The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-02-13 00:00:00

NORTHERN TIMES.--LIVERPOOL! WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 180

BANKRUPTCY COURT.-YESTERDAY

consider that the remittance of 1,0001. to the father was a
fraudulent preference, and made by the bankrupt with
the knowledge of the insolvent state of his affairs. His
Honour then at considerable length and with the utmost
care reviewed the circumstances connected with the set-
tlement of the ship Duncan by the bankrupt on his
daughter on her marriage with Mr. Woolescroft, in Jan.
1855, and the various other objections which he held as
having been sustained, and concluded by stating
that if anything were wanting to confirm him in the
determination to refuse the certificate, he would have
found it in what transpired that morning. The conduct
of the bankrupt as then disclosed, was so gross, that the
court had a right to deal with it under the 198th section,
and though it alone might be a sufficient cause for refus-
ing the certificate, it was certainly such an ingredient in
the cause as would remove any doubt if the Court enter-
tained it, as to the course which it was bound to pursue
towards the bankrupt. The certificate should be, there-
fore, refused altogether. Mr. Evans applied for protec-
tion fort« enty-one days, in order to appeal to the Lords
Justices, and, after some consideration, his Honour
granted the application.

.........-..,......r..-...

(BEFORE MR. tOMMNSIONRR STEVENSON

IN Ire JOHN GEORGE CLAUS—This day was fixed by
appointment for the judgment of the court in this matter.
Mr. Evans appeared on the part of the bankrupt, and Mr.
Aspinall, instructed by Mr. •Lowndes, for the assignees.
Before his Honour proceeded kith his judgment the
bankrupt was etartaiiied at considerable length by Mr.
Aspinall. In answer to the learned gentleman, he stated
that he had been at Queenstown about the end of last
month when the Ottilia, one of the ships forming part of
his estate, arrived there. He went on board of her, and
obtained from the chief officer, the captain having fallen
overboard and been drowned during the voyage, about
2071. and 55 dollars, and also the accounts of the ship.
Ile did not tell the chief officer that he was a bankrupt,
but acted as if he still was the owner of the vessel. He
paid 30/. of the money he had obtained for provisions and
ru.dicines supplied to the crew, and of the balance he gave
NO/. to his son-in-law, a Mr. Woolescroft, on Thursday
last, in payment of loans advanced to him for the support
of himself and family. He conceived he was entitled to
take the money and look after his own property when in
Queenstown, because of the shameful manner in which
he said, it had been neglected by the assignees, but he did
not consult any legal adviser before taking those steps.
In answer to Mr. Evans he said that the Ottilia was niort-
gaged for 50001., and that until the accounts were made up
he could not tell to whom the money belonged. The assig-
nees had left his Ships uninsured and one was now coming
home -With a bottomry bead of x,5001. That was part
of the assignees' neglect of which he complained. He
considered that if his property were properly managed, it
would yield a surplus, and the only allowance which he
had received from the assignees for the support of him,
self and family, from the time of his t ankruptcy up to the
present time, was 101. In answer to his Honour, he said
he thought that if the mortgagees did not claim the
money, it should go to the assignees, provided the
accounts did not show it to belong to the captain. Mr.
Aspinall then addressed the court, and urged that if there
were nothing else in the case than what had then tran -
spired, his Honour would be bound to refuse the certifi-
cate altogether. It mattered not on whom the fraud had
been committed; whether the money belonged to the
mortgagees, the assignees, or the captain, the criminality
of the bankrupt's conduct was still the same, and he might
yet have to answer for it before a tribunal of another
description. Ile (Mr. Aspinall) did not then
make such an application as would lead to that
event, because the gentleman who advised him was
unwilling to do anything, without consultation with the
assignees, which might involve them in expense ; but
though he confined himself that morning specifically to
the question of the certificate, he yet reserved the right of
the assignees to apply that the bankrupt should be prose-
cuted for the act which he had that day admitted. Mr.
Evans said that it was no part of his duty to justify the
conduct of his client, nor did he intend to do so ; but he
contended that the act of which, unfortunately, he had
been guilty, did not in law amount to the charge attempted
to be fastened on him. His assignees had, in fact, brought
it on themselves. They had, as the bankrupt told the
court, allowed him nothing since the time of his bank-
ruptcy for the support of himself and family but 101., and
they had, therefore, forced him to procure money for that
purpose as he best might. His Honour then proceeded to
deliver judgment in the matter. He said : The bankrupt's
certificate is opposed on the part of the assignees upon
various grounds which have been the subjects of very
lengthened examinations and inquiries, and all of them
involve very serious charges against the bankrupt, so much
so, that it is contended they are sufficient to call upon the
court to refuse granting any certificate whatever. The
followhag are the charges made against the bankrupt,
to whiclif refer in the order in which, for the sake of
convenience, I propose to discuss them : First, fabricat-
ing debts, to which may be added fabricating a sale of
property, which has been also mentioned as an objection;
secondly, fradulent preferences ; thirdly, dealing in
accommodation bills; fourthly, concealing property and
books ; fifthly, misconduct since bankruptcy in preventing
correspondence relating to the estate from coming into
the hands of the assignees; sixthly, destroying, altering,
mutilating, and falsifying books of account; seventhly,
prevarication in his examinations and attempting in such
examinations to conceal the true state of his affairs ; and
lastly, bad book-keeping, and keeping them in that manner
artfully and for particular purposes. I have carefully
gone over and considered the various grounds for these
objections, and after mature deliberation I have come to
the conclusion that, with the exception of that relative
to the father's claim, and the dealing in accommodation
bills the whole of them have been sustained nearly to their
full extent, and as they are all of a very grave nature I
have felt bound to consider this as a very gross case, and
that I should not be doing justice either towards the
bankrupt's creditors or the public at large, whose protec-
tion also 1 am bound to consider, if I were not to mark
the court's severest censure of the bankrupt's conduct by
refusing to grant him a certificate, and I therefore refuse
to grant it upon any terms. I will now proceed to state
the grounds upon which I have come to that conclusion
(which I think it desirable to do fully in this matter) ;
and first as to the objection of a debt of 5,5001., alleged by
the bankrupt, as well as by his father,!to have been recently
owing to the latter from the bankrupt, and which, with
the exception of a trifling balance of 21. Os. 4d., is alleged
to have been recently discharged by the bankrupt, and
by which moans the disposition of so much of his ascots is
professed to be accounted for. But the claim is contended
on the part of the assignees to be wholly fictitious, and
certainly all the circumstances in reference to it,
especially as they appeared previous to the hearing on
this certificate, are so fall of doubt and suspicion, as fully
to justify the assignees in raising such an objection, and
bringing it forcibly to the notice of the court, as a ground
on which alone, if sustained, the certificate ought to be
refused; and it is with considerable anxiety that I have
proceeded to consider all the circumstances relating to
this objection, which involves so serious a charge, not
only against the bankrupt, but also against his father (an
old man of seventy-eight years), and also the bankrupt's
sister ; both of whom, if the debt should be held to be
fictitious, would justly be chargeable with conspiring
with the bankrupt to defraud his creditors. This claim is
stated by the bankrupt to have arisen from remittances
by way of loan, and from supplies of goods made by the
father commencing as far back as January, 1832, and
continuing up to the end of 1836, constituting at that
period, with the interest thereon, a debt of about 3,2131,
after credit being given for several remittances from the
bankrupt to his father during that period. From
this time the debt became, as alleged by the
bankrupt, increased to the amount of the claim
in question, by means of the interest calculated
up to the Ist of January, 1855, after credit being given
for remittances of 901 in each year on account, and this
debt, with the trifling balance before mentioned, is alleged
to have been discharged under the following circum-
stances. His Honour then proceeded to consider those
circumstances. In the early part of December, 1834, the
bankrupt sold to a Mr. Woolescroft, an attorney's clerk,
who in the following month became his son-in-law, a
vessel called the Euphrates for 4,5001, and for which he
gave the bankrupt his acceptances, payable at twelve
months' date. These acceptances the bankrupt remitted
to his father at Frankfort by letter, dated the 3rd Jan.,
1855, in part payment of his claim ; and by letter of the
25th of the same month of January the bankrupt remitted
to his father a further sum of 1,0001 in Bank of England
notes in further payment thereof, leaving the trifling
balance before alluded to. The bankrupt was, in the
year 1832, in partnership with a Mr. Smith, and it was
to place him in that partnership concern, which
lasted up to 1839, that the father made him
advances to the amount of 30001 as part of the capital, but
it was singular that there was no entry or notice in any
of the bankrupt's books of the father's claim, or of any of
the remittances or supplies of goods, with the exception
of a single entry in the bankrupt's journal under date of
the 31st December, 1852, of the amount of the father's
claim, and also excepting a book containing entries in the
bankrupt's handwriting purporting to contain the whole
account relative to the father's claim, and with the
further exception of certain entries in the partnership
books of Smith and Claus, which on a recent examination
of the bankrupt were pointed out by him as having re-
ferred to these remittances and supplies, although neither
that of the name of the father nor that of any other
person except the bankrupt's appeared in them. These and
the many other circumstances of a minor character which
transpired during the examinations threw great doubt
on the genuineness of this debt, but as he
considered there was some slight testimony
in favour of it afforded in the entries of the
partnership books of Smith and Claus, and also as
it was supported by the affidavits of both his father and
sister, (though he regretted that the latter at least had
come over to be examined, orally touching it), he did not
feel justified in saying that the claim was fictitious, and
should, therefore, wholly regard that objection as unsus-
tained. He considered, however, that all the circum-
stances connected with the sale of the Euphrates to
Woolescroft, were so suspicious, as to warrant an almost
irresistible inference, that it was merely fictitious, got up
with the view to some ultimate benefit to the bankrupt,
and that the bankrupt was aware at the time of the sale,
that his affairs were, if not in an insolvent, at least in an
embarrrassed state was manifest, he thought, from the
contents of a letter from him to Messrs. Syer, 'Walker &
Co., dated the 31st of Oct. 1854. Under all the circum-
stances attending it, he felt to consider that the
alleged • sale of the Euphrates was a fictitious one, and
that it was an attempt upon the part of the bankrupt to
commit a gross fraud upon his creditors. It might be
observed that in considering the alleged sale of the
Euphrates to be fictitious, it should follow as a conse-
quence that the debt of the father was also fictitious, as
the taking by him of the bills given for the supposed pur-
chase money for the vessel, might be considered as a mere
subterfuge forming part of the scheme concocted to defraud
the creditors, but as it did not appear that the father
(who was a foreigner living at Frankfort,) knew any-
thing of Mr. Woolescroft, and as it was probable that the
father might have considered, that in taking those bills,
he had some additional security for his debt beyond what
he had before, he (his Hoilour):did not consider that ques-
tion sufficient to induce him to alter the conclusion he
had before arrived at in reference to the father's debt.
value of forhBisA property formed
Ills Honour then referred to the second groundofsoobtjoeock-
tion, that of fraudulent preference, and in doing
occasion to taoftaelrlude to the fallacy of the estimates of the
by the bankrupt. The
bankrupt alleged that towards the close of 1854 the value
from consignments accountsxl had,
expected
from of his ships and all other property was 40,0001. and odd,
paying
hgaednadlitltoi
addition
es t
roleitaahlbieislei
ttii.es
surplusHitis
tow obuel de
however, been carefully examined by the order of the
court by Mr. Harmood Banner, and it was found that in
hDecember, 1854, and putting the most favourable value on
was a property
r
tyietnheat so tar from there being a surplus there
of 12781.. He was therefore bound to

TRADE REPORT.-TUESDAY.

LIVERInOL

There has been an active market for cotton to-day, and with
a brisk demand, and bare supply, prices are A. per lb higher
than on Friday last. The sales—including 200 Pernambuco,
_ _ _

Gid to 64d ; 1,500 Bahia, sid to 6d ; 30 Maranham, 6d ; 400
Egyptian, 6d to 70 : 1200 Surat, 31/1 to 41d—are reported
15,000 bales, of which 8000 are on speculation ar d for

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(PROM OUR OWN REPORTERS.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.-TVEgDAY

LIFE PEERAGES.

The House met at two o'clock, and sat as a Committee of
Privileges to consider the question of Life Peerages.
Some documentary evidence was produced by Mr. SHARPE,
of the Rolls Court, including several Parliamentary records
of the reigns of Richard the Second and Henry the Fourth,
but which being► printed in Latin were referred to the Law
Lords for consideration.

The sitting was chiefly occupied with desultory conversation.
It was ultimately agreed that Lord Wensleydale should be
heard either by himself or counsel on Monday next.
Their lordships then adjourned.