The Express.
London, England, 1868-08-15 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—Lsisne, AUOUIff 14.

(Before Baron Bramwell)
•
amen MUM"? XL COMMIE, MP.
The court was for some time occupied in trying the ease
of "Thompson and others v. Candlish and others," the
evidence relating to transactions in the iron-ship building
trade.
Mr. Field Q.C., and Mr. Hemplay for the plaintiffs ;
Me. Seymour, Q.C., and Mr. Willa for Mr. Candlish, M.P.
for Sunderland ; and Mr. Price, Q.C., for Mr. Poe,
another defendant.
The plaintiffs are engineers at Newcastle, and the
defendants, in 1866, canted on the Teeslron Ship-building
Works' at 'Middlesborough -a place which was -known td.
have been a ming one until troubles eame over the com-
mercial world in 1868. This action was probably one of
the fruits of that unfortunate state of things. Candlish
and Fox introduced a Mr. Bewley into their business, and
obtained for him credit by recommending him to theme
who had been in the habit of dealing with
=." They did not make the engines for the tan
ships which they built, but bought them from the makers,
and among others from the plaintiff& In January,
1866, they entered into a contract with the plaintiffs to
'apply a pair of 70-horse power marine engines at the
prkoe of 2,6661. The money was to be paid in three in-
stalments—one on the let of April, the second on the let
of May, and the third on the oompletion of a satisfactory
trial trip. Messrs. Thompson and Co. proceeded to do
their work according to the contract. When April led
came round, as the payments were to be bilis of exchange
for six months, they drew a bill on tho defendants for
8601., which was one-third of the contract s
and
and that bill was accepted by the defendants and
returned to the plaintiffs. On the 3rd of April the
plaintiffs received a bitter from the defendants asking
them not to posh forward the engines as much as they
had done ; but on the let of May the plaintiffs drew a
second bill on the defendants in respect of the second
instalment, which had been agreed upon, and wrote to
the defendants, enclosing it. On the 9th of May the
defendants wrote to the plaintiffs, saying that they had
arranged to transfer their business to Thomas Newton,
Benney, and Co., and they must please draw on them for
the two last instalments due on the engines. Up to that
time Thompson and Co. bad never heard anything of such
people as Berney and Co. in connexion with- the Tees Iron
Shipbuilding yard. Another letter reached the plaintiffs
from the defendants, saying that they had that clay dis-
posed of their business to T. Benney and Co., by whom in
future it would be carried on. Messrs. Thompson and Co.
replied that not being acquainted with the new firm, and
their contract being with Candlish and Co., they must
hold them responsible to the end of it ; but if Candlish
and Co. would give an undertaking they should be wil-
hng to draw on the new firm, and suggested that the
simplest plan would be for Candlish and Co. to put their
endorsement in the acceptances of T. W. Bonney
and Co. On the 11th of May Candlish and Co. wrote
to the plaintiffs Raying they need be under no appre-
hension as to the responsibility of the parties (Benney
and Co.), as they had entered into the concern with a
considerable amount of capital, and the plaintiffs would
do well if they could secure them as customers • also
wring that if the plaintiffs would go over to )(Adios-
borough they should be glad to introduce them to Bonney
and Co. One of the plaintiffs went to Middleeboreera
and was there assured by Mr. Fox that Mr. Benney had
brought 9,0001. or 10,0001. of capital into the business.
The consequence of that was that the plaintiffs drew
upon Benney and Co. for the second instalment of the
soft of the engines which became due. The ship was
completed, and she made a satisfactory thud trip, upon
which the plaintiffs drew on Benney and Co. for the third
and last instalment, and it was duly accepted. But when
the 18th of November arrived, and the first of Bonney
and Co.'s acceptances became due, it was diehonoure
and within a month afterwards Benney and Co. made an
assignment for the benefit of creditors. The plaintiffs
immediately applied to Messrs. Candlish and For, and
asked them to pay the second and third aoceptanoos. The
tt,tresint action was brought to recover 1871. 195. 6d.,
the balance due for the value of extras
w • had been done to the engines by the
orders of Berney and Co., but which tho plaintiffs
never would have done but for the faith they had in the
defendants' representations as to Benney and
Co.'s circumstances. Denney having become bankrupt, it
was found that so far from having gone to Middlesborough
with 9,0001. or 10,0001., the whole sum that be brought
into the business was a bill of his father's for 7251.98., and
'All. 18s. 6d. in cash. He then said that all he could possi-
bly scrape together would be about 300/. more.
After the evidence for the plaintiff had been opened,
Mr. Seymour urged that there was no case against Mr.
eendlish, as Mr. Fox had made all the agreements with
the plaintiffs, and in law what Mr. Fox did could not bind
Mr. exindlish.
Mr. Field agreed in this objection, and the case against
Mr. Candlish was abandoned.
Mr. William Thompson, one of the plaintiffs, Mr. Bon-
ney, Mr. Fox, and his principal clerks, and Mr. Candlish,
were put into the witness-box. After a lengthened exa-
mination the Jury brought in a verdict for the plaintiff,
without any intent on the part of the defendants to
defraud.
. . .

—Theludge—That is a verdict for the defendants.
The Foreman—Then we cannot agree as to the intent.
His Lordship ordered the jury to consider the matter
again, and shortly after they gave a verdict for the plain-
tiffs—damages 1641., there having been a dividend of 2s.
N. in the pound.
CROWN COOWf.—(Before Mr. Justice Lush.)
BANTRIIPTCY TRAITDB DT ♦ eoucrros.

William Untein, on bail, 60, solicitor, was charged with
unlawfully concealing and embezzling 241. 6s. Id., he
laving been adjudged bankrupt, and omitting the same
from his schedule, and also concealing and embezzling
17/. 7s. 7d., and withholding certain mere ; also making
a false entry, by stating that George Peacock was a bad
debtor for 3471. 12s. 75. ; also omitting from his said
schedule the said sum of 171. 7s. 75., and a bill of
exchange, dated 20th January, 1866, drawn by Pontius
Nieman upon and accepted by the Northfieldlron and
Steel Company (Limited) for 1,000/.; also witholding the
production of certain papers, and omitting from a cer-
tain documene the said bill of exchange; also falsely en-
tering that the said Northfield Iron and Steel Company
(Limited) were his creditors for 36/. 2s. 6d.; also conceal-
ing from hia assignees that the said debt of 1,000/, or any
part thereof, was due to him, with intent to defraud his
creditors, at Sheffield, on the 7th July, 1867, and other
dates. . . _

Mr. Dieby Seymour, Q.C., Mr. Pitzjames Stephen,
Q.C., and Mr. Bruce were for the prosecution ; and Mr.
Price, Q.C., Mr. Vernon Blackburn, and Mr. Barker re-
presented the defendant.
The prosecution was directed by Mr. Commissioner
Ayrton, and was based on the 221st section of the Bank-
ruptcy Act, 1861. Mr. Unwin carried on for some years
the business of an ironfounder, at the Albion Ironworks,
Sheffield ; he was also an attorney in extensive practice,
and carried on the commercial trading business with
which he was oonnected with varying amasses ; and on
the 7th July, 1886, he was adjudicated a bankrupt. His
debts amounted to about 190,0001., of which sum there
was 20,000/. secured. His assets, on the other hand, only
amounted to .1,0001. When the details of his business
came to be inquired into, and especially upon the occasion
of examination in Hvcember last, at the instance of the
assignees. certain facts, and certain lights upon facts,
were then for the first time brought fully to the know-
ledge of the assignees, anti they disclosed a state of
thin 7 which led step by !deli 111) fo the prevent inquiry.
The examinations of the defendant, as taken in bank-
ruptcy, were read by the clerk of arraigns. They were of
a very voluminous character, and occupied the court a
considerable time.
Mr. Price, for the defence, contended that the clause in
the Bankruptcy Act did not bear the construction which
would warrant the present prosecution. Had the defen-
dant in this case removed moneys to some Nam with the
intention of preventing the assignees getting possession
of it it would have been different. With reeptmt to the
charge of embezzlement, there could be no embezzlement,
because in no sense whatever could the defendant be
called either a clerk or a servant.
The Judge—The section means that an offence is created
when a bankrupt appropriates to his own use.
Mr. Price -The words are very precise—" Removing
moneys. goods, or household furniture, or concealing goods
or money.'
His Lordship—After adjudication the bankrupt has no
ProPerty.
After Mr. Price had advanced other legal objections his
lordship overruled them, but promised to consult with
Baron Bramwell before he decided whether he would re-
serve the points in question.
Mr. Price then addressed the jury on behalf of the de-
fendant, urging that the case was one of slight suspicion
only, and that the defendant might, whilst undergoing
examination, and owing to infirmity of recollection, have
forgotten altogether at the moment the sums which he
was now charged with embezzling.
Several witnesses were called to speak to the defendant's
ekaracter.
The jury, after some deliberation, returned into court,
and found the defendant guilty of embezzling the two
sums in question ; guilty of fraudulently withholding the
notices of dividends; and guilty also of fraudulently omit,
ting them from his balance-sheet. They, however, recom-
mended him to mercy, on the ground of' the good character
he had received.
His Lordship intimated he would sentence the prisoner
to-morrow morning.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—LrvratrooL, AUGUST 14.
In the Nisi Prim' Court to-day, before Mr. Justice
Mennen, the action brought by Mr. Edwd. T. }lollop, a
financial agent residing in Manchester, against Nears.
Ooodier, Stretch, and others, proprietors of the Brinooed
colliery, to recover 1,0001. commission, was resumed. The
oommurion was claimed for services alleged to have been
rendered by the plaintiff in obtaining a loan for the com-
pany, the money to be advanced by an insurance company
OD certain conditions as to life insurance. being effected.
By consent a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of
ma was entered.

During the ptiNt quarter of a century Horninnuf
Tema have had an lemma. Rale, and they are ad. perpoand cheaper
eonvequenee of the Roduovd Duty. Hold, secured In baskets,
never loom., by 400 confectioners in Lndon, and MOO char dais ta
the eeemery.--rAdvertieemeat.