The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1868-04-21 00:00:00

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. EXETER, Aram 16.
(Before Mr. Colinninioner ANDRIWS.)

Re G. C. Bess, • BANIUUR. —This was • public
sitting of the Court to examine witnesses respecting
certain information which the court had received SA to
the disposal of the bankrupt's property, and his dealings
and transactions with Mr. W. C. Lacey, his solicitor, it
being alleged that the bankrupt bad sold his property
after adjudication, and that the assignment was
engrossed upon an old stamp for the purpose of defraud-
ing the court.
Mr. Hughes appeared for the estate, and Mr. Dew
watched the ease oh behalf of Mr. James Gear Sheeran,
the mortgagee, and Mr. Log. The following evidence
was taken.
Mr. J. G. Sherren sworn said: I reside near Ware-
ham. and produces my deeds!, There moos bearing date
the 26th May, 1866, which is an assignment of leasehold
premises in West-street, Wareham, from G. C. Beer to
me. The deed was executed and signed on the day it
bears date, that I swear. It was signed at Wareham at
Mr. Lacey's •Allos. Mr. Lacey is the solicitor who pre-
pared the deed. Mr. Beer was not present when I
signed it. It was about the middle of the day when I
signed it. It was not signed by Beer when I signed it.
I eras not present when he signed it. I did nut treat
with Me. Beer for the purchase of this property, it was
I done entirely through the solicitor. I instructed my
; solicitor to purchase the property for mu upon the
; terms mentioned in the deed. I did not arrive at the
CI:! 16e. mentioned in the deed, it was done through the
; solicitor. I remember meeting the bankrupt in Nevem.
her last, and I told him I had left everything in the
! hands of my solicitor. I did not say to him that I
had given no instructions for 12 months previously. I
ain't any when the £l3 16e. was paid. Mr. Lacey has
not furnished me with that amount yet. I produce a
deed dated let Marsh, 169 f, between myself and George
Cooper Beer; it is as absolute re.aseignment of these
premises from myself to Beer. I did not arrange the
terms of this transaction. I was not present when
Beer signed the deed. I had nothing to do with the
matter before the deed was placed before me for signa-
ture. Baer was not present when I signed it. I read
the deed over before I signed it. It was all alled up for
ought that lam aware of. There was no erasure made
In my presence. I don't recollect whether I read the
deed myself or whether It was read over to me. I
I produce another deed dialed 2nd March, 1867. I cannot
reisollect whether it was executed on that day or
whether the two deeds were executed on the same day,
or two successive days. No money passed on those
transactions. I sold for £290 and took a mortgage for
that sum. Ido not recollect whether the mortgage was
read over to incur not. The matter was left entirely
in my eolicitor's hands. I advanced the money in the
/rat instance in 1864 and 1865, IWO, £6O, and £3O,
through .Mr. Lacey. I know very little about the
matter. Lacey is my imals.—By the Commisainoer : I
I bad advanced money to Beer, and on the 26th May,
1866, I advanced .Cl 3 6a. through my solicitor to him,
I and took an absolute assignment. There was no arrange-
ment that I should re-convey the property to him. It
I was done to assist Beer ; there was no other induce-
, motile I produce three policies of assurance on the life
; of Mary Beer, one dated 19th December, 1864, for £l5O,
I One dated sth Jannerv. 1865, for £6O, and the other
; dated 2nd Al tech, 1867, for £lOO, all in the Liverpool
I and London and Globe Insurance Company.
Mr. Liddell Charles Penny sworn, said: I am clerk to
Mr. Lacey, of Wareham, solicitor. I know more about
the business connected with Sharron and Beer than Mr.
Limey does. I have had the entire management of the
matter. The lease from Mr. Calcraft to Mr. Beer was
not prepared in our °Moe. The first deed which was
prepared and executei was a mortgage for £2OO dated
10th January, 1865, from Beer to Sharron. The cash
was advanced in • atiOne sums. The account "A" now
shown to me is a correct seo,toit of the cash transactions,
with Beer. The £I3 16s. item is for Mr. Lacey's
charges, and is the rams sum as is mentioned in the
deed of 26th May, 1866. The items in the amount
marked "It" are also correct. The next mortgage WM
a further aaree for 1.60, it was advanced in two sums
in the ye ir 186:1. With reference to the deed of the
26th of May, 1866. no money pissed whatever.
Mr. Hughes When was that deed signed'—On the
26th May. 1866, both by Shorten and Beer separately.
—What time of the day?—Mr. Sherren signed it about
the middle of the day, and Beer in the early part of the
evening. I sent the deed on the same day to London
to be stamped, and it was stamped at Somerset House,
London, on the 28th May, only two days after its
execution.—Can you produce any books to prove it ?
I produce my day-hook of that data, in which I flod
entries as follows :—"Attending attesting execution,"
and "Writing agent to get sares stamped." I object to
Mr. Hughes looking at the other private entries, they
concern other clients.

The Commissioner : Let me re* the book. I find the
entries aa stated and "attending explaining every item in
the &exeunt with which you expressed yourself satisfied."
Does that allude to the benkrupt?—Yes, it does.—Mr.
Hughes: You know you can buy stamps with an old
date on thorn, don't you ?—Yes, but it is our practice
to engross deeds on plain parchment, and wind then, to
London, to be stamped at Somerset House. They will
not stump eagrowsments till they are executed.—Will
you swear this deed was signed on the day it bears
date ?—Yes, decidedly I will, it is a malicious fabrica-
tion to allege the contrary. I have been no party to
any fraud in the matter.
Examination continued.—The erasures in the two
subsequent deeds were made before execution. The
consideration money had been stated at £350, being
£290 due to Mr. Sherrie, and £6O due to Mr.
Lacey, but we ennsidered the property was not
worth £350 and altered the deed to the £290, and
Mr. Lacey took a promissory note for his £6O. It
would have mixed up the money matters by adding the
two sums together. Mr. Beer sat down at the table
with me while I scratched out every entry in the
enerossinent, as I thought, of 1.350, and altered it to
ENO. He did not suffer by that. I have looked
through the deels since, and find that in one or two
instances the amount was not altered, having escaped
our attention, but there is a special attestation at the
back of the deed stating that before execution the words
three hunlred and fifty have been altered to £290.
The diffrrenoe of L'6o was due to Mr. Lacey for costs of
bankruptcy and of preparation of deeds and money
lent. The latter part of the account" B" is the account
of the IMO. . .

Mr. Hughes: You made a great deal of money out of
this matter for oasts, I believe?—l think the charges
were fair, and gave the bankrupt three years to pay
them in, that Is more than he can my respecting his
last adviser, who sold him up.
In the deeds of the lot and 2nd of March the amount
was altered for the considerations I have stated. Kr.
Luny received £3O from Ur. John Beer as a reserve
fond to guarantee the bankruptcy wets; no part of that
has been returned to him. The amount was first dated
at 12360 in the deed, to include Kr. Lacey's debt of £BO,
because they (Leoey and Sherren) were uncle and
nephew. On the 28th May, 1868, Beer mentioned that
he considered he was selling his wife's property, as it
had been left to her by her uncle, and he should like
at a future time to re-purchase it. No valuation
was made of the property. The sum of E 290
has no referenee to the value of the property,
as the assignment was taken for what was found to be
due.

Mr. Hughes : You stated that the propertv was
not worth more than £290 in May. 1866, or March, 1867.
Do you know it sold for E33o? Yee, sad I account for
the increase in the value of the property in consequence
of the death of both annuitants charged on the property
under the will of Joseph Fooks, the former lessee of the
property, and there are other reasons. The annuitants
were entitled to 3s. per week, or £7 16s. per year, and
the rise in value is only £6O. I should have thought
the extra value would have been kIUO. Prior to the death
of the annuitants I tried to sell the property. Since the
lease of 1864 was granted I can't say whether the
annuity has been paid, but I believe it has, es no claim
has been made upon me for it. When the property was
sold to Bherren there was an agreement entered into
that Beer should rent the property at 12e. per week, and
I arranged with Beer that be should pay the 3s. per
week to his mother-in-law and gave roe the 9s. After
the agreement WY signed he paid me various same of
money foe rent, amounting altogether to £lO. I know
nothing more about the payment of the 3.. per week.
The reason I couldn't sell the property was the eirarA
and Insurances were no heavy that it wouldn't hardly
pay £6 per amt. on the outlay for the purchase money.
Mr. Hughes: I think there are some mieutaternents
on the Ale of papers bare. You came to Exeter and
presented the petition, did you not? —No, I did not.
—Then Mx. Lawry did ?—No, he did not—Who did
then I—Mr. Dew acted an our agent, and if there
are, as you state, mis-statements they were made in
my absence, and the blame should attach to the person
who signed them and made the allegation of truth.
The Commissioner : I think I shall have to revoke
the order of discharge. Do you appear for the bankrupt
or against him, Mr. Hughes? —Mr. Hughes: I appear
for the estate.

Mr. Hughes: If these deeds are all genuine, as you
swear, why did you not sell the property without waiting
for the Court? I gave uotioe of an inteotioo to proceed
to • gala, and prepared the particulars and conditions,but
on receiving • letter from the official argues we waited
to allow the court time to make enquiries, as we had
nothing to conceal or he ash =eel of. I have not stated
sines the bankruptcy that I had to hunt Loudon
all over to get a stamp with a date sufficiently
far beak for the deed of 26th May, 1866.- By
the Commissioner : It weals May, 1866,tbat the mortgage
then existing was turned into an assignment; part of the
1.290 due to Yr. Bherren was made up of £l3 16e. as
"paid Mr. lAoey's charges." There was some talk at
the time of the bankrupt buying hack the property at
some future time. Part of the 1.13 16a. warn for preparing
• bill of sale to bankrupt's brother. Mr. Beer was the
person who set going the matter relating to the deeds
of the lit and 2nd of March, his brother guaranteed
half a year's interest. No interest has been paid under
the deed of 2nd March, 1867. We gave notioe of sale
and drew up conditions of sale.
to evidence.e.property, nu g
o wh e4's
t n
o addressing
rd th a
tie b n o uterht:
oth7i, mn.
gal rightotyn e
or
fw: r d
mhAsa t e thevepr.
he
tion.

—Tile Commissioner: The bankrupt is the only person
interested in the helium of the purchase money, and
he says the £6O bathos belongs to the Court, subJsci
to the mortgagees' lair °bargee, and I apprehend that Yr.
Shone's, the official assignee, and the bankrupt, can
make • good We.

Mr. limbo', to the witness : When will you give ea
appointment to eampere the abetmet with the cloenis ?

. -- - •
Mr. Penn,: I have not yet prepared the ehstruot.
Mr. Hugh..: But I tunre one, and therefore there Is
no nesessity of preparing soother.
Kr. Penn,: If you have roe it lies bele obtained un-
professionally. I bold the deeds sad claim the right to
prepare the abstract' 110 one hos • sight to asks an
Asked tram mins et beak