The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1876-03-14 00:00:00

THE SUSPENSION_ OF vin.. jit. G. LEWER,

OF Itirkaiffif

A meeting of the creditors of Mr. E. G. Lever, of
Norley Brewery., Plymouth, who filed a petition for the
liquidation of his affairs by arrangement in the Stone-
house County Court about a month since was held on ,
Friday afternoon at the Cannon-street Hotel, Cannon-
street, London, Mr. Thomas Pitts, of Plymouth,
presiding. Mr. Pettengill, solicitor, of London,
appeared for the creditors; Mr. J. P. Pearse, of
Devonport, and Mr. W. Ailies, of Plymouth, repre-
sented creditors; Mr. E. Wilkes, of Plymouth, attended
as receiver; and Mr. Molesworth St. Aubyn, barrister,
of the Western Circuit, appeared for Mr. Lower.
After several proofs had been put in and examined,
Mr. Wilkes proceeded to read the debtor's statement
of affairs. This set out that he owed to unsecured
creditors £23,1522. ; to creditors fully secured, £8,741. ;
to creditors partly secured. £4,968, the estimated value
of their security toeing £2,050, leaving £2,918 to rank
against the estate; other liabilities, £2,000; creditors
for rent, rates, taxes, and wages, £428 ; and liabilities
on bills discounted, £1,390, making the total debts
E 30,260. The assets were—The brewery, set down at
£1,90; book debts of £6,000, estimated to produce,
£1,829 ; furniture in debtor's house in Holyrood-place
£Bô9; property, £1,614; making total assets e 5,334.
Mr. Wilkes, in answer to questions, said that the
stock in the brewery would produce more than £l,OOO.
Mr. Hughes observed that it would save time if a
satisfactory offer were made. The estate showed about
3s. 44, in the C, and he thought the creditors would be
content to take a cash payment of 3s. 4.11 now, with
security for payment of 3s. 4d more in a little time.
Had the debtor any offer to make?
Mr. Lewer said that he hail, but he wanted time to
' go into the figures.
Mr. Pettengill : I represent some large creditors,
who will take nothing but 10s. in the C fully secured.
Can you pay that?
Mr. hewer: Certainly not.
Mr. PettengiU : Very well then, the matter is at an
end. _ .

The Chairman : You have certainly fully considered
this matter, and you know what it is. We must
come to business, and I wish you to let ti know what
you offer.
Debtor: The estate chews :1!s. in the I:,

The Chairman: Vill you give as. in the
Debtor: If the estate sl 4l. I will give it.
Mr. Acland thought it an extraortlintry thing that
the debtor should have come before them with a
deficiency account of £25,000 and with no explanation
as to how it had arisen.

Mr. Bath said the London creditors had unanimously
decided not to go to the expense of having a deficiency
account prepared.
The debtor was then examined at some length by
Mr. Pettengill. He sail he began to trade in March,
1866, as a brewer at Plymouth. He then bad about
L'6oo or 1,700 of his own, and he borrowed about £l,OOO
from three different sources. He paid about £5,000 for
the business and premises, and be..ran without any
working capital. During the time he had been in
business he had had no money left him. He took
nothing under his father's will. He accounted for his
difficulties by incurring responsibilities for others. He
gave guarantees for his (Lewer's) brother because he
gave them for him. His brother had filed a petition
for liquidation. He filed his a few days after debtor
had taken that course. What he was answerable for
his brother would rank against his estate and rice
reraa. _ _

Pettengill : Oh I that wne the little arrange-
ment, _

—Debtor—lt was no arrangement; it WAS made years
ago. He had several negotiations going on now for a
partner to join him. The negotiations with the gentle-
man who, a few weeks ago, was going to join him as
partner with £lO,OOO, upon the strength of which be
got the bill renewed, had been broken off—Bray and
Co of Launceston, owed him a large amount, and be
took over the business in July, 1874. Re gave £5OO or
WOO for the business, which was worth £l,OOO. Traded
under the style of Bray and Co. for two or three
months. Had no partner in the business. When he
took the business he put Mrs. Bray to manage it.
Young Bray—the son—became very obnoxious. He
gave up the business to him, and he filed a petition for
liquidation. On the advice of his solicitor he (Mr.
Lewer) allowed this, and proved his claim for £1,400
against the estate. He virtually gave up the business
of Bray and Co. to young Bray. The business which
be gave up to young Bray for nothing was not worth
ELMO. The stock which was his was worth about
SAO, and was sold for £l7O. This amount went into

THE BROTHEE's LIQUIDATION.

A meeting of the creditors of Mr. Frederick filarial
Lewer, brewer, Salisbury, was held on Thursday
afternoon at the Cannon-street Hotel, London. Mr.
Francis lioddinb,, Salisbury, appeared as solicitor for
the debtor, and Dlr. J. Pettengill on behalf of several
creditors.
Mr. l'ettengill stated that most of the " trade"
liabilities were connected with Salisbury, but that the
others were in connection with the debtor as guarantee
for his brother at Plymouth. There were debts to the
amount of something like (16,000, with which the
debtor properly, so far as his own business was con-
cerned, had nothing to do, the debts having been con-
tracted by his brother in Plymouth.
The statement of the debtor's aceounts showed total
debts £.r.M,826 4s. s 1 ; total assets, £6,027 9s. rel.

AA far. as his own. business, inn: 'and simple, was
concerned, he coal pay all creditors 204. in the E. 11.3
accounted for his difficulties entirely by foolishly
becoming guarantee for his brother, a.ol Ise was sore
he had not been losing money on hi, own Intsine,s. 110
first began to Five are modation bills to his Itroth.r,
he believed, in 1870. The gross amount of bills he
*twitted for his brother was something like t 1 1.000 or
£15,000, mostly in guarantees to banks. lie was
more accomunslating to his brother titan his brother
was to hie,. Ile had 11,en very foolish in areom-
neslating his hroth-r to the extent he did : the fact
%vas his brother was the eldest -sot, and they were
always in the habit of looking for a hi., to I• . Ito
Was very f.stli.h for aceommolating hint , much, Nit
he was in•lneNl so by his represent:taut. that
he was from 1:6,000 to 1.:8,000 to the goa l. Iris loroth-r
deceived him up to the last moment and CVen lat., in
dantuwy last he asotrel him he W.t. all right, .111.1 that
he was worth 'mole I:4,000 or ett.tain over and ab.ve all
claims. lie was aroused to hi. true p•tsition on re.
ceiving a telegram fr.no his brother to route to Ply-
mouth awl on going anti being informed of the real
Atat, of affairs, he was astonished to litol the position
in which he was placvd. lie .li.l itot k..ov his true
position till then.
Mr. Pettengill said that certainly Mr. Lewer's ease
was not so gross a one as that of hb4 brother, of wl
they had felt it their duty to make an example by
, having him adjudicate,' a bankrupt. lint ho 11l not
think they were called upon to take such a eonrse
' with Mr. Frederick hewer, and he was disposed, on
behalf of his client.. (who were creditors to a very
large amount) to make the matter 144 easy for him as
possible. NO doubt he had bowl. very stupid. reales.,
and foolish in having accsonnnslatel his brother as lie
had done, but he thought an arrangement by liquida-
tion might be the best cmrse to pursue under the
circumstances.

A brief conversation then took place, in the course
of which it W 34 suzgested that the debtor should offer
a composition of se. in the pound, which he Agreed to
do. _

_
The composition is to he paid in three instalments,
at two, four, and six month.

Bray's estate, which was wit yet wound up awl he TRIALS OF PRISONERS.
expected a dividend from it. -Q. Were you in the habit DILLS IGNORED.
lif drawing bills of Lower awl l's. on Bray and 00, The tlrand Jury ignors.d the bills against Nathaniel
and then gettintf them ,liieonntea, awl slid your S t•cttey, 51, I..hourer, and ChristdrAer Poiser. 71, seanuul.
bankers, Nebo bold rinse of the.e hills, know you were for als.ntivaltle crime at Weytuouth Workhouse,
drawingon yourself ?A. I think so. (t. Was it known The ll rand Jury handed in a preetitanent in this case,
that when Lower awl ro. drew bills on Bray and I',. lilli 1 Ihi .1 1
w.1.e...1.-; .0r......p 1.11.1-, an.. promise•l to forward to tlus
l'oor Law I. aril.
MORNTortD.
you drew on yourself ? A. It was known at Latin.
amton. —Q. Was it known at Bristol ? The que.tiou cnAann or nCROLARY AT
s whether you did not praeticAlly draw bills on your. Pari.l Sim,, xt, lalorer, was indietol for breaking and
wt.', Tiliteri ng the dwellin.dialsc of William Newport, of
self, and then ga them dicasunted? A. Th..y
renewed bills. I was working off bills which existed c
,tufuoirl: on
ut.aliteaitithp;ehl Kik and TILT
ba ix
before I tad: the business. —Q. Were there any fresh a'a re '
Mils drawn by you on Bray 31141 CIL, 3131 11143,3111 tel Mr. Templer proseeuted.
for the purpose of slecei‘ lug people ? Fitte,ii mentla halal labour.
Mr. St. Aubyn advised debtor to say tithing which VEGAN.: LEG. AT WtREIIAR.
would criminate himself. triumes 1ri,..., 10, gardener, pleaded guilty to stealing at
In answer to splestions by Mr. rnms, Malla:Zer ti the Wareham, on December, I: NZ, 13111., of lead, value :125..
West of England Bank, the debtor said his father died the property of John Beer, QUO to a previous conviction.
insolvent. Two months hard labour, and two years' police super-

Mr. t'niss : You gave me the probato of the whimn ''isi°"' STEH,ING FIANNEL AT Sit tSTON.
which the property was sworn to no under £lO,OOO.
: Willtaht Barnett, :ti, labourer, and William Johnsen, 21,
Debtor : I thought he was worth that. labourer, pleaded guilty to stealing at Slia.ston St. Peter,
Mr. Cross : how soon did you find out he was nit? on January :ird, •Pi yards of Ilanucl, value £254., the pro-
Debtor : In two or three years. party of Charles Kite, lraper. Johnson also admitted a
Mr. Cross : You never letine knowhe was insolvent, previous conviction. Mr. Wanlen prosecuted. Three
and let me go on in a state of slecliti,in as So your months' hard labour to harnett, and Johnson to nine.
position and pnwpects. OBTAINING GOODS BY E HSI.: PRETENCES.
Debtor : I did not tell you. ' Robert Iloba•e, 24), engineer, and Goldin" Rope, 29,
Mr. Cross : You let me go on false security. , engineer, were indicted for obtaining by false pretences
Debtor : I slid not know it when I brought you the ' from Eli Stay, £3. at Houghton, LI 101. from William
probate. 1 Rogers at Stwkland, and a kicking strap, rug, apron,
Mr. Cross : And when you did, you did not take the n"'ehla, and whip, front Frederick Davis, at Mandford,
; trouble to tell .
February sth. Mr. Castle prosecuted : Mr. Lewis de-
tne
! A Creditor: And when did fended. Six months' hard labour.
you hear first that the ,
CHARGE OF STEALING AT WEYMOUTH.
father WAY insolvent?

-
Mr. Cross: Only yesterday. John Daggs, of Weymouth, VIM indicted for stealing a
Mr. Pettengill said that the debtor had prevented a quantity of sawn fir timber and fencing, the property of
firm making him a bankrupt last September by saying I Alfred 114llti butcher; also a sack bag, the property of
that his mother was worth k5OO a year and giving her L.vi Luckhain
guarantee for the debt a-. -Priso„er had out on bail.
Mr. Murch prosecuted, instructed by Mr. IL N.
Debtor : She never hal the income. Howard; Mr. Collins defended, instructed bv Mr. Menne.
A Creditor: That was the representation you made Not guilty. A second charge was not heard.
when you gave us security for the debt. This concluded the assizes. A full report of the whole
Mr. Pettengill said it was a pity debtor had not of the business will aliPear in the Tetwaos on Thursday
been
.adjudicated last September. next.
. . . _ . ____

_ .
Debtor: I ought to have taken that step three years ---
NISI I'IIIUA CUORT. MONDAY.
ago.
slr. Pettengill said the best thing was to pass no (K:dore the Right Hon. Sir Firlaor KELLY, Knight.)
resolution, and let one of the creditors maker Lewer a A ItRIDIVIIT lIONST TIUNSACTION.
bankrupt. That would ensure something else being Oti wiry and another V. More!, sad another.—Mr. Collins
done, too—(applause). and Mr. Templar were for the plaintiffs, mid Mr. Kingdon,
A Creditor: Are we sure we shall have no offer ? 11. C.. and Idr- Castle for the defendants.
The Chairman : The slebtor offers :tr. in the p:. This was an action to recover the sum of £l,OOO and in-
A Creditor: Who will guarantee the offer terest. The defendants pleaded never indebted.
! Mr. c•dlins, in openinx the case, said the plaintiffs in
Debtor: I still guarantee it -(laughter). this case were the executors of the will of a Mr. Brown,
Mr. Hughes said after what hail been elicited by who lived in this county, nod was a gentleman of consider-
the examination the case ought to go into bankruptcy, able wealth, and they sued the defendants who were
and perhapi the gentleman who filed the petition fanners occupying a large farm in this county, and were
would take the necessary proceedings to prosecute the father and son, for money alleged to have been advanced
debtor. by Mr. Brown in his life time, for the use and good of
The fliainnan guarantee 1 that a petition ittbank- defendants, anti it appeared to hien (Mr. Collins) to be
: about as siviple an issue as they could possibly have. In
ruptey slmuill be presented within 21 hours. . Is7:1 old 1.71 tlear.:o Morey and William Rooks Morey,
Irhe meeting closed with the understanding that were deeply indebted to their bankers—in 1873 to the
Mr. Wilkes would continue to act as receiver until the extent of a £1,01:10. They were pressed by Messrs.
first meeting under the bankruptcy, and the appoint- Williams, bankers at Bridport, either to pay or to get
ment of a trustee, sonic socerity, hut either they would not or could not. and
Mr. Pitts was heartily thanked for presiding. • the bankers suggested they obtain some respectable
person to sign a joint note of hand, so that the lank
might lie secured to the amount of at least a half. They
I did not seem to have done this, and in January 1874. they
had /overdrawn their account to the amount of 4:2.000.
On January 14th, they were again pressed for payment or
security in the following letter :
"My thaw sir,—l have paid your cheek for rent which
makes your liabilities here Just £2,000, therefore, as you know
such so amount will not be allowed to remain unliecured, I
:MI compelled to write and ask you what you am do.
Pray, therefore, give the matter your attention at once and
oblige."

Being in that position they were pressed time after
time to give some security, and they would appear to
have gone to Mr. Brown, who was the father-in-law of
the younger defendant—his wife was dead but he had
several oloildren—and on the 28th of January, only 14 days
after the application had been made to them, Mr. Brown
went to the hank at Bridport and signed this note:—
"On amnia we jointly and severally promise to pay Messrs.
Without* and Co. the sum of £l,OOO, with interest for same,
from tit, date hereof, for value received. Signed Edward
(se.,rge grown (a.. I with the initials in pencil of the two
defendants)."
Mr. Brown being a titan of considerable property, the
bankers were content with his security, and accordingly
did not ask the defendants to sign the note. In May,
PC& Mr. Brown dies, making a will, and leaving to the
children of the younger defendant a fair preportion of the
property he had. Ile died worth aft nit £4,000 and hail
II The executors. as wan (IRA r duty, then called
upon the Messrs. :Morey to repay the Milli WhiCh tinder
the note they hod paid to the batik. Wo. are aCiillS•
timed to hear strange things after a luau's death, but he
thought this was about 2.1 strange a defence as most men
' ,'ml,l olevi.e. The elder Mr. Morey pretended he know
nothing about it, although it hail been imid to his credits
The younger olefendint 'ul lie was not liable to pay
because it WM a gift. That, he understood, was the
defene., which would he seriously put before them that
day. Now if Mr. Brown meant to make this a gift, one
would 1111.1,b10 that as a business man he would have
drawn 3 cheek instead of giving this not:, for he had I
Romething Zgotims) at Messrs. Williams s. Of course
they were in this difficulty : Mr. Brown being dead they I
bail n mie who could give evidence MA to what took place.
Illit be (Mr. Collins) asked them Ai men of cot 1111 l on sense
to look at the transaction, and ego/Malty the note, and say
whether they thought it a gift or whether it was given by
Mr. Brown a, security for the overdrawal of the account
of oh:readmits at the hank. It was a most a most im-
probable transaction that a loan who intended to make
another a gift should sign a note on demand which they
jointly premised t4ll pay.
Mr. Frederick Good, the manager of Messrs. Williams
and Ce.'s bank at Bridport, was then called, and said he I
was acquainted with the defendants, who were fanners
at present at Mission faro., but who in 1873 lived at
Sturt-hill farm. Ile also knew Mr. Brown. In the month
of January. 187:1, Mr. Brawn had a balance of over
Lgimso at their tenth. The detendants al-to oangedi with
them, and in January, 187:1, Ile wrote reminding the de-
fendant (George Morey) that his account was overdrawn,
and requesting him to inform him if he should require
farther 1111 l oslation on entering on the Pilsdon farm,
and to what t.
Mr. Kingdon objected to letters which were addressed
to the father only, the action being jointly against the
father and the son.
Witness said the joint account was opened on the 28th
July, 1573.
His I...mishit) held they were not admissable unless it I
was shown they came to the cognisance of the younger
defendant.
Witness continued in January 1873 and up to July 1873
the balance was in favour of the bank sometimes to the
extent of £3OO and sometimes £l,OOO. Ott July th the
account was made a joint one. It was then considerably 11
overdrawn. On January 11th. 1874 he wrote the letter
referred to by the learned council in his opening speech.
On the. Sofill if January Mr. Brown came to their bank
awl sail "the Morays want money, and they tell me my
note of hand for a thousand will do equally well as money
If you will prepare the note I will coins and sign it."
About an hour after Mr. Brown came into his office and
signed the note, ti-it a syllaide being said. Ile believed
the pencil initials were on the note at the time he signed
it. Brown died in the following May, anol previously to
that he did not remember he had seen the defenolants
alnlitt the note. The fact was he thought he lied so goods
security that he troubled nothing about it. It must have
been three or four months after his death that he had any
communication with the olefenolants, and he then saw the
younger defendant and told him the note had to be paid.
He replied to the effect that he had nothing to do with it;
It was a gift, and he had been promise.ol the money for
years. Accorolingly In the opening of 1873 he called upon
the executors to pay the amount and they paid
£1.057 Pis. 21. on the 2ltli of April.
Cross-examine.' : Mr. Brown did not instruct him to
prepare a joint note, and lie did not believe he read it
befotre signing it. Mr. Brown was not very fond of part-
ing with his money ; he would rather sign • note of hand
than give a cheque.
Re-examined: Ile really remembered but very little
about the transaction. The defendants still banked with
them.
Mr. Frederick Gmadry, solicitor, of Bridpert, produced
the probate of will, and said the sum of £3,000, which
was left to the defendant's children, was a fair proportion
of the property.
This was the case for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Kingdon, having asked his hardship if there
were any case to go to the jury and received an intimation
in the affirmative, proceeded to address the jury for the
defendants. Ile said he hal no reason to complain of the
way in whieh his learned friend, Mr. Collins, had opened
the case. The issue was, as he said, extremely simple;
but he thought before the case was over he should satisfy
them entirely that the plaintiffs could not sustain their
claim. against the defendants. The facts which he would
have to lay before then, were these. The younger defend-
ant married the daughter of Mr. Brown in the year 1882.
He was then a young man without much property, and
I was farmin not on a large scale d , and when he marrie
I Mr. Brown's daughter he asked him if he could assist him
' by giving his daughter a dowry. Mr. Brown at that time
had a family, and was not a wealthy man, and he said to
his Ron-in-law " I can't spare you any money
now, but when my uncle dies I expect to in-
herit his property and then I shall he very happy to
give you £1,000." Now he had an uncle who was a man of
considerable property, a bachelor and a very thrifty
persevering man who had saved up some 30 or 01 thousand
pounds. He died it. Sept., 1873, and Mr. Brown, the
defendant.' father-in-law came into the greater portion of
j the property. At that time the defendant had ust taken
a farm, considerably larger than the one he was accus-
tomed to farm before, awl the rent was 41,000 a year.
Aeconlingly the younger defendant went to his tither-M-
-inor in January, 1871, and said "I have got this farm ;
there'., half a year's rent due, and I should be very much
obliged if you will now do what you promised you would.
His father-in-law said "very well. I have no objection,
whet. shall you be in Briolport t Defendant said he
should he there on the next Wednesday, and Mr. Brown
said he would meet hint at the Greyhound, and settle the
matter. On the following Wednesday, 28th January, they
met at Bridport, and he then said to the defendant I will
go to the Bank and have £l,OOO placed to your credit Ile
accordingly went, and then took place what Mr. Good lied
olepo-e 1 to. Boit from the first to the last, as between Mr.
, Brown and his son-in-law, there was not one word said as
to this being a loan. If Mr. Brown chose to make his
son-in-law a present he had a perfect right to do no and
upon his coming into the property it was perfectly natural
he should do so.
Mr. Wm. rooks Morey, one of the defendants, was then
called, and gave a precisely similar version of the trans-
action, lie said he lived on very friendly terms with his
father-in-law., and his wife was a favourite daughter.
, emus-examined : Ile had never been told or received
notice to produce his pass-book at this trial. lie could
swear Ile had never shown it to Mr. Login (his solicitor)
or spoken about it. In January, IV( it was true he
, required £l,OllO for his business, lie did not remember
' ever having sail the reverse, lie had answered certain
' interrogatories, and his reply to one sworn in November,
1875, was that in January, 1871, "we were in partnership
' and did not rcsmire 41,000 for our business. '
The Judge: Was that true or false
Witness: I may have erred in the date.
Cross-examination continued: They were occasionally
pressed by the Bonk, not continually. lie had no recollec-
tion of being told a year previous to January, 1871, for
security, and that a joint note of hand would be sufficient'
but he could not swear it did not take place. He would
swear that he never asked his father-in-law for seturity
for £2,000 as he knew of (question pressed), lie would
not ,wear he did not.
Why were you to meet hint in Bridport t I don't know,
I hod nothing to do, I don't know anything about
that. I oli.l not go to the bank with him as I was not
repire.l
The first time he heard there was a tote was when Mr.
Goon( told him. Ile VIM utterly astonished.
Mr. George Morey, the father of the last witness, was
called, and said all he knew about the transaction was
that he found £l,OOO paid to their credit.
Cross-examined : Ile knew the Bank was pressing for
security, lie did not remember their asking for • joint
note of hand. It might have happened.
Mr. Collins: You don't trouble about such things.
You wrer very touch surprise I to sue the £l,OOO paid to
your credit?
Witness : I was very pleased.
Mr. Nicholas Leggin, solicitor of Briolport. said he was
solicitor to the defendant Ile hail never leen his pass-
book. The usual nothe for its production had been
served on hiUl. Ile received it on the sth of March--
Sundays—and saw the plaintiff's solictor, Mr. Oundry, on
the Monday, and suggested they might avoid a great deal
of trouble and expense by not producing the bank books.
which would be a load, and ho quite concurred.

Kingdon then summed up his came, and contended
the plain and simple story of the son was entitled to
credence.
Mr. C Ming, in reply, observed it was contrary to
ordinary business intelligence to suppose that Mr. Brown
signed away .ClOlOO without reading the note; and
granting that, could they telieve that when he saw '' we
jointly agree to pay," he considered he was making his
son-in-law a present. It was not the first time they heard
of debts being repudiated after • man's death, and he
contended it would be most dangerous to admit the story
that a joint note was in reality a gift. The conduct of the
defendant had been most improbable, and he maintained
the jury could arrive at no other conclusion than that Mr.
Brown simply signed the note as a joint surety to the
Bank.
His lordship in summing up said it was a CAM of
a peculiar character, and certainly at importance to one
of the parties. Ile did not know there was anything
improbable in • Mall making a present to his son-in-law;
but seeing he had fourteen children of his own, one
would have imagined if he wished to single out
his deceased daughter he would have given the money
to the children and not to the husband. They also had
to consider whether he would not rather have drawn a
cheque at once for the amount. At the same time they
were to give full weight to Mr. Good's statement, that he
did not believe Mr. Brown read over the note.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, found for the
plaintiffs, for £1,057 16e. 2d.
His lordship also gave costs; execution to be stayed for
a week.
This concluded the Nisi Prius business.