280 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1809. 



upon what was charged against him, 

 but upon that which he admitted in 

 his answer. 



Mr. Scott was not heard, on the 

 ground that it would be irregular 

 for counsel to speak after their 

 client. — Mr, Richards made a short 

 reply; and his honour, after a few 

 words, affirmed the decree. 



Lord Stanhope, we understand, 

 raeane to appeal to the House of 

 Lords. 



26. Court of King's Bench 



The King v. Valentine Jones. — 

 The attorney-general stated, that 

 this was an indictment against the 

 defendant charging him with a 

 breach of duty, in his character as 

 commissary-general in the West- 

 Indies, and superintendant and di- 

 rector of army provisions, appoint- 

 ed by his majesty in 1795. The 

 indictment stated that the defend- 

 ant, having the several allowances 

 of 2/. and Si. per day, and it being 

 his duty to provide stores for his 

 majesty, and not to receive any 

 part of the emoluments or gains 

 arising from the provision of such 

 stores, entered into a corrupt agree- 

 ment with one Matthew Higgins, 

 in pursuance of which, he received 

 to his own use a moiety of the pro- 

 fits arising from such provision. 



The right hon. George Rose 

 proved the appointment of the de- 

 fendant, and that he had admo- 

 nished him as to the duties of his 

 situation ; telling him that he was 

 expected to derive no advantage 

 from the situation, but his pay and 

 certain allowances for provisions. 

 The pay and half-pay had lately 

 been increased, to insure the strict- 

 est fidelity. 



A letter from the defendant, to 

 Mr. Michael Sutton, dated 1796, 

 acknowledging his consciousness of 



the terms of this agreement with 

 Mr. Rose, was then proved, put in, 

 and read. 



Mr. Matthew Higgins said, he 

 was a merchant in the West-Indies 

 in the year 1796, and had a con- 

 tract with brigadier-general Knox, 

 when he had the command there, 

 for supplying government vessels. 

 Mr. Hugh Rose acted as deputy- 

 paymaster there. He first heard 

 that the defendant was coming out 

 as commissary in 1796, while his 

 contract with brigadier-general 

 Knox subsisted. Upon the defend- 

 ant's arrival, tiie witness supposed 

 his contract at an end : in conse- 

 quence of this apprehension, he ap- 

 plied to Mr. Hugh Rose, as he 

 was on terms of intimacy with the 

 defendant, to ask him to speak to 

 the defendant not to take the con- 

 tract from the witness. The wit- 

 ness at length saw the defendant, 

 and repeated to him the conversa- 

 tion between Mr. Hugh Rose and 

 himself. After this, Mr. Hugh 

 Rose told the witness he had ar- 

 ranged the business with the de- 

 fendant, and that the witness was 

 to have the contract ; adding, that 

 he was obliged to make terms with 

 the defendant, who insisted upon 

 having half of the emoluments aris- 

 ing frorti that contract, and that 

 the other moiety should be divided 

 between Hugh Roseand the witness. 

 The witness at first said he would 

 have nothing to do with this ar- 

 rangement ; but Mr. Rose told him 

 he was very wrong, and that there 

 were many ready and willing to 

 take the contract upon those terms. 

 Mr. Hugh Rose told him, the loss 

 the witness would sustain, in giving 

 up so much of his contract, would 

 be made up to him in supplies ; for 

 that whatever supplies were wanted 



for 



