sist that the thing to be bought was so illegal as to afford no ground of action, surely he was bound to establish the fact, and could not leave it to mere suspicion. There was no proof what ever that this company was of the description of those against which the act of George 1st pointed; the court, therefore, could not say, that the whole subject matter of the contract was unlawful; and the plaintiff was entitled to retain his verdict for the money which he had actually paid.

Mr. Gurney spoke in support of

the rule.

The Lord Chief Justice, after consulting with the other judges, delivered his opinion as follows: I think that enough appears in this case to enable us to say, that the contract, on which the plaintiff seeks to recover, is void in law. Whether other evidence might have been adduced to change the aspect of the case, and to give to the bargain a legal character, I cannot say; I found my judgment solely on the evidence which was given. It appeared in that evidence, that certain persons had associated themselves to form a society or company to be called "The Equitable Loan Bank Company," which, at the time when the shares were purchased, had not received the sanction of an act of parliament, or of a royal charter. What the precise object of the association was, did not appear in evidence but the very name implied that it was to lend money; and the learned counsel for the plaintiff, whose statement must be taken as correct against his own client, stated in his opening that its purpose was, to lend money at a higher rate of interest than that allowed by law, except to persons

who subject themselves to the regulations affecting pawnbrokers. Now it may not be illegal for persons to associate in order to obtain an act of parliament or a royal charter to sanction such a design, intending to carry their project into effect or not, as such sanction should be given or withheld; but if they go further, if, before they are so authorized, they create transferable shares, and require their subscribers to submit themselves to the orders of a committee, I am of opinion that they are doing that which the law will not warrant, and that all contracts made for the transfer of their shares are void. The language of 6 Geo. 1st, c. 18, is not very explicit; but in the 18th and 19th sections two marks and symbols are pointed out, as characterising the societies which the legislature intended to prohibit-the dividing stock into transferable shares, and the assumption of the powers of a corporate body; and, upon the evidence, both of these symbols belong to the company before us. The certificates produced purport to give to "the holder," whoever he may be, the right to certain shares; so that they are transferable without limit and without control. The prospectus, without which it would not appear whether any thing and what was the subject of contract, requires the subscribers to submit to the orders of the committee; and thus the society assume to act as a corporation, delegating to a select body the power to make by-laws to bind the others. Thus, then, the company is within the words of the statute; and is it not clearly within the mischiefs which it was intended to remedy? These very shares of 50l. each were sold at a

premium of 51. 10s. each; and the society, professing to have a capital of 2,000,000l., really had a capital advanced of only 40,000l. We cannot shut our eyes to what is passing in the world around us; and unless we do, we must observe, that not only this, but many other societies, have sprung up, promising prospective and contingent benefits, sanctioned by no charter and unprotected by act of parliament; and that a dealing and traffic in their shares has arisen, never exceeded at any period, except, possibly, at that time when the legislature were obliged to interpose by the statute to which reference has been made. The effect of these companies is, to give opportunity and scope to gaming and rash speculation, which necessarily lead to misery and ruin; for in gaming and rash speculation, if one man gains, another must lose in proportion; whereas in commerce, fairly and honourably conducted, both the buyer and seller receive benefit. Taking this view of the tendency of this society, and thinking it characterized by two of the marks which the legislature has pointed out as distinguishing illegal companies, I feel bound to declare this dealing and traffic in its shares-for I need go no further-contrary to law. With this opinion, I think that, in the present state of the times, we should not discharge our duty, if we were to pause and deliberate where no doubt exists.

Mr. Justice Bayley, Mr. Justice Holroyd, and Mr. Justice Littledale concurred, and distinguished the case from those of "The King v. Webb" and "The King v. Bainbridge," in which the shares were only transferable within a limited and select body. After

the learned judges had delivered their opinions,

The Lord Chief Justice saidThere is a point which was not made in the argument, but which I will just mention. I am strongly inclined to think this buying and selling shares illegal at common law, as wagering and bargaining about an act of parliament to be applied for in future.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE ASSIZES.

Aylesbury. Charles Lynn was indicted for the murder of Abraham Hogg, on the 7th of January, at Whaddon Chase.

The prisoner and the deceased had for a considerable number of years, worked together in a large Distillery, at Vauxhall in London. They left their employment in London on the 6th of January, and on the 7th they arrived at Brick Hill, in the County of Bucks, and agreed to sleep at the White Lion; but the prisoner, who was a stranger at Brick Hill, was absent from his lodgings at the White Lion, during that night, though his unfortunate companion slept there. On the following morning the prisoner and the deceased got upon the Eclipse Birmingham coach, with their luggage, and were driven on the road towards Shenley Brook End, which is within the limits of Whaddon Chase.

The circumstances of the murder were proved by George Beecham, a labourer, who stated, that he was at work near Snellswell Copse on the 7th of January last: two men passed, they were going towards Whaddon ; witness was ditching up a hedge, and did not notice their faces; one

had an umbrella, and the other a gun-case; in about half an hour after, he heard alarming cries, which were not repeated, the sound came from the copse. Witness immediately got out of the ditch, and saw a man striking with a gun something on the ground; the man held the muzzle end in both his hands; he struck several times violently, until the gun broke; he continued the blows, even after the gun broke; he then threw away the piece of the gun, and walked backwards and forwards, as if looking at something; he walked a short distance, and picked up a bundle, and came towards witness. He pulled off his clothes, and put on a large fustian jacket and a hairy cap; he had on before a black hat, and a black coat; taking his hat in his hand, he went towards Shenley Commen. Witness then went to the spot, and there saw the deceased, the blood was running very fresh from his wounds. There was a gun broken in two, a kerchief, and umbrella lying by him. The witness gave the alarm, and the prisoner was taken running out of the copse; on witness running towards him, he cried out, "What's your reward?" Witness asked him if he had got any fire-arms; the prisoner replied "No, for if he had, he would not be taken by him or any man alive." He again asked witness about the reward "the blood money," and said, "You would take your own father's life for sixpence." He then said, it would break his friends hearts, when they heard of this. A Mr. Tarry asked, was the man in the wood quite dead? Prisoner said, he hoped he was.-On the Saturday after the murder, he was guarding the prisoner, who was

reading the Bible, when he jumped up on a chair, then on the table, and struck himself down with violence; his head was cut severely.

Mr. Justice Gazelee informed the prisoner, that if he had any thing to say to the Jury, now was his time, as his Counsel could not speak for him.

The prisoner, after standing mute for some time, addressed the Jury in a very unconnected strain. He said he could not work longer at Burnett's, because his mind was uneasy. He agreed to go with Abraham Hogg to Liverpool. On the Monday night he went out with Abraham, and drank wine. They got on the Liverpool coach at the Saracen's Head, and a black man (a sailor) on the top of the coach gave him gin out of several bottles, and made him drink it, and threw the bottles away. Abraham and the sailor whispered and chattered together, and they spoke to another man in a very suspicious manner. One of them said, "Oh, the job can be done," and they intended to murder him, he was sure. He told Abraham that there was something afloat, as he heard the men talking together about some pit and there was a plan to murder him. Just before he jumped off the coach he heard the man planning something, and he believed Abraham was concerned, and he jumped off the coach, as he had made up his mind to sleep at a farm-house, rather than go on and be murdered. Abraham followed him, and he again told him they intended to murder him; but Abraham said it was no such thing. When Abraham got on the hill, he said to him, "what do you do there, you have entered into a plan to murder me? you shall die with me," and he struck him over

the head and was afterwards taken. The rest of the prisoner's address was a tissue of incoherency, delivered without any appearance of being feigned.

The Jury retired to consider their verdict, and on their return, the Foreman said, "Guilty of killing the deceased, but we believe him insane at the time."

SUSSEX ASSIZES.
Threatening Letter.

Charles Holder and David Gardener were indicted on the statute of 4 Geo. 4th, c. 54. for feloniously sending a letter to the rev. Edmund Cartwright, clerk, threatening to accuse him of an infamous crime, for the purpose of extorting money. The prosecutor, Mr. Cartwright, was a highly respected clergyman, residing at Arundel. In February last, while he was on a visit to sir John Shelly, his lady bespoke a play at the Arundel theatre, in order to encourage the poor performers who had a bad season. He unexpectedly returned in the afternoon from sir John Shelly's, and the transaction, which was the subject of this prosecution, was disclosed by the following evidence:-The rev. E. Cartwright deposed, that having some flower plants at Pulborough, which he wished to have brought to Arundel in a barge by water, about a quarter before seven o'clock on Saturday the 26th of February, he sent for the prisoner Holder, who is a bargeman of Pulborough, to make arrangements for carrying them on the Monday following. The parlour door being wide open, Mrs. Cartwright came in; and then it was settled, that the prisoner should go for the

flowers on some future day, and he was sent away. A few minutes after seven o'clock, witness went out of his house to go to the play which had been bespoken by his wife, and wishing to make the prisoner some little recompense for the trouble he had given him, told his servant boy, C. Tune, to call Holder back. The boy immediately went after the prisoner and brought him back, and witness met them in the High-street of Arundel, and gave the prisoner a shilling. Witness then went to the theatre, being then about ten minutes after seven, and remained there until half-past ten. About four o'clock on Monday following, his servant boy gave him a letter expressed in the worst orthography, and dated "Arundel, 1825." It stated, that about eight o'clock on Saturday evening, the 26th of February, the writer saw Mr. Cartwright and Charles Holder, in a lane, conducting themselves in a manner too horrible to mention. It then threatened that if Mr. Cartwright did not give the writer satisfaction, he should write immediately to Mrs. Cartwright. The letter then concluded in these words:

"You ast him about the rev. that was houng, and the lad that lived with him. If you chews to satersfy Holder and me, we will keepe it seckered as thou we was meacons.

(Signed) "C. HOULDER,

"D. G."

Mr. Cartwright, being unwilling to alarm his wife, determined not to take any notice of the letter until early the next morning, when he took it to Mr. Richard Holmes, his attorney, and asked him what he ought to do in such an infamous business. In consequence of the advice of Mr. Holmes, he determined to find out who the

writer of the letter was; and afterwards, whilst he was with Mr. Holmes, he saw both the prisoners pass by Mr. Holmes's window. Mr. Holmes immediately expressed his suspicions that David Gardener was the writer of the letter, and particularly that the initials "D. G" at the bottom were his. It was then arranged, that a warrant should be taken out, that witness should mark some money, and that he should send word to Holder for him and the person who wrote the letter, to call at his house at eight o'clock in the evening, when constables were to be in attendance to apprehend them. At eight o'clock the same evening, the prisoners came to witness's house and were shown into his study. Witness said to Gardener, "What could induce you to write such a letter, which you must know to be untrue?" Gardener said, "It is all true; I was close by where you were, and I heard and saw every thing. After you were gone, I went up to Holder, who was crying like a child, and he then told me what had passed." Upon which witness said, "Although the charge is untrue, I should be sorry to have it talked about." Gardener then said, "If you pay us, we will keep it as secret as the grave." Witness asked him what he expected. Gardener then said, "From any other gentlemen, I should expect 1007.; but, as I have a great respect for you, I will take only 501.;" and added, that the same thing lately happened to another gentleman, whom he, witness, knew very well, and was a rich man, and he gave him 501.; and that he discovered it in the same way, being near the place where the parties were standing. Witness then told the prisoners, that he had not

so much money by him, but would give them the contents of his purse, and pay the remainder on Thursday. Witness then gave

each of the prisoners a sovereign, a half crown, and a shilling, which had been all previously marked by witness and Mr. Holmes. The prisoner Gardener then said, “To show you that I act honourable, I will give you a receipt," and immediately wrote the following words and figures on a piece of paper: "That other gentleman geave to me to keep the seckered—

£50 0 0 27

0

47 13 0"

The prisoners then quitted the house, but were immediately taken into custody by the constables, and the money found upon them, which

witness now identified.

Mrs. Cartwright confirmed her husband's testimony, as did also the servant of Mr. Cartwright, and Mr. Holmes, the attorney. One of the performers at the theatre, on the night of the 26th of February, proved that, on that evening, Mrs. Cartwright had bespoken a play, from motives of kindness to the players, who had had a bad season. She had taken a box for herself and friends near the stage. Witness, just before the commencement of the play, looked through a hole in the curtain, and saw Mr. Cartwright, Mrs. Cartwright, and another lady, sitting in the box. It was then exactly a quarter after seven o'clock. Mr. Cartwright remained in the box during the whole performance. Two constables proved, that about eight o'clock on the evening of the 28th of February, they apprehended the prisoners coming out of the house of Mr. Cartwright, and on searching