Subjoined is the summing-up of the Chief-Iustice in the above case Tt was very true, as had been stated by Mr. Davidson, that in England this would not be an offence, as an Act of Parliament relating to Trustees states that the trust must be expressed in writing. There had, however, been many complaints against the inefficiency of the English law with respect to these matters. The Indian Penal Code endeavoured todo away with all complaints of this sort. Had the English law been the law here, doubtless the Manager of the Bank woul have taken care that the trast should have been in writing. The Penal Code in force here was simply an adaptation of the Indi inal law to this Colony. The prisoner was ch: with criminal; breach of trust, and all the counts in the indictment related only to the manner of committing it. The law in the case had been so fully explained by the Counsel on both sides that it was perhaps unnecessary for him to add much to what had been id. The sections of the Cule under which the prisoner was charged were Sections, 405, 407, and 409. Section 405, however, contained the' substance of the Law regarding breach of trast, aid was as follows 405.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly appropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode it which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the dis-cargo of such trast, ov wilfully suffers any other person so to' do, commits "'erirainal breach of (rus 407.—Whoover, bein entrusted with propereysae scarier, wharfinger, oF warehouse:
seeper, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, shall be punished: with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven yea and. shall also be liable to fine, 409.—Whoever, being iz any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, in his capacity of a public servant, or in the way of his business asa banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney, or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with transportation for' life, or with imprisonment of ither description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
'The whole of the law with respect to criminal breach of trust was, his lordship said, comprehended in Section 405, ani it was worded so as to make a person liable, not werely for criminal failure to perform' any
any manner with property, misappropriated it ten trash but i any person, entrusted in Yiolation of aay Tegal contract either express or implied which he had made touching it, committed criminal breach of trust. After a few remarks upon Sections 407 and 409, his Lordship said it was clear that Section' 408 referred to the relation between a clerk and his employ What the jury would have to determine in this case, was in the first place, Was the trust created? And if they were satisfied that the trust was created, the next question for their consideration was, Did the prisoner commit a criminal breach of trust? \And if they were of opinion, that he had done so, they would then have'to determine whether he had done a8 a merchant, or an agent, or as a trustee. He would impress upon them that it was lio" excuse for a criminal offence to say that it was dove in pursuance of the orders or instructions of another person. No man could commit a crime and then east the respon upon another. If he found there was a fraud, and went on with it, or not, wade no difference. And if he committed a fraud on his own account, it would not save him to say that ho was' acting merely as agent for another, and was therefore not responsible, There must be, how intention of the prisoner to commit a fraud, in order to constitute a criminal breach of trust. With respect to the opi been entrusted to the prisoner's keeping, the evidence had not been so clear as it might have been, Of the 425 chests said to have been there on the 28th of June, there appeared to have been nobody who had ever seen it, bub with regard to the 100 and 150 chests mentioned in the last two receipts, here was first trace of any opium which might be id to have been traced to the prisoner's possession. If they were of opinion that he had been guilty of a breach of trust with respect to any portion of the 650 chests, then he would be guilty of the crime charged. If they came to the conclusion that he had done 20, would they be kind enough to say in what capacity they were of opinion he had done 20, the jury, after a few minutes' animated Ajpcussion, asked to be allowed to retire, and withdrew to consider their verdict. The Court remained open till six o'clock, when it was adjourned till half-past eight." At that hour it again opened, and the judge havin taken his seat, the jury were us a ered in, anc sinicist an almost breathless silence gave their verdict, Not guilty."
The Uhief-Justice ordered the space between the Bench and prisoner to be cleared, and addressing him, said, "Young man, you have had 'a very narrow escape! "Wihatover you future you will lead am honest life." may have dove in the past hope that forthe The prisoner was then discharged.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.