the purpose of resisting the claim, and had signed the treasurer's book, convinced that Dann and Crosland's bill had not been included. Many witnesses who were present at the vestry would swear that no such sum as 925/. 1s. 3d., and no such names as Dann and Crosland were ever mentioned at that vestry. Such was the nature of the charge against the defendant-it was a misdemeanor of the most serious kind-it was the misapplication of funds intended for the relief of the poor to the purposes of the rich, and it was fit that it should be established by the clearest evidence: if the testimony in support of it were not unequivocal, and as positive as the nature of the case allowed, the learned counsel desired the jury without hesitation to enter a verdict of acquittal.

Mr. Gude, the first witness, produced two indictments against the defendant; the one was against him and William Cone, for a conspiracy, and dated in Michaelmas term, 1813, for obtaining from the parishioners larger sums than were warranted by the rate: the other was the same date for a similar misdemeanor: it was against the present defendant, and a person of the name of Billington. Mr. Crosland proved the amount of his bill, which was produced to him; the sum was 9141. 11s. 3d. and not 925l. Is. 3d., ten guineas having been added subsequently to the delivery of the bill.

Mr. James May said that he had been vestry clerk of St. Mat thew's, Bethnal-green, for 30 years; the defendant was a magistrate, treasurer, and governor of the poor: he had been treasurer

about 30 years: his duty was to receive money from the collectors, and to pay such sums as the vestry should order, or as the governors under the act, or any five of them, should direct in writing. This witness detailed the usual course of business respecting the parish disburse. ments. A vestry was held on the 16th August, 1813, and it was adjourned until the 23rd August. The witness was present, and the declared object was, to elect a poor-rate collector, but it had nothing to do with the defendant's accounts. The witness only remained there half an hour, and the resolutions were in Mr. Platt's hand-writing, and were afterwards copied into the vestry-book. The witness had signed the book, but had not read the entries, nor did he know of the resolution respecting the conduct of Mr. Merceron, and the payment of his expenses. The vestry for the audit of accounts was on the 6th April fol lowing; but, in the mean time, the resolution respecting Mr. Merceron had been made known, and had become the subject of very general conversation. was not supposed that Mr. Merceron would bring forward his bill. The audit vestry was very fully attended; and at the table Mr. Platt and Mr. Merceron sat side by side, and close to them was Mr. Wrightson. Opposite the witness sat, and checked the amounts announced by Mr. Platt, who held the treasurer's book. Thomas Dann and Crosland's bill was entered in Merceron's book as one of the amounts paid by him, yet it was not called out, nor was any bill produced by Mr. Merceron

It

Merceron; had it been produced as it ought to have been, in order to warrant the passing of it, the witness must have observed it. When Mr. Merceron's book was taken to witness's house to be copied, he did not know of the entry of Dann and Crosland's bill, nor did he discover it until the inquiry before the Committee of the House of Commons in the session of 1816-17. The Hon. Mr. Bennet produced there Dann and Crosland's bill, the back of which was then perfect, but it had since been torn, and a different entry of 10 guineas made as the expenses of Mr. Merceron, for coach-hire, &c. The witness was present during the whole of the audit-vestry.

Cross-examined.-Mr. Merceron had resided in the parish for 50 years, and had been a magistrate for about 25 years. He had been treasurer of the parish for 30 years, with the exception of 1814, when he was out, but re-elected. Thanks had many times been voted to him. Great animosities and a high party spirit had prevailed in the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green; and it had increased within the last 3 or 4 years; in that time the Rev. Mr. King had been rector. At the commencement of the prosecutions of 1813, the witness was attorney for Mr. Merceron, but he had given them up, because he was likely to be called as a witness. The witness's trifling bill was paid by the parish. In the vestry-book there appeared a reference to a notice given in church on Sunday, 22nd April, that the subject of the defendant's accounts would

be taken into consideration. Mr. Platt is a dissenting minister, and the owner of property in the parish-to what extent the witness could not state. On the auditday, 6th April, the thanks of the vestry were voted to the defendant.

A perfect copy of the defendant's book was kept by the witness, and was open to the inspection of all the parishioners. The practice was, to call over the items, one by one, and to tick them off afterwards: the meeting was very crowded, but the witness swore positively that in his hearing no mention was made of Dann and Crosland's bill. The entry in Merceron's book, passing the accounts, was signed by 34 ves◄ trymen.

Re-examined.-When the entry of Dann and Crosland's bill was first mentioned to the witness, he did not believe it. Mr. Platt had been, as he believed, a doll-maker, or some such trade, before he became a dissenting minister: he married the daughter of Mr. Wilmot, a man of property, at Bethnal-green. The witness had not heard the notice at church on the 22nd of August respecting Merceron's accounts, but at the vestry of the 16th of August no order was made for such a notice. It was not usual for any one governor or director under the act to give an order for a notice in church; it was usually done by nine governors, or by the parish officers.

Mr. Wrightson, who had signed the treasurer's book under the conviction that the bill of Messrs. Dann and Crosland was not passed, gave positive evidence that the sum and names were never announced

announced. Through his hands every bill and voucher passed, and among them was not that of the defendant's attornies.

The evidence of Mr. Richard Bigg confirmed that of the last witness: he was not present during the whole of the audit. He was followed by Mr. Drouet, who had been prosecuted by Mr. Merceron, for a libel, and by Mr. Norton, partner with Mr. May. The case for the prosecution was here closed.

Mr. Topping addressed the Jury at considerable length for the defendant; the simple question for their consideration was, whether Mr. Merceron had fraudulently, clandestinely, deceitfully, and unlawfully inserted in his account the item of Messrs. Dann and Crosland's bill for the purpose of appropriating the money of the parish to his own purposes. Unless they were satisfied that the evidence adduced on the part of the prose cution sustained the charge so. alleged on the record, the defendant would be entitled to an acquittal. They could not fail They could not fail to bear in mind under what circumstances this serious accusation was brought forward. It was against a gentleman who for 30 years had filled the annual office of treasurer of the parish, without the slightest imputation upon his conduct a gentleman whose demeanor for that long period of service defied

the

malice, the envy, the vindictive spirit of those, who by the most active industry had found means of producing a solitary allegation of error. The jury also could not fail to bear in mind the time T

at which this charge originated. It found its way, for the first time, into a Court of justice at the end of the year 1817,-the supposed act of misfeasance having occurred in the year 1813: and that it arose out of those unfortunate disputes which had so long embroiled the parishdisputes which, it was lamentable to observe, had acquired additional heat since the present rector had come into the parish. The evidence adduced in support of the charge, he contended, had completely failed of its object, because, so far from showing that the defendant had acted clandestinely in this transaction, it must satisfy the mind of every dispassionate observer, that publicity marked the whole proceeding. Two of the witnesses only had said that they did not hear the item of Messrs. Dann and Crosland's account called out; and the others were not present during the whole of the audit. Now, he was prepared to show, by a host of respectable witnesses, that the item was publicly called out, and that the vestry were perfectly cognizant of the question which they were called upon to determine. After a great variety of observations upon the circumstances of the case, the learned counsel proceeded to call his witnesses.

James May, jun. produced the publication-book containing the notices read in church. On reference to it, a notice was found which purported to have been read on Sunday the 22nd of August; another notice was read on the 3rd of April. He also produced the copy of the audited

accounts

accounts which he had made, and which was left in the hands of his father, the vestry clerk. The beadle usually took the notices read in church to the parish clerk.

Cross-examined. He did not know who brought the notices to his father's office: the general practice was for them to be sent by the churchwardens and over

seers.

Samuel Ames, sen., parish clerk. It was part of his duty after prayers to read notices in church. He had read the notices on the 22nd of August and 3rd of April, the first respecting Mr. Merceron's expenses in the indictments, and called the vestry to consider of the propriety of defraying them; but the second was general, and silent upon that particular subject.

William Francis Platt deposed that he was a dissenting minister in the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green. He had resided nineteen years in Wilmot-square. He had attended the vestry on the 23rd of August, 1813: the notice was always read before the vestry proceeded to business. He had drawn up the resolutions for defraying the law expenses of the officers, and he had proposed them, and being seconded, they were carried nem. con. He had also attended the vestry on the 6th of April, 1814; he was present when the defendant's book of accounts was produced, and he had held the book and went through all the items; to his recollection he called over every item, and among them, "Dann and Crosland, 9251," observing aloud, with a shrug,

“This is a monstrous business." He spoke in such a tone that every body might have heardsuch was his intention. The meeting was numerous: he believed he ticked all the items as he passed them, and cast up the pages. A resolution of thanks was passed to Merceron: no person made objection to any of the items.

Cross-examined. He had been a dissenting minister nearly 40 years: it had always been his only occupation: he was not conscious of having had any communication with Mr. Merceron between the 16th and the 23rd of August. He could not state who had told him of the notice read in church on the 22nd of August: he could not swear that it was not Mr. Merceron. On the Monday morning he went to the vestry at about 11 o'clock: he usually rose very early, at 5 o'clock, and he believed he wrote them on the Monday morning before he went to the vestry: he could not swear it: the resolutions rose spontaneously in his own mind: no doubt he had had communication with some persons, as the parish was in a state of great confusion: he had not communicated with any persons on the Monday morning: he could not positively say that he meditated the resolutions before Monday morning. He had not then seen Dann and Crosland's bill: he did not know that Mr. Merceron had already charged it to the parish: he never had attended vestries until the unhappy differences which rose about ten years ago: he had frequently written resolutions since: he had

never called over the items from the defendant's book until the vestry of the 6th of April, and had never before seen his book. He distinctly recollected reading the item of Dann and Crosland's bill, and shrugging his shoulders, but he had never heard that it was to be opposed. He clearly remembered seeing Dann and Crosland's bill in Merceron's hand at the time, and remarked the sum on the back of it. He could not swear that it passed from Mr. Merceron's hand, or that any body but himself saw the sum, or that any person repeated the item. He could

not say if any receipt were produced. Though he considered the sum very large, he did not think it necessary to make any inquiries regarding the bill. Nobody asked for any order of the directors for the payment that he knew of. He was aware that in one instance a solicitor's bill had been referred to a committee, but subsequent to these transactions. He had never heard of any previous practice. He had not thought it necessary to inquire previously what was the amount of the bill. He thought it hard that the servants of the parish should sustain so severe an expense for doing their duty.

Mr. James B. Unwin, a surgeon, residing near Bethnal-green, a commissioner of assessed taxes, and of the land-tax, and one of the governors of the parish, was present at the vestries on the 23d of August, 1813, and 6th of April, 1814. He swore most positively that Dann and Crosland's bill was mentioned and the sum: Mr. Platt read it in a

clear voice; the witness had conversed with several people about it afterwards.

Other witnesses, with some slight variations, confirmed the foregoing testimony.

Mr. Scarlett replied, and Mr. Justice Abbott summed up the whole of the evidence produced on both sides.

The jury consulted a few minutes, and returned a verdict of Guilty.

The trial lasted from half-past 9 in the morning until nearly the same hour at night.

SALISBURY ASSIZES.

Civil Side.

Dore v. Antrobus.-This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, Sir E. Antrobus, Bart. and Coutts Trotter, Esq. executors of the late Earl of Peterborough, to recover the expenses incurred in conducting the funeral of that nobleman, and was set down on the special jury list. Three special jurors, however, only attended, and a tales was therefore prayed on the part of the plaintiff. The pleadings having been opened by which it appeared that the plaintiff's claim amounted to the sum of 3,000l., of which 2,000l. had been paid into Court, Mr. Sergeant Pell stated the general circumstances of the case.

The plaintiff was a person engaged in a very extensive line of business in the city of Bath, where the late Lord Peterborough had for some time before his death generally resided. He died, however, in June, 1814, at