The Express.
London, England, 1862-08-28 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, AUGUST 28, 1862.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT. —LIVERPOOL, AUGUST 27.
(Before Mr. Justice Mellor sad a Special Jury.)

GRUNDY AND OTHERS R. ESIIRENI AND OTHIJUL -ALLIOND
COMMERCIAL IMMORALITY IN MANCHIMTER.

The plaintiffs sought to recover the value of a quantity of
goods which were obtained from them by a firm in Man-
chester known as Dalton Brothers and Heap, and which had
come into the possession of the defendants under circum-
stances that did not, it was alleged, divest from the plain-
tiffs any property in the goods. Mr. Temple, Q.C., and
Mr. Milward were counsel for the plaintiffs, Moors. Grundy,
Kay, sad Co., manufacturers, of Mauchester ; Mr. Barjeant
Shoe (specially retained), Mr. Edward James, Q.C., Mr.
Pope, and Mr. Fonwick, appeared for the defendants, Jamb,
Edward, and Rudolph Behrens, also in business in Man-
chatter.

Mr. Temple, in opening the case, add if a man went to
another, and by fraud obtained from him goods under pre-
tence of a purchase, in that case the property did not pers.
The degree of fraud necessary to constitute a claim of
this kind to have goods returned had never been
accurately defined ; but this he thought was pretty
clear, that if it could be made out that there wu some-
thing in the nature of a conspiracy between two parties
to obtain goods from a number of individuals without a fair
and reasonable prospect of paying for them, and in order
that those goods might be transferred from one to another
at a considerable loss—inasmuch as, that in order to carry
out that conspiracy the one party was constantly making
purchases at a certain sum, and the other party, knowing
what the other was doing, was as constantly making pur-
chased from him at a lower rate, then he (the learned
counsel) submitted that that that was an amount of fraud
which would he evidence of a general conspiracy to defraud,
entitling the persons from whom the goods were obtained
to recover them, the property not having been divested.
The learned counsel then at considerable length explained
the grounds upon which the action was brought and the
circumstances under which the goods in question were sold
by the plaintiffs to Dalton Brothers, and in turn disposed
of by these persons to the defendants. Dalton Brothers
bad been in business since 1837, when the firm was coosti-
tuted with an apparent capital of about 3,000 L, and in June,
1860, a person who had previously been in their employ-
ment, named Heap, was taken into partnership. The
firm was in good credit, their secret embarrassments being
then unknown in Manchester. They were struggling with
difficulties, and endeavoured to get cash by all means in
their power, to meet coming liabilities, bill falling due,
and in order to tide over their difficulties. Their business
as calico printers was confined to baying grey goods and
printing the cloth ; but it was no part of their trade to deal
in and sell grey, or unprinted, cloth ; and it was contended
that every person in the trade must have been aware of this
system. Dalton and Heap bad, however, purchased grey
goods from various firms, awl it would be proved that they
transferred a great amount of the property in its imprinted
state to Behrens, at a lower price than was ruling in the
market. Mr. Temple went carefully through the nature
of the evidence be would adduce, with the view of showing
the complicity of Behrens with Dalton. and Heap, and
urged that he was entitled, in order to support the charge
of conspiracy, to call evidence as to the general system
of dealing between Daltons and Heap and their customers
on the one band, and Daltons and Heap with the defendants
on the other hand, and that be should not be restricted to
one isolated case. He believed it would be sufficient to
show that Louis Behrens, who was not a defendant, though
a member of the firm, as be was out of the country, sod
could not be served with a writ, was aware that the goods
were purchased by falling and desperate men to prop up,
for a time, their credit, sod in the hope, not subsequently
realised, of being ultimately able to extricate themselves
from their difficulties. Day after day Louis Hebrew asked
Heap if he had any particular kinds of goods ; if no such
goo were in stock he suggested where they might be ob-
tained, and when the goods were procured by Heap they
were immediately transferred to the defendants at a consi-
derably lower price than was paid for them, and at a price
below the then market value. Dalton and Heap stopped
payment in March. and after a proposition for arrangement
bad been made they were adjudicated bankrupts; the
plaintiffs were not paid the value of the goods they had
sold to them, and as it was alleged the goods had paased into
the bands of the defendants by fraud and conspiracy with
the bankrupts, the plaintiffs were entitled, it was con-
tended, to recover the value of the property.
Charles Hayward, formerly salesman for the plaintiffs,
said they were sellers of grey goods and the firm of Dalton
Brothers were calico printers. It was not in their line of
business to sell grey cloth ; their business was to buy the
grey goods, bleach and print them, and sell them es articles
of commerce. On the 12th December he sold Dalton Brothers
3,000 pieces of grey cloth intended to be printed, at Ss. 3d.
per piece, on the usual terms of the Manchester market.
On the 17th of January, 1861, sold Dalton Brothers 2,000
pieces at Bs. 3d. ; on the 24th. 1,000 pieces at Bs. 3d. ; on
Ist February. 2,000 pieces at Bs. 10. These sales were all
effected through Heap, and the prices wore the rates ruling
in the market at thou dates.

In cross-examination the witness said Heap had asked for
• little extra credit, and this indulgence was granted.
Daltoas were in good credit up to the date of the last sale;
and it was known that they were the sons of a retired calico
printer, that they were respectably connected by marriage,
and that they had • large establishment in Mosely.street,
Manchester. The market about that time was depressed,
and the demand for grey goods was not large.
In re-examination he said he thought it would be very
wrong to buy goods on one day and sell them the next at
a loss. A difference of la. 3d. per piece was, he considered,
a very great loss.
John Poison, warehouseman for Grundy, Kay, and Co
said • few days before the first sale of goods to Dalton;
Louis Behrens came into the place and asked if they had
anything to sell. He went over the samples of goods until
be came to the lot afterwards sold to Dalton', when he
asked the price and said Ms. 3d. was too much for it. Sub-
sequently he aptin called, refused to offer Ss. lid., and
said he could get them lid. a piece cheaper. The 3.000
pieces sold on the 12th were delivered on the 13th of
, I mbar, and the other lots in the ordinary course of
business. _ _

William Kay, one of the plaintiff% said at the time
Dalton Brothers stopped they were due to their firm for
the goods in question and other goods as well. Before the
bankruptcy they made a proposition to pay rm. in the
pound. The amount of the debt was 6,2854, and witness
agreed to go in for the composition under arrangement ;
subsequently, however, the firm was adjudicated bankrupt.
William Heap said be went into the service of Dalton,
in 1855 or 185 b, and became a partner in 1860. It was
no pert of their buainess to sell gre goods ; they first
commenced to sell grey cloth about November, 1860, and
in two or three instances before they mold to the defen-
dants. la December, 1860. be purchased 3,000 pieces of
grey cloth from the plaintiffs ; these goods were sold to
Jaoob Behrens and Co., through Louis Behrens, on the
same day that they were delivered, at 7s. per piece, Bs. 3d.
being the price paid to Grundy, Kay, and Co. The first
lot purchased io January was delivered to Behrens on the
same day that Dalton' received the cloth, at a similar
loss ; the lot purchased at Bs. lid. were sold to Behrens at
7s. This lot, be believed, was sold by bargain in the previ-
ous December; and on the Ist of February they were de-
livered, on the day they (Dalian) received them. First
saw Louis Behrens, with whom all the transactions were
made, in the early part of December, on which occasion
witness told him he had some printed jatmoettes for sale,
which he would dispose of cheap for cub, as he had some
bills to meet. Behrens in looking at the printed muslin, re-
fused to buy them ; but he saw some grey cloth piled in the
cellar, and said "he could buy that and would pay cash for it."
There were 2,000 or 3,000 pieces in the cellar, and he agreed
to buy the whole. Witness told him the price at which he
had bought the goods, and Behrens said he had paid too
much, and that he would not give the amount. Had laid to
Masers. Agnew for borne of the goods 9s. 6d. per piece, and
sold them at Ba. to defendant ; to Mows. Sharpe and Thorpe
he paid 9s. 3d., and sold at Be. ; linandring and Birches,
9s. lid.. sold at 7s. 83.: Forth and Marshall, Ba. lid., sold
at 7s. 6d. Told him they were considerably under the
market price, and that he must not offer the goods in the
Manchester market. He said. "If I say I won't do it, you
may depend el:atilt that ! will riot." In the interval between
the date of his (witness) purchasing Drained@ and his selling
them to the defendants the markets bad Linen 3d. to did.
per piece, but at that time the market was steady. The
terms of sal* to Behrens were cash oo delivery, less 2i per
cent. discount. Behrens asked if he hail any more to
sell, and he was told there were no more goods
on stock, but there were some on order. He asked what
were the goods on order, was shown the book io which the
orders were entered, and marked those be was willing to
purchase. The arrangement was that be should buy the
lots he wanted upon the same terms as the first lot. Sub-
sequently Behrens called and asked if they (Dalton and
Heap) tad goods of a certain description, intimating that he
could bay them. As they bad none in stock witness sent
to Walmby and to. for samples. These were shown to
Behrens, and he was told the price they had bought them
at was 10s. 10id. Behrens offered 10s., which witness took.
i Behrens at the name time said he could buy another qua-
lity, and as they had none in stock be asked where they
could get the goods. Behrens mentioned the names of several
firms, amonpt others Cruody, Key, and Co. The same
day he saw Mr. Hayward. that firm's salesman, and bought
:t,OOO pieces, part of those in question. The price
he bought them at was Bs. 3d., and the Same, day the goods
I were delivered. Louis Behrens came to the place to
*sambas them. He offered 74., which was eventually
accepted. In the mouth of December witness went to the
defendant's office, and Edward Behrens said, " Yon must
not take it amiss if I ask eon Oquestion." He said "Certainly
not," and he then asked if they (the firm) ware solvent,
and witness said they were. In the afternoon of the same
day he was again at their office offering some goods to Louis
Behrens, when Edward Behrens came up and said. "Oh, I
have been asking Mr. Heap if they are solvent." Louis
was annoyed, and said, "He had no beanies to ask the
question. What did it matter to them whether they are
solvent or not. I buy goods at the best price I can get
them, and it is nothing to anybody.' In the month of
IFebruary he made a contract for the sale to the defendants
of about 6,000 or 7,000 pieces of different kinds, and in
fulfilment of this cootrect he bought a lot from DllOOllll.
Matheson, and Co., at fis. 3d. and sold them to the defendant
at 7.. 3d.; from Climbers and Son, at Bs. 3d. and sold them
for 7s. 3d. In the beginning of March the defendant, Louis
Behrens, asked if he had any goods of the quality he
described, and being answered in the captive, he suggested
that they might be obtained from several firms be moo-
tioood. Witness went to one of these firms, James Bay
and Co., dreamed amigo from them, soot them to