Archibald Douglas v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1847 |
| Date | 01 January 1847 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 1191
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. in Queen's Bench, 13 Q. B. 42.
[74] in the exchequer chamber. (error from the queen's bench.) archibald douglas against the queen. 1847. An information ax offieio 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: became, (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, farther, 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 Bex 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. (c) On June 10th; after which time the rule for a new trial does not appear to have been further noticed. 1192 DOUGLAS V. THE QUEEN 11Q.B.75. statute, and superadded, by authority of the statute, to the other punishments for the offence. [S. C. in Queen's Bench, 13 Q. B. 42.] The information (venue London), filed ex officio fey the Attorney General, contained sixty counts. Count 1 charged that Archibald Douglas, late of, [75] &e., being a British subject, on 18th November, 1839, and for a long time then next following, to wit until 1st May, 1841, held and exercised a certain office in the Blast Indies, under the East India Company, to wit the office of Resident at Tanjore in the East Indies aforesaid, and during all that time, resided in the East Indies aforesaid, to wit at London (a)1, aforesaid: and the said A. D., so being a British subject as aforesaid, and whilst he held and exercised the said office of Resident at Tanjore in the East Indies aforesaid, as aforesaid, and while he resided in the East Indies aforesaid, as aforesaid, and within six years before the filing of this information (a)1, that is to say on 1st January 184:0, in the East Indies aforesaid, to wit at London aforesaid, did unlawfully receive of and from a certain person in the East Indies aforesaid, called Seevajee Rajah, otherwise Seevajee Rajah of Tanjore, a certain sum of money, that is to say the sum of 2000 rupees, of the value of 2001. of lawful money of Great Britain, as a gift and present; against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity, and against the form of the statute in that case made and provided (b): [76] whereby, and by force of the said statute, he, the said A. D., was guilty of extortion and a misdemeanor; and, by force of the laid statute, forfeited to our said lady the Queen the said sum of 2001. of lawful money of Great Britain, being the value of the said 2000 rupees so received by the said A. D. as aforesaid. 2. That the said A. D., so being a British subject aa aforesaid, whilst he held and exercised the said office of, &c., as aforesaid, and whilst he resided in the East Indies as aforesaid, and within six years, &c., that is to say on the day and year last aforesaid, in the East Indies aforesaid, to wit at, &c., unlawfully did receive of and from the said, Seevajee Rajah in the East Indies aforesaid a certain other sura of money, that is to say the sum of 8000 rupees, being of the value of 8001. of lawful, &c., as a gift, &c., against the peace, &c., and against the form, &c. Whereby, and by force of the said statute, he the said A. D. was guilty of extortion, &c., and, by force, &c., forfeited to the Queen the said sum of 8001. of lawful, &c., being the value of the Said 8000 rupees so received by the said A. D. 3. A similar count, charging the gift as 2000 rupees and the value as 2001. 5. A similar count, charging the gift as 2000 rupees and the value as 2001. 11, 14, 17, 18, 19(a)Q, similar counts, charging the gifts at various amounts in rupees, and stating their values respectively in pounds sterling, as above. 37. A similar count to the second, charging tbe gift to have been received "of and from a certain person in the East Indies aforesaid called Appavyah, otherwise [77] called Appavyah Fouzdar of Poodoocattah," and the amount to be 7000 rupees, and its value 7001. Verdict, guilty, on all the above mentioned counts except the 1st; and on seven (a)i Stat. 33 G. 3, c. 52, s. 141. (6) Stat. 33 G. 3, c. 52, s. 62, enacts, "That the demanding or receiving any sum of money, or other valuable thing, as a gift or present, or under colour thereof, whether it be for the use of the party receiving the same, or for, or pretended to be for the use of" the East India Company, "or of any other person whatsoever, by any British subject, holding or exercising any office or employment under His Majesty, or," the Company, " in the East Indies, shall be deemed and taken to be extortion and a misdemeanour at law, and shall be proceeded against and punished as such, under and by virtue of this Act, and the offender shall also forfeit to the King's Majesty " ' the whole gift or present so received, or the full value thereof." Sect. 67 makes the person guilty of such offence, though committed in the territories of a native prince, amenable to any Court of competent jurisdiction in India or Great Britain. Sects. 140 and 141 direct the mode of procedure in England. (a)a This count stated the sum to have been received " under colour of the same being a gift and present." 13 Q. B. 78. DOUGLAS V. THE QUEEN 1193 other counts, on which a nolle prosequi was afterwards entered; see p. 73, ante, On all Che other counts, not guilty. After the delivery of this verdict a special finding was taken (and subsequently placed on the record by way of amendment) aa follows : " And the aaid jurors, upon their oath aforesaid, do further say that the sum of money received by the said Archibald Douglas, as in the said 2d count mentioned, was the sum of 8000 rupees, and that the said sura of 8000 rupees, at the time of the receiving thereof by the said A. D., was of the value of 7661. 13s. 4d. of lawful money of Great Britain, being at the rate of Is. 1 Id. for each and every of the said rupees : and that the ium of money received by the said A. D. as in the said 3d count mentioned," &c. Then followed findings, like the above, on all the counts upon which the defendant was convicted: namely, On thr3d, gift 2000 rupees, 1911. 13s. 4d. On the 5th, gift 2000 rupees, 1911. 13s. 4d. And so as to the others respectively; being Is. lid. for every rupee. The defendant being brought up for judgment in Trinity term (June llth), 1846, Peacock moved in arrest of judgment. He stated, as ground of arrest, that the information did...
To continue reading
Request your trial