The Express.
London, England, 1868-09-10 00:00:00

AU,AINfor a ISPOCKBROKER.

At the Justice-room of the Illimion-lsonee
yesterda, Mr. Frederick Everett, • stockbroker of the
tlty of London, appeared bents the Lord Miyor Sir
hobert Carden, to answer two summonses, iernei at the
irasteite of Mr. Francis Perry, commission agent, 172,
rearahureh-street, ehargiag 'bus) with fraud. In the find
summons it was alleged that the defendant had induced
the entapiainant by fake pretences to accept three bills of
exchange kw the respective amount. of 2301, 21001., and
1366 17a. 6d., on the 16th sad 314 days of July and the
10th day of Augur!, 1867, with intent to defraud, and
ountrazy to the -statute 24 and 23 Vict., cap. 96, wk. 9d;
and iL the second sommowe it was alleged that on the 4th
and 6th days of September, 1867, the defendant obtainet
from the eceeplainent2
y of 7L
an false pretences two cheques for
e pa ymen tht respectie d el. 14.. 31, me:teary
to the motet, 24 and Viet., eap. 96, sea 88, and with
intent to defraud.

Mr. George Lewis, jun., solicitor, appeared far the pro-
seaution ; and Mr. Hazdinge °Ward, q.C., MeMnded by
Mr.
fence Humphrey; solicitor, NewpAs-street, Gonda-lel tho
de.
the ease having been opened by Mr. Lewis, lit. Perry,
the complainant, wound into the Witeem-box, and stated
that he was a COMMXIIIKM agent, carrying on biotin's'
at 172, ienehurehestreet. 'The defendant was a etnek-
broker, and in the month of May, 1867, he towintroductel
to him. On the 314 of May sad the 3KI of June in the
time year he gave to Mr. Abdbol, a grutloman twirling
in Kennington road, two cbequel for 1001. each, which
were to be handed over to the defendant am motion mnney
in respect of transactions on the Stock Exchange which
the defendant was to undertake for him. On the 3tab of
May be received from the defendant an account for
kartrul.dtipanieh l'assive stock, alleged to have been boutrht
on trio behalf. The account was brought to him by Mr.
Abidbol, and from time to time down to 12th Septem-
ber, 1867, lie received from the defendant varireav
bought and wild notes (produced) and arazountielsowinx
Lin alleged indebtedness io the defendant on them tremor:-
titans. One account delivered to him showed a la* of
lull. fis. 3.1., and he sent the defendant • cheque for that
"mount. Ile had since looked for that ate:mint, bit eollA
not find it. Subsequently he sent the defendant for other
alleged lorem two diem," for U. and 01. II i. 3d., and a! .o
three bills of exchange for 1361. 17s. 6d., and 2.1 )!.
respectively. Afterwards he consulted Messrs. Law-
rie. e, Hardwizk, and Co.. *elicitors. Before that he had
not been furniddd by the defendant with the names of any
of the principals with whom he had been deatinz on lx"
behalf and It was only in the ce:e of a t:andictioa that
took plane about the 12th of September, after oonvaltuur
the solicitors, that such information was given. He wrote
to the defendant for the names of the principals in the
previous transactions, being mewed in his own mind
that he was Is defrauded, }eat received no
reply. His solicitors then Draught an action
against the defendant in the Court of Queen's
Bench, Guildhall, and obtaiwid a judges order for the
inspection of pus books. Under that order he and his
meountant, Mr. Killingsworth, rat Moorgate-draft,
• ted the defendant's books, and found that many of
the entries relating to transactions in which he (witness)
was concerned were under the heading "T. D.," no
name or address being given. The defendant, on beim:
interrogated. admitted that these initials stood for Thomas
De lion •, and witness had ascertained that this person
was a clerk an the employment of a firm of solicitors in
Great George-street. The action against the defendant
was tried in the month of July last, and both he (witness)
and deft ndant were examined. The defendant wee licked
by the judge to point out any trauneetion iu the honks
relating to the marcher* or sale of stock b-twecu him and
De Boos ; but after waiting ten minute* he gave no
satisfactory reply. He was also asked when he lad saw
De boos, and he raid on the Saturday or Sin day
previous In the trial, which took plans on a
Monday. I* Bona did not appear 44 a witerco.
altlaimili called forseveral times; Defendant was like-
wise asked it be had paid any money to Do 80,13 on
phitaliff's uomint, and he said he had not. and that he
Marl never rent any contrail to De Bees in oloird 1., the",
tameaations. Witte-. had previously fteareheil
dots u-
dant'scontrast book in conjunction with Mr. Killing—
worth, the meountatit, and amid not lied one eiugle I. in-
tract with De Woe nor the counterfoil of any su:h
contract. The verdict was given in his (romplaiwities)
favour. Ile had not paid the three bilk of exehanto.
He had paid a romprisition on two of them, bat not ou
the third, which was in the defendant's hands. Prom the
beginning of May till the month of September he paid
defendant about 900/.. nt which about IMO!. was in imp .et
of the "T. Ti.- account.

In erns.-examinatinn the witneas said he acted M agent
in this country for his two brothers, one of whom wa► in
Mexico and the other in Australia. Re had alko
bought and sold shut ; his first traitsactionof this kind
oreuning about the year IMM.
Mr. Gifiard—Huse yoo ever been a defaults in your
sreenlatiens
Witness--rea.
Mr. Gifford —#4o that the broken hail to pay
Witnem—That 1 ranno say.
Mr. tliffard—lM you not bkieve it
Vihwo—Nn.
Mr. --When did yon make the composition tivvil
yen 'peke of
W ituess—Lvt Novembi r.
Mr. tliffaid—Waa that the tint compiiiiition deed you
ever made _ _

find vow/ N Mitoll I male was five years Ist I.
I'l-ms-examination emit need —His iinpression was t it
the creditors were not raid anything that, bat there W.VI
a considerable :um in hand. In that transaction Lt
might have been three or four brokers on the Stock Ex-
change involved. He 'IA not remember what thmr
eta in ea., owl in. eii
I t think h. w.n iI.
de-hied to thim at all, now that he kit
what he did know. teeause he thoeeht the sane
game that had been played now was phsved them 113
61,11101111tIscr 14141,14C41. the witness stabst that the eleten
of the stielle °ken. acainst hint was ahem 1.30.1/.
the deed of last Ne vemlser he raid 1m in the porn I. Ves
total paym. lit Lein, about 2201. Mr. Alseb .1 ha I not
I,tmetal authority to nice in.tnietheis for the push to.
end :ale .1 stock. Mr. Abotbol received iustructions Cr
him (aims ss). He slid not know that coerespetil
Isom cl between Mr. Abotbol and the de'end Int. The
rangement bete% en witnees and Mr. Abstbol was tu
Mr. Abotbol was to give him the benefit of his advise an 1
exterience, in return for which he should receive a fifth
of the profits. He saw Alen last three weeks or a tu suth
ago, but did not tell hint he was going to take criminal
proceedings against Mr. Everett. He hal never heard of
a proposal to the effect that it 604 were paid to Mr. Hard-
wick no criminal processlings wimed he taken. In
May. 1667, he was insolvent, but he was not
aware of the fact at the time. About thst
date he made a conditional arrangement with
a Mr. Hugh' to pay him 701. or SO/. in lieu of 1.3001/. in
respect of a transaction in cotton. The total amount of
his debts under the deed of amignment five years ago was
13.000/. or 14,0001. 11itee was a reference to arberatiou
with the verdict of the )jury in the action against the de-
fendant, but he believed no fittings had been held under
the reference. The second composition deed of Is. per
pound was not received by the commie-4011er in Wilk-
rispfey, but his decision was appealed against, and that
appeal was now 'sending. Mr. Everett was liable to be
called upon to deliver the Mock, but this war a sesseulative
transaction, and not to he taken up, as he knew.
In re-examination by Mr. Lewis the witness stated that
when his first failure took place tiro years he was in part-
eel...hip with another person, and had been doing a large
business with some of the best firms in the City. His
',road bankniptcy was in eonsapieum of the pnesiedings
taken on the three bills of exchange. and he had a majority
of creditors assenting to the composition &el
Charles Humphreys, cashier in the Alliance Bank
(Limited), where the defendant kept an account. proved
that the endorsement on the back of the cheque. for Ed/.
tie. 3d. was in the defendant's handwriting.
Mr. Silliugwerth. accountant, 36. Moorgate-stmt,
Muted that he examined the defendant's books under a
judge's order. Ile sus present at the trial of the defen-
dant fur fiend, mid was examined us a witness. Mien-
dant was asked why he slid not produce "I'. 1).," en 1 his
answer satisfied neither the judge nor the jury. There
were three mite of the T. P." account in his ledger.
and there was not a single cash tninsaetnn. The juize
asked the jury to find that it was a fictitious aesiouut, owl
the jury did find that it was fictitious.
Croes-examined—Therewereabout 161 tranmetions in the
"T. ll." &vomit between the defendant. acting for
Terry, and T. D., and there were about Ehl transaction.
in which the complainant was ecsiteerned. not in the
T. 1)." amount. Ile believed many of the last-named
were eerfectly genuine.
Mr:Lewis then called a clerk in his employnsent to
prove that exertions had lawn made to secure the attend-
ance. of De Boos and Abotbol as witnesses; and upon this
evidence applied for a remand.
Mr. (liffard, addressing the court, submitted that there
was nut sufficient evidence on which to tall open thus
defendant for an answer ; but remarked that it was Mr.
Everetes intermit to have the matter thoroughly investi-
gated, and he might Mate that three who supposed the
case would be men , were entirely in error.
Mr. Lewis, on this pert of the prosnoution, repudiated
any intention of compromising the ease.
The Lord Mayor adjourned the rase till Monday, and
admitted the defendant to bail on his own resogairancer
for 60(1/.