Court Of Exchequer, Monda...
'I fIll iEILCATOt-UENERL stated, tnat tins was an sntermuation filed bythe King's Attorney-General, which charged that the de. fendant was indebted to the Crown in the sum of 2,3381. 3s. Md., for money had and reeeived. The defendartt pleaded, that he was not indebted to the Kingjin stnlEsuIm, or anyparttof it. The informa. *tion was. filed against the noble defendant in his character of Colonel of the Derbyshire Militia. He wished to be distinctly understood at the outset, thutt'there was not the 6lightest pretence for supposing th,t )thetdefendant wasactuated by any motives of personaldrofit aind advarntgge. The case proceeded on the broad basis established by an act ofa Pnl$aInient Athe 42d of Geo. MIL.,) that a Colonel of a regiment was' responsibOe for:the conduct of his agent; and if the agent would not-setle his accounts with the 1War-office, the -Colonel mnust. There-was no 1iardship, as at first might .ippear, in calling upon-the Colonel of a regiment to make good: the defalcations of his agent; because it was the ustual practice for all.Colonels toobtain sureties from their agents to secure them against any loss. If, there. fore, any Colonel chose to neglect that proper prectaution, lie must suffer the consequences of his own negligence; 8l1e balance wihich the War-office claimed was to be strack upon ac- counts extending from 1797 to 1806. The agent of the defendantfrosa 1797 to 1803 was a person nauned Snowden; from 1803 to 1808, a p,arson named WhtiM arst became a =aruier and joint agent s1t1i MA.r. Snowdeno Tho had since -' - *-- Several Clerks in the 1v.ro t'e'i utpoln an investbga. tion otr iecoants .frrushed bylf&e.s Snowde.n and Wlihitarai, in IoW, asagents of Lord-Oayendish; there avpeated to-bea baandt in favour of the War-office toa.7reatnnioti It was-?heworactce for aigenIs to draw-certain- sanis'i.ienithly at fie -War.offici, for the service of the diffirent, corps' for which they acted, and to flirDish. accounts-to show the -manner ifi which the maoney -thus drawn w.s dispoesed of. -.. *Mr. BnoUGHAM, on the part of the defendnt4 complained-that tthe cese of his cijent wv .s out ef great'hardsihip. . Hle-had riot -be1 informed of.th9 defalcationr of-his agent untdl 1815,-when Snow- den vas dead. Ile was then called on to sat.ist'V-aclaius.whichfit wasidmnitted had existed for nine vuaxs-before. It -was zsusplcious circumstance, thatthe Croein should lie by for solong.a period, and it eught to induce-the 'ury.to-givc every presumption in favo,ux af the defendant. No proaf had been given of- any demand made by .he War-ooSe ,md refused by the .a.wnt-s of *he defendant, and uio proof that t.he agerb had even adlitted $he claeim. The Jary, .after a short co hs'ltation returned a verdict for the Crown-Damtages, 2,S83w. Sn Sd.-- : PP.ACTIcM 01' r T HOCRT. Daring the course of the above trial Dir. Bnonreaax objeeted to the examination of a witness, on the ground that he had been in court during the trial. The SOLICITOR-GENwEAL: said that he siever knew the evi- dence of a witness rejected on. sufcl a groujid, U1tsss m castom andt exci e cases. MIr.- loRRsI, thc crier, .had alvways understood that. winesses were to be excluded frora court- only in excise and custO casesf. Daring the course of 20 years he did not recollect the quesSiOs to have arisen. There was no written orderon the subject tfhat he waa aware of. The I;ORD CrIrEs BARON said, thiat under these citcunstances Le would receive the evidence, but wovld take a note of Mr. Broagh- am's objection, upon which he milght move hereafter to set aside ithe yerdict.-The witness was accordingly examined, COURT OF EXCHEQUER. MIONDAY. JULY 19. TIHE KING V. LOnD GEORGE HENRY AlUGUSTVS CAVENDISH3,