's cabin daily, but never aw any box there, except a small packet of tea for his own use. That was the only box he saw there. Saw no boat come alongside from the Land's End.

The Lord Chief Baron having summed up the case, the Jury found a verdict for the crown.

The King, on the prosecution of his Majesty's Attorney General, v. Basil Goode, Esq.-These were cases of two distinct criminal informations filed against the defendant, at the instance of the board of taxes, under the following circumstances :—

Mr. Goode was appointed and acted as assessor and collector of the assessed taxes for Coventry, for years prior and down to the year 1806. Mr. Goode having become an alderman and magistrate, and afterwards mayor of Coventry, he from that time took the oaths of qualification, and continued to act as a commissioner of the assessed taxes; and he procured his father and a Mr. Thomas Price to be appointed assessors and collectors in his stead. Mr. Basil Goode continued, however, in effect to execute the office of assessor and collector for 1807 and subsequent years, under the appointment made to his father, who did not interfere, and he acted with Mr. Price to the death of the latter, in 1912.

Mr. Basil Goode, during all this time, made out and signed the assessments in the name of his father, as assessor. He afterwards signed and sealed their authenticity in the character of commissioner, and, as had been his practice for former years, fill

ed up the printed tickets or receipts, which Price delivered to persons in exchange for their taxes, Price paying over the money weekly to the defendant, and the defendant in general making all payments, and settling the collector's accounts, with the receiver general.

Price having died deñcient in the collection, an extent was is. sued against his estate in aid of the inhabitants of Coventry; and in the investigation of his accounts, and examination of the printed tickets of receipts in the hands of individuals who had paid Price their taxes for the year 1809, several instances were discovered by the Crown agents in which more money had been collected by Mr. Price, on the authority of Mr. Goode's tickets, than was charged by the assessments of that year, or was included in the parchment duplicates under the seals of the commissioners, by which the receiver-general collected and accounted at the exchequer.

The Attorney-General accordingly filed an information against the defendant for fraudulently filling up the tickets, and causing the money to be illegally collected by Price, and converted to the use of the defendant and Price, or one of them. The trial took place at the Lent Assizes of 1815, and the defendant was convicted.

The defendant afterwards ap plied to the Court of King's Bench, and obtained an order før a new trial, principally under doubts whether a memorandum book kept between the defendant and Price, which was referred to on the former trial on the part of

the

the crown, but which did not appear to have been relied on as evidence, did or did not influence the jury in their verdict.

On the motion for the new trial, considerable stress was laid for the defendant, on the circumstance that the instances of the alledged false tickets, which were confined to the assessment of 1809, were only five, and that the sums alleged to have been fraudulently charged were inconsiderable.

This latter occurrence led to a further examination of the assessments and accounts between the defendant and Price, and it resulted in the discovery of several further and like instances of fraud, under similar tickets for taxes, not only in the year 1809, but also in the years 1806, 1807, and 1808, and the greater part of these sums was traced into the defendant's hand. A second information was accordingly filed by the Attorney General, founded on these new charges of long practice, to which the defendant pleaded not guilty, and both informations stood for trial at these assizes. On the trial of the new information, on the 4th instant, which stood first on the paper, and occupied nine hours, the charges were fully established, and the defendant was found guilty.

character could not weigh against facts.

After the circumstances of the case in the new trial of the first information had been stated to the jury on the following morning by the counsel for the crown, the defendant pleaded guilty.

These prosecutions excited very considerable interest throughout the county, and the court was crowded to excess.

Marginson v. Howard. This was a qui tam action for a breach of the game laws. The defendant was a carrier between Ormskirk and Liverpool. The chief witness against him was William Wyberley, a surgeon at Ormskirk. On the 25th of August, the defendant entered his house at 8 o'clock in the evening. He had game in his pocket. Witness, with a little opposition from Howard, took out a partridge, and gave it to his father. Howard then goodnaturedly drew out another, and gave it to witness, saying "that will make you a brace." Another person of the name of Nixon, who was present, after a little struggle, took two more from him. Howard said the birds were given him, and that he did not kill them himself. Being cross-examined, the witness allowed that Howard did not offer them for sale-that the struggle in which they were taken from him was rather jocular than serious-and that he never demanded payment for his game, and never received any, though the witness allowed that it was delicious.

On this evidence the learned Judge directed to find for the Possession here was not