HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0086 and id is 1 raw text is: DOUGLAS V. THE QUEE1
At the close of the argument on the latter day, Lord Denman C.J. suggested that,
for the purpose of removing objection, a nolle prosequi, should be entered on some of
the counts: and, on a subsequent day, the Attorney General (without admitting that
the objections were sustained) consented to enter a nolle prosequi on the 7th, 8th,
9th, 10th and 13th counts; and afterwards (upon a further suggestion from the
Court (c)), on the 6th and 43d.
A motion was then made in arrest of judgment, as to which, and the subsequent
proceedings in the Exchequer Chamber, see Douglas v. The Queen, p. 74, post.
[74] IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. (ERROR FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH.)
ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS against THE QUEEN. 1847. An information ex officio under
stat. 33 G. 3, c. 52, s. 62, charged that defendant, being a British subject, held
and exercised an office in the East Indies, under the East India Company, to
wit the office of resident at T. in the East Indies; and during all that time resided
in the East Indies; and, being a British subject, whilst he held the office and
resided, &c., within six years before information filed, &c., viz. on, &c., in
the East Indies, unlawfully received, of and from S. in the East Indies, a sum of
money, viz. 8000 rupees, being of the value of 8001. of lawful money of Great
Britain, as a gift and present, against the form of the statute ; whereby, and by
force of the statute, defendant was guilty of extortion and a misdemeanor; and,
by force of the statute, forfeited to the Queen 8001. of lawful, &c., being the
value of the 8000 rupees. Held by the Court of Queen's Bench no ground for
arresting judgment, that the count did not state whether the rupees were Madras,
Bombay or sicca rupees, or state the value of the single rupee. And Held, by
the Court of Queen's Bench on motion in arrest of judgment, and by the Court
of Exchequer Chamber on writ of error, that the count was good: although it
did not aver that the gift was received extorsively or under colour of the office:
because, (1) if the statute were confined to such cases, the information (though
laid, under sect. 67, in England, for an offence in the East Indies) was good, after
verdict, by stat. 7 G. 4, c. 64, s. 21, as describing the offence in the terms of the
statute creating it: and because (2) the Statute of 33 G. 3 extended to any
receipt of gifts by such officer. And although the count did not state for whose
use, or pretended use, the gift was received: dubitante Platt B., on the ground
that it did not appear but that the gift was received, or pretended to be received,
for the use of the Queen. It appeared by the record that the jury found a verdict
of guilty on several counts charging receipts of sums in rupees as gifts, after which
followed a finding by the jury, as to each count severally, that the sum received,
as in the count mentioned, was the sum of so many rupees, which sum of rupees,
at the time of the receiving, was of the value of so much British money ; being
at the rate of is. lid. per rupee. The Court of Queen's Bench adjudged fine
and imprisonment upon each count, separately, on which defendant was convicted;
and, further, that defendant, in pursuance of the statute, &c., do also forfeit
to the Queen the several sums following, &c. (naming the values of the sums
in rupees, as found on each count respectively), the said forfeitures amounting
together to the sum of, &c. (the aggregate of the values): and, further, that
defendant be imprisoned until he shall have paid the said several fines and
forfeitures. Held by the Court of Exchequer Chamber: 1. That the judgment
was good, although it did not give defendant the option of forfeiting the gifts
actually received: inasmuch as the gift itself was money: 2. That it was right
to estimate the value at the time of the receipt, not of the conviction : 3. That
imprisonment, in default of paying the forfeiture, was rightly awarded : inasmuch
as that forfeiture was not arbitrarily imposed by the Court, but fixed by the
was the name of an individual, and Rajah a name of dignity only. Sir F. Thesiger,
Attorney General, referred to Rex v. Stevens & Agnew, 5 East, 244: and Lord Denman
C.J. observed that here the defendant himself appeared by the evidence to have
described the party in this manner.
(e) On June 10th; after which time the rule for a new trial does not appear to
have been further noticed.
1191
13 Q. B. 74.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0086&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)