The Express.
London, England, 1851-02-18 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 18, 1851.

the gentlemen who constituted the Board of Cus-
toms. lle believed that the epithets that had been
applied ;to those gentlemen would have been more
fairly directed to the gentlemen whom his learned friend
represented. The attack had been made against the Board
of Customs, and the allegations which hod bet n made were,
that the Board had entered into a base conspiracy to op-
press, to annoy, and to crush the London Dock Company—
an assertion which be would undertake to declare no state-
ment which he had himself made could warrant—for he had
most cautiously guarded himself, wheu addressing the jury
on behalf of the Board of Customs, from accusing any one
of the London Docks directory, or the Board itself per-
sonally, with knowledge of the acts of which they com-
plained. He had not charged them, as his learned friend
had said, with frauds, or any personal knowledge of those
frauds which were attributed to their servants. On
the contrary-, he had in the most distinct language
stated his lull belief that the directors of the London
Doak Company would far rather have suffered their
right arms to have been rut off before they would, any one of
them, have sanctioned the roinmission of any fraudulent or
dishonourable acts. He had made that remark when he
opened the ease to the jury, and he repeated the statement
at the present moment. That was his firm conviction, and
he did not hesitate to proclaim that such was the impres-
sion upon his mind. As to the utter impossibility of any
of these gentlemen being capable of doing that which was
attributed to him by his learned friend, he denied that he
had ever thrown out such an imputation upon those gentle-
men. What had beta, let bun ask, the conduct of the
Board of Customs towards the London Dock Company ?
Had it not been precisely that which would have been an-
ticipated from a body of gentlemen who had received informs-
tiou that another public body or public company in whom
they had placed the utmost and the most perfect
confidence had been guilty of certain irregular proceedings ?
He would appeal to the whole of the correspondence which
had taken place between the two parties, or rather between
the two secretaries of the two bodice, that was, between the

begged the jury to compare thisquantity demos sweepinp
M a portion only of the London I)ocks, with the whole
quantity for ten years in the West India Docks, which Mr.
Knight had proved had not exceeded 148 lbs. a year. The
learned Solicitor-General in conclusion disclaimed any-thing
like ill feeling towards so highly respectable and responsible
a body as the London Dock t onipar.y. But the customs
had a public duty to perform, and it was only in that light
they had felt themselves called upon to institute these pro-
-1 ~,dings. If the jury, after weighing the whole of the
evidence carefully, should be of opinion that the London
Dock Company had not been guilty of the charges imputed
to them, then they should return at verdict for the defend-
ants ; but if on the other hand the Duck Company had
violated the law, then he was sure they would find a verdict
for the crown.

The Lord Chicf Baron said he would
summing up this (Tuesday) morning.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-YESTERDAY.
BIOME RE. Coininoto•ta Et,MANIC,.
RE LOUD HUNTINOTDWER'S BANKRUPTCY:

This morning, at noon, a meeting took place for the pur-
pose of choosing new trade assignee:l under the bankruptcy '
of William Lionel Felix 'follemache, commonly called
Lord Iluntingtower, described as late of Kenton and Locks
Bottom, Kent, and of Fenton Lodge, Andover, horse
dealer, vomit proprietor, &c.
Mr. Chidley, of Gresham-street, appeared as solicitor to
the fiat, and Mr. Niue, of Coptlialbrourt, for creditors.
The fiat was issued in September, 1842, and the bank-
rupt's debts, for which he had received consideration, were
at the time of his failure 40,000/., and bills of exchange
fraudulently obtained from him by " bill riggers," under
pretence of getting them discounted, amounted to 300,0001.
The bankrupt is entitled to the reversionary interest in
considerable landed property in Kent, tionlainptunshire
and several other English counties upon the death of his
father, Earl Dysart. The whole property is estimated to be
of the value of 30,000/., end the above learned commissioner,
upon granting the bankrupt his certificate, required him to
execute a bond assigning his reversionary interest to the
trade and official assignee, in order that the sum might he
realised and appropriated towards payment of the debts of
the bona fide creditors. Up to the present time, however,
nothing has been received under the estate.
Up to the month of January last Mr. John Giblion, of
Mutton-garden, gentleman, had acted as assignee on behalf
of the creditors, at which period he died, and hence the
necessity of the present meeting.
Only two small proofs were tendered and admitted with-
out opposition, and Mr. Charles Self, of 20, Chester-place,
Kennington, manager of Messrs. Cox and lliddulph's bank,
Charing-cross, was proposed as the future creditors'
signie and accepted the trust. Messrs. Cox and Bithlulph's
debt is 7,700/.

secretary of the Board o 1 Customs and the secretary of the
Dock Company, to show that the Board of Customs had
been most anxious to extend every indulgence and courtesy
to the Duck Company. The learned Solicitor-General re-
ferred to some of the earlier letters that had passed between
the secretaries. Could there be anything (he continued)
more courteous on the part of the Board of Customs ? They,
receiving information respecting those transactions, were
of necessity called upon to perform their duty to the public
They were bound to protect the public revenue from any
irregularity of proceedings by the servants of the 1)oc
Company. In the outset they had courted the cordial
co-operation of the directors of that company, with a view
to the discovery and the estoppel of those irregularities.
The Board of Customs sought the cordial assistance of the
London Dock Coinpuny in carrying out a searching investi-
gation of the charges which were set up against their ser-
sant.. To that solicitation the Dock Company had sent a
' formal note, to the effect that the whole of the docks pre-
MISCA should be thrown open to the customs officers. Now,
was that exactly the sort of reply that the Board of Customs
had a right to look fur in answer to their request for the co-
operation of the Dock Company in discovering certain
alleged frauds which it was said were being carried on upon
their premise's i liis learned friend bad spoken of throwing
back the charges with indignation and scorn, whilst he
knew very well that the only question they had to try was
not one affecting the rests debility, the wealth, or the
character of the London Dock Company ; but simply whe-
t ler the certain goods which were mentiaied in the in formatio
then before thecourt were or were not liable to seizure by the
Custom-house officers in consequence of an infraction of the
revenue laws? No one had made the least attempt to im-
mn the conduct or thecharacterof the directors of the Lon-
don Dock Company. Not a charge of the kind had been
brought against those gentleman. Neither had there been
any attempt to raise a prejudice against them in the minds
'of the jury. His leaned friend had then stated that he had
accused the directors of the London Dock Company with
Laving given gratuities to their servants for the purpose of
inducing them to accumulate the oweepings and scrapings
of the docks. Now, he most emphatically denied that he
had ever made any such charge. What he did say was this,
that the company had distributed a bonus at diffe-
rent times amongst certain of their servants, in
consequence of the increasing revenues of the es-
tablishment, and then that the only way in which he
could account for there gat accumulation of the sweepings
and the scrapings was that the officers of the company had
considered that their gratuities would be increased or leecomel
more frequent in proportion tee the extent of the dividend
which might be made amongst the directors and share-
holders ; therefore that that end would be attained by their
obtaining an increase in the sweepings and scrapings."
Now he was in a position to deny that those gratuities were
awarded solely for " over-time" working : for he held in his
hand a paper which had been put in hey the Secretary of the
Loudon Dock Company, which contained the minutes and
the circular which the company had agreed to send to the
different officers to whom the gratuities were given.
From those documents he found that the directors
had expressly stated on the 29th of August, 11443
(which was the period at which the gratuities were
first given) that they had resolved to give bonuses to certain
of their servants in conic menet: of the real, industry, and
diligence, with which they conducted the business of their
different departments, and because the business hail been
greatly inereased, and was in a more flourishing condition.
Now lie should contend that the publication of such a state-
ment as this put forth in the circular amounted to neither
more nor less than the holding out an incentive to the London
Dock Company to persist in the continuance of that precise
and particular species of " zeal and nee," which would
tend tee place the officers of the company in a still more
flourishing position than they were even at that moment.
Let it be understood he did not charge the directors with

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-YESTERMY.

Hamm Ma. O.IIIONtIONV.It PNILLIPA.
IN NZ WILLIAM DUNK, SHE YOUNGFR.

This insolvent, a surveyor, who appeared in a wretched
Mote of consumption, applied a protecting order. Several
creditors opposed, and Mr. Nichols supported. Ile was
heard 13 months' back, under the Protection Act, and his
ease was adjourned, sine die, without protection. Ile was
afterwards arrested and sent to Petworth jail, where he was
confined more than two months. The visiting magistrate
made a report that further confinement would occasion his
death, and Mr. Commissioner Phillips ordered his liberation.
Ile was now out of prison, and, being without grub et ion, he
was liable to be arrested by his creditors, and, therefore,
applied fur a protecting order under the 28th section of the
Act.

Mr. Commissioner Phillips asked the creditors who now
opposed, whether they would wish to send the insolvent,
who was in such a wretched state of health, to prison, tier
that would the result, if he did not grant the applica-
tion. He would not he accessory to his death, and it was
quite clear that he would be lertliwith discharged if again
sent to prison, fur his life would be in great danger. The
creditors considered that they bad been badly used. One of
them had the insolvent in prison for two months, and the
others had not proceeded against him. Mr. Commis-
sinner Phillips said, the insolvent had suffered enough
already. For 13 months he had been without protection,
and for two months iu prison. His life, it was evident was
in a very precarious state, and he could not refuse the ap-
plication. There was no doubt the creditors had gall
114 USC of complaint, but the insolvent had suffered for his
conduct—The Court granted a protecting order.

giving their servants a gratuity for the express purpose of
inducing a system of peculation on their premises. But
he denied that the gratuities were bestowed for "over-time"
alone. and he should contend that the natural and inevitable
tendency of rewards of this description was to hold out
sit inducement to the officers to continue with undiminished
and unabated zeal that diligent prosecution of the business
of the companies which had enabled their directors to pay
the proprietors such good dividends, and their officem such
large gratuities. Let him here state that lie was willing to
admit that his learned friends, as well as himself, had fallen
into an error in respect of the return of sweepings which
had been found by the witness Smith, whom he had called
on behalf of the crown, and in respect of whose evidence
his learned friend (Sir F. Kelly) had indulged in so fierce a
tirade' of at least half an hour'', duration. He had now
disposed of those portions of the address of his learned
friend, to which he had deemed it necessary especially
to refer in detail, and he would implore that the
jury would dismiss from their minds every species of
preiudice which they might have imbibed, and that they
wont(' arrive at such a conclusion as the evidence might
lead them to believe was duly warranted by its effect. It
was impowlible to deny that the evidence had been of a sexy
conflicting and contradictory character. Neither could it
he denied, on the one side or the other, that the most gross
and deliberate perjure must have been committed. Before,
however, he went to 'the evidence, he could not permit the
opportunity to pass him of adverting, by a single observa-
tion, to a remark which tell from his learned friend in the
course of his address to the jury. His learned friend hail
said that he would not have undertaken the defence of this
cause had he not been fully convinced of the perfect honour
and integrity of his clients, the London Dock Company, and
also of the bad character of the attack which had been made
upon those gentlemen. Now, with regard to this, he
would call it unparalleled, declaration, he could only
say, as his learned friend had made it, he was obliged to
believe the truth of the assertion • but he must be allowed
to say, that hail the declaration fallen from any other mem-
ber of the her—hail any other member of the bar told him
that be had looked at the "inside " of his brief, and from
its contents alone had drawn his conclusions as to the per-
fect innocence of his clients, and there had been no reference
to the endorsement on the ° outside" of his brief—

(laughter)—he should not have been able to refrain from
laughing at the assertion. To return to the evidence which
had been adduced by the London Dock Company, which he
thought be should be able to show had clearly of itself made
out a case of forfeiture to the crown—in the first plate
some of the witnesses had distinctly proved that
29 of the 28 casks of sugar seized had been
filled from " the overdrawings " from other packages.
In reference to this, it was provided by the 2nd and 18th
sections of the 7& 8 ie., c. 86, that every package of
goods which came into the docks should be entered in the
name of some particular person or persons, then marked,
numbered, and described, so as to correspond with the
original entry at the Custom-house, and with the &scrip.
tion in the manifest of the ship. And section 20 provided
that if any goods were taken out of a warehouse without
having been duly entered, they became forfeited to the
crown. In the present case he contended that the 28 casks
of sugar which formed one of the items set out in this in-
formation constituted portions of other cargoes that had not
been deposited as the property of the person whose name
appeared in the particular entry, and thus had become for-
feited to the crown. Nothing could be more clear than
that the merchants bad lost portions of their goods, and
that the revenue had lost the duty by the sweepings
having been abstracted from the cargoes. Hence the mer-
chant's cargo in respect of quantity had been diminished,
and the crown had therefore lost the duty, because the
sugar was exported, instead of its being sent to the home
market for consumption. He was free to admit that many
of the witnesses who had been called for the crown were in
the pay of the Customs, having previously been in the em-
ploy of the London Dock Company. Of that fact there
could be no doubt. But what were the Customs to do ?
Was the Board of Customs, having received the informa-
tion of the misdeeds of the Dock Company from these very
men, to allow them to starve, simply because they had
answered truthfully the questions which had been put to
them by the crown ? There were doubtless drawbacks
against such a class of witnesses, and it was the
province of the jury to weigh the probabilities of
their statements, and arrive at a just, fair, and proper
conclusion. The learned Solicitor-General then read a
paper, of which the following is an abstract. The etnintity
of sugar imported into the West India Dock from tfie West
Indies and South America had been shown to be about 21
rester than in the London Docks, and yet the " wet drain-
tugs" of sugar in the latter were nearly seven times greater
than in the West India Docks, although Barbadoes and
Brazilian sugars were of the same character, and the
" drainings" from each would be about the same in amount.
With reference to these warehouse sweepings of cocoa, it
appeared that 6,6331b5. of clean picked cocoa had been
seized, and at the same time the officers had left 1,3001b5. of
what might be considered sweepings from the dirt mixed
with them, making about 8,000165. of sweepings found
in the London Docks, which had been admitted
to be the collection of two or three years. In
the two or three previous years there had been exporta-
tions of cocoa, not to any great extent, but still of the ordi-
me, average exportation. Independent of this, 8,631 lbs.
lad bsea expeeted at the prese ave years. Now he