The Express.
London, England, 1850-06-10 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER-Snratut

- (Crows wee ruerwed.)
EMIR LAMD CRISP' Jr.= I WILD; MIL Janet PIIWILDO.. Ma.
t.aa, ALDWO; Ma. Jrancs Cotaataos, sad Ma. Jranca
Caunrns-

V. WALTNI WATTS.—Is THI TAIINO OP
• CHAT= IS VAANSITC TO TKI PROPIUITOK, LAS-
?--LIANILITT OP • B HO IS ALPO • SHARK
HOLD= IN • JOINT STOCK COMP•NT TO AN INDICTM3NT ?
The defendant, lately a de* ia the Glebe Assurance
Odic* and 'ewe of the Maryfebone and Olympic Thea•res,
was indicted before Mr. Justice Cruelest' at the Central
Criminal Coat, on the 10:h of Dlvy last, on a charge of
larceny. He was charged with stealing on the 25:h of
February an order for the payment of 1,4001., the prcyerty
of George Cu, 9115, to whom he was servant. The In-

elictiaista contained i great number of wants Is some of
them the instrument was described as the property of Glyn,
as to &surer of the Globe AssurneeComom.y ; and in others
as belonging to Elward 'mid and William Tite, the
chairmen and deputy chairman. In another set of counts,
Use pets ince was charged with steelier a piece of paper, the
property of the same prosecutors. It appeared from the evi.
deuce that the directors were in the habit of drawing
etagnes apes Glyn aria Co., their bankers (Mr. Glyn being
als, the Measurer of the Globe Company ), and it was the
custom of the a 'impel to send their paw book to be made
up every Tuesday night, and all the debits and credit. of
the company were made up every Tuesday night, and the
paid eteques were then placed in it, and it was fetched
away say Wednesday morning by a porter from
the Globe Office. It was As duty of the prisoner to
?reeler those documents from the metheoger. On the 20th
of February tho prisoner paid into the London and Wes:-
aminster Bank. on his own account, a elapse ter 1 4001., t at-
porting to be drawn the Globe Company. It was cashed
al• us with when by Glyn and Co , and on the fall awing
Wednesday the cheque fa question was returned with the
pus b sok to the Globe-office, and delivered into the hands of
the prisoner by the messenger. In consequence of a cola-
staicattou made to the direethre, the prisoner's papers were
metleol up, but the cheque could not he discovered. There
was no evidence' to show Mat the cheque hid been drawn by
the direvors, but several leaves appeared to have been torn
from the cheque-book of the company. It also appeared that
the orient r bald two shares in the company. The company
was incorporated under the Act 47 Geo. 111., tap 30. Mr.
Justice Cre.ewell told the jury that the first counts. which
desaibea :he it strums% Si a valuable security, could not be
eueportao, because Awe was ao evidence that such a eheqae
as the one alleged to have bon stolen had ever been in the
pusses ion o' the prosecutors. But he left it to them to say
whether the poisoner had stolen a piece of paper. The jury
krona the prisoner guilty of stealing the piece of piper.
'lce Attorney General, Sir John Bailey, Mr. Clarkson,
Mr. We shy, cad Mr. Bevil now appeared to support the
nee for the prosecutlos. Mr. Cockbert , Mr. Bodkin, and
Mr. Bramwell were en the other side.
Mr. Codeine said he approved on behalf of the prisoner,
sad he had to submit, in the first place, that on the facts
Mated in this ess-, that the effects' charged was sot lonely,
and if any o3ence, that it only amentated to embenlement,
It was apparent that the cheque never came tato the poe.
main of the prisoner's marten at all. After reespitulating
the facts stated in the ease, the leaned counsel referred, is
support of has pet:lonian, to the ease of " the Queen v.
Orlando Masters" (I Temple sad Mew's Reports). In that
ease (the Wet argued in Ala court ender the Act 11 sad 12
Viet, sap. 78) ,Um prisoner had been indicted for an em-
betzleweat The prisoner received the money embenthd
tram a thorns, it having been handed to him in the course
of henna, end it was his ditty to pay the same to the
*whims of the establishment. The court, through the Lord
Chief Baron, held that the conviction was goad; the rin-
ser wee one of the persons appointed to receive asea-y, and
having received and appropriated it to his own use, he was
guilty of enthentemeat. the taws were timelier, for the
property vot into the possession of the master.
Mr. Jatitios Coleridge.—Seppose I send my footman to
tbo s IYersenith's for • piece of plate, and he heads it to the
butler; I never et• it, and the butler dispense of it ?
Mr. Cot liburn submitted that It was sot larceny in the
butler. Bu' the present ease fell short of the one sup-
posed by hi. lordship. There was no evidence to now
that any person on behalf of the company had drawn the
augur*, or that the paper was stolen from the company.
There was no ev;denee even to show that the prisoner had
pat the cb• que in such a plass u to give hie employer a
COastractivt re.4ession of it. The next point fir considers-
tint was, whether in the particular circumstances of this
one, the prisoner could he indicted for a larceny in reference
to the promos in which he was situated with respect to the
company. It was tree that he was a mensal of the cem
parry, the same sonsisting of • lam number of shareholders.
Although the am of peritoneal enables the company to sue
or be rued in the name of their Meanest, and provides that
all proneroboas shall be intitated in the name of the trea-
surer, cull for all o her purposes the act provides that all
the common incidents of partnership shall exist. Thedefes.
dant was else a partner, and the question arose whether
ending in that relation to the company, he could be con:
Meted of a larceny of property in which he had a joint lets.
mat. It was true that the concerns of the company were
managed by a hoard el directory, with subordinate bodies
called committees. One of these is called the finance com-
mittee, to whom is entrusted the drawing of chemises sad
other ilneneial matters. The prisoner was employed in oats
of the departments under the directors, and though he had
certain duties to do in reference to these directors, he was a
shareholder also. The property was common to all, and the
prisoner could not he indicted for taking his own property.
Asa shareholder he had pet pert, in the chattel, end he had
the print right to possession, for it was banded
over to hint and 111111 not liable to be delivered up
until (alb d Aad though he might be guilty of a
breech of duty, for which he ought to be ailed to account la
another way, rill having property, premien, and right of
po steam in the chattel, be could not be convicted of a lar-
ceny. The only cost in whi, h there could be en exception
to this rule was where the party had not right to present
possession. He had a third objection to state to the present
conviction. The prisoner was described as the servant of the
director+, but not of the shareholders. The directors have
the general management of the company, regulate the
duties of the servants, end paid them ; but As payment'
were made out of he funds of the company. Ile was the
servant of the shareholders, not of the directors, and there-
Me the allespatica was issorrect.

The Atterasy•Gerteral replied at emeiderable length to
the various ohjectiens raiwd, but the arwassat WU of too
teehereal a •h.rseter to interest the patrol ruder.
on the ris:oot of the court it was intimated that judisawat
will be siren en the 22nd inst.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—SATuRDAT.
BUOY MIL WMUNION= You.
10 sa PAITODAID AND DALE.
Thin was the osetlassee mooting in the ours of Martin
Luther Pritchard, of the Arm of Pritehard and Dale, stock
and share-broken, of Liverpool.
Mr. Lawrsnes erird tke bankrupt; Mr. Lisklater
oppased for the assigner. ; and Me. Z. Sums fee the Com-
mercial Bank of Liverpool and the &nth Eaters Railway
Compony.
Mr. Ltiskiater said there wars four grounds of opposition
to the baekrapt's sertificate—reeklem trading, gambling,
vexatious defence of ac.ions, and fraudulent contracting of •
debt with Mr. J. H. Morgan.
Mr. Jain s Horatio Morgan, a member of the Stock En-
chains, and • stock and share dealer examined, said he had
purchased shares to the aasuuat of several thousand pounds
ea amount of' the bankrupt, but at length was obliged to
clam the account. He lost about 1,3501, for which he @seri-
deed property of the value of 3,0001.
Cross eztmnied by Mr. Lawrence.—l joined others
I. removing this Sat from Liverpool to London, fur which
I subscribed 101. or 121. I renvemb,r Dale obtaloing hie
certificate, and Pritchard raising his examination and sub-
sequent application for his eitetideate on the 9:h of Novem-
ber. I was prearat on each occasion, but gave no noticeof
my intention to oppose. About the Uwe of the bankruptcy
I had as interview with Pritchard, who asked me to go to
Liverpool, and look at his accounts. He said Mr.
Mae Oregor owed him 7,0001. or 80001, and there were
other mute to the extant of 30,0001. and 40,0001. He told
me to hold still, and in a short period I should get 200. in
the pound, and he wortld be a comparatively rich man, with
20,0001. or 25.0001. in his packqt. That induced me not to
oppose. The latent of the transactions between us mast
have amounted to between 60,0001. and 80,0001., and upon
this I reos ived half 0011111WN012.
Mr. Lawrence—H iw did these transactions occupy ?
Witness—From January to March.
His Honour—Oat of that 60,0001. worth, how many
shares should you say were delivered ?
Witness.—About Ave or ten thousand. Al to the re.
saindir, they were Pritchard's speculations, and none were
&neared.
After hearisg further evidence, and an address from Mr.
Lawrence,
His Honour must make a reatiork as to fraud towards
Morgan. He could see no ground for it. Morgan had his
2a. 64. in the 1001., the broker charging 5 per cent.
Mr. Linklater said Mr. Pritchard, the bankrupt. o"-ed in
May 11349, :30,0001., without • farthing to pay it. Taking all
the creuasstaates of the ease into consideration, he (Mr.
Linklatorl called upon the court to say that the bankrup: was
not to be trusted in legitimate trade, and that the certificate
be refused. _ _ . .

Mr. Lawrence said there had been no mirrep►eeentatlon
on t►e part of Mr. Pritchard; his priests debts wars only
3001. or 4001.; his expeoditure was of the moat limited kind.
This ease had occupied a considetable portion of time. and,
having regard to all the circumstances concreted with ir,
he (Mr. Lawrence), mourning that the haokrupre character
bed bees marked by a want of prudence, would salt had it
cot been purged by the loss of time and expense incurred
by Mr. Pritchard is this inquiry ? He stood well with the
public, sad looking at the lapse of time that had passed,
the aunt meet be asked to put the bankrupt is such a posi-
tics that hereafter no man could but say that he (Pritchard)
had been unfor unate, and that there was nothing against
him. He (Mr. Lawrence) must ask for an immediate err-
tificate, and as to the question of class, he would leave that
with his honour. _ . .

Hie Honour &tarred judgment, and enlarged the protec-
tion for a fortnight

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT. - SATCRDAT.

IN TKO M•rraa OP JOIEN WATION.—CIIZAP MOAT.
Thk fantasist. • now tenet, was opposed by Mr.
Nichols, for a Mr. Marti:all. It appeared thnt the insol-
vent bad lesstalaed Inures by the death of sows. On being
eked what became of the carcases, he said be sold them to
• " hatcher " in Whiteebapel market.
Mr. Commiesioner Phillips felt surprised at • butcher
buying dcad ct..ves, and demanded the reason of • butcher
purchseing cows that had died.
The insolvee.t seemed to be ignorant of the butcher's
name, or the purveys for which the cows were bought.
Mr. CAROM /6 net Pniilips—Did it not strike you as cut-
piciuus that • bu•cher should purchue them?
lin insolvent, after pau.ieg • good deal, admitted that
it did stem " rather suspicious." In answer to further quell-
' tins•, he said be could not tell the hu:cher's name. Ile
found bins at Whitechspel market. and was paid 1/. Ss. for
the carcase of one, and on another occasion a similar sum for
another sow. B4k died at the Isle of Dogs. A third cew
he acid for 11.7 s at Smith fl Id.

Mr. Commisaioaer Philips again inquired of the inordeent
for what purpose he thought the butcher wanted the deal
cows? _ _

The insolvent said that he supposed to sell to the knarken.
Mr. Conitainiumer Pnillipt—Oh. indeed; and ter nothing
else?

Mr. Nichols thought the butcher should attend the court
and prove the purchase.
Mr. Commiesioner Phillips on inspecting the schedule,
found the name of the botcher mentioned. He, however,
did not think that the creditor had utablished his right to
require further evidence.
Mr. Nichols urged the court to require the attendance cf
the butcher. It was the duty of an insolvent to prove the
sale of property in a halti.eit sheet.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips ordered a statement to be
made in the schedule of the sale of the cows, laying that the
insolvent might be indicted for petjury if it was false. He
wu then diachulyed.