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/ssactsengr0584 and id is 1 raw text is: it should purport to be an order for the present payment of money, and one which
the party would be bound to obey on its presentation.
Cresswell, J., was of opinion that it was an order for the payment of money within
the meaning of the statute, and that, to make it such, it was not necessary that the
party should be bound to obey it at once if genuine. It might be that there were no
effects, and then the party would not be bound to pay a cheque at once, and yet it
would be an order for the payment of money (b)'.
Charnock, for the prosecution.
Ballantine, for the prisoner.
[215] October Session, 1843, before Mr. Justice Maule and
Mr. Justice Wightman.
Oct 27th, 1843.
REGINA V. PEDRO DE ZULUETA THE YOUNGER.
(A merchant of London was indicted for an offence against the Act of Parliament
prohibiting slave-trading. His counsel applied to the Court to allow the prisoner
to sit by him, not on the ground of his position in society, but because he was a
foreigner, and several of the documents in the case were in a foreign language,
and it would, therefore, be convenient for his counsel to have him by his side,
that he might consult him during the trial :-Held, that the application was one
which ought not to be granted. The provisions of the stat. 5 Geo. IV. c. 113,
are not confined to acts done by British subjects in furtherance of the slave
trade in England or the British colonies, but apply to acts done by British
subjects in furtherance of that trade in places not part of the British dominions.
In order to convict a party who is charged with having employed and loaded a
vessel for the purpose of slave-trading, it is not necessary to shew that the vessel
which carried out the goods was intended to be used for bringing back slaves
in return; but it will be sufficient if there was a slave adventure, and the vessel
was in any way engaged in the advancement of that adventure. Where a party
living in London was charged with having chartered a vessel and loaded goods
on board for the purposes of slave-trading, it was Held, that slave-trading papers
found on board the vessel when she was seized in foreign parts, but not traced
in any way to the knowledge of such party, were not admissible in evidence
against him.)
[S. C. 2 L. T. (0. S.) 76; 1 Cox, C. C. 20. Referred to, Santos v. Illidge, 1859,
6 C. B. (N. S.) 841.]
The first count of the indictment stated in substance, that the prisoner and two
other persons, one named Jennings and the other Bernardos (a), on the 1st of
November, in the fourth year of her Majesty's reign, to wit, at London, and within
the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, did illegally and feloniously fit out,
man, navigate, equip, despatch, use, and employ a certain ship or vessel, to wit, a
ship or vessel called the Augusta, in order to accomplish a certain object, which in
and by a certain Act of Parliament made and passed in the fifth year of the reign
of his late Majesty king George the Fourth, entitled, An Act to amend and con-
solidate the Laws relating to the abolition of the Slave Trade, was and is declared
unlawful, that is to say, to deal and trade in slaves contrary to the form of the
statute, &c. (b)2.
bearer on demand, on any banker, or person acting as such, which shall be dated on
any day subsequent to that on which issued, &c., unless duly stamped, as a bill of
exchange, shall forfeit £100; and every person knowingly receiving such in payment,
&c., shall forfeit -£20, and any banker who shall pay such, knowing it to be post-
dated, shall forfeit £100, and not be allowed the money so paid in account.
(b)1 A man may be indicted for forging an instrument, which, if genuine, could not
be made available, by reason of some circumstances not appearing on the face of the
instrument, but to be made out by extrinsic evidence. R. v. McIntosh, 2 Leach,
883 ; 2 East, P. C. 942.
(a) Neither of these persons was in custody.
(b)2 The statute referred to is the 5 Geo. IV. c. 113, and the section on which the
indictment was framed is the 10th, by which persons dealing in slaves, or exporting
or importing slaves, or shipping slaves in order to exportation or importation, or
781
I1CAR. & 1K. 215.
REGINA V. ZUTLUETA](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0584&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)