Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-06-22 00:00:00

CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY.

At the Central Criminal Court, on Saturday, John Hind
May, 33, William Taylor, and George David Myers (the
latter two of whom surrendered to take their trial) were
charged with conspiring to obtain property of the value of
nearly £l,OOO, from 'Thomas Gorman and Alexander
Lawson. Mr. Gifiord and Mr. Poland prosecuted. Mr.
Sergeant Ballantine, Mr. Huddlestone, and Mr. Hawkins,
attended specially on behalf of Taylor and Myers, and
Mr. Robinson appeared for May. This case was com-
menced on Friday, and was adjourned at seven o'clock
till Saturday morning. The prosecutors are Irish
oambric handkerchief manufacturers, at Lurgan, in Ireland.
and the defendant, Taylor, is an agent for the sale of
goods of that description, and was consider a highly
respectable man. In February last Mr. Gorman took him
some samples of handkerchiefs and asked him to endeavour
to dispose of them, and he agreed to do so, and shortly
afterwards Taylor wrote to him stating that he had found
a purchaser in Mr. May, of Huggin-lane. From inquiries
made by Mr. Gorman he refased to let May have his pro-
perty, and it appeared that Taylor then wrote to him,
stating that Myers and Co., late of Ludgate-bill, would
purchase the handkerchiefs upon certain terms, and he
advised him to let them have them. He agreed to do so,
and. the goods were sent to London, and it appeared that
all the defendants looked at them, and they were then
removed to May's warehouse in Higgin-lane, and two days
afterwards were sold to Messrs. Meeking, Holborn, by
May, for little, more than half the price at which
they had been invoiced to Messrs. Myers, and there was
some evidence that May had paid two cheques, one for
£lOO, and the other for £5O, to the account of Myers,
after the transactions Under these circumstances, it was
alleged on behalf of the prosecutions, that the whole of
the parties had combined together to O'btain posses:ion of
the goods and defraud the prosecutor of them, and that
the sale to Myers was merely a trick to deceive him and
induce him to part with his property. It .was
admitted, however, that Taylor had borne a most
excellent character, and was always looked upon as a
very honourable man, and- it also appeared that Myers
was a wealthy man. Mr. Serjeant Ballantine made a very
powerful address to the jury on behalf of his client Taylor,
urging that be had acted perfectly honestly throughout the
transaction, and that whatever might have been the con-
duct of May or Myers, that he had nothing whatever to do
with any illegal proceedings, and he particularly remarked
upon the absence of all proof that he had in-any way bene-
fited by the transaction even to the extent of his commission.
A great many highly-respectable witnesses were examined,
who gave Taylor the best possible character as a man of
honour and integrity. At the sitting of the court this
morning, Mr. Robinson proceeded to address the jury on
behalf of the defendant May, and he contended that there
was no evidence to show that he had conspired illegally ;
and he said, that although he might have acted improperly
with respect to the goods in question, he submitted that
there was nothing to show that the bills would not have
been given for the goods but for the course that was taken
by the prosecutors, and in the result those hills would
probably have been paid. He also said that it was clear
from the long period the case had been under eiscussion,
that a criminal charge was an entire afterthought,
and that if the money could have been found for Mr.
Gorman, the present charge would never have been heard
of. Mr. Ilawkin next addressed the jury for Myers, and
he adopted pretty much the same line of argument as the
other learned council, but he contended that Taylor had
clearly exceeded his instructions, in allowing May to
obtain possession of the property, and that Myers had
given no authority, and was in no way responsible for the
proceedings that took place, and that there was an entire
absence of any evidence to show that he was actuated by a
fraudulent intention. A great number of respectable
witnesses were examined for the defendant Myers, and
they all gave him a high eharaeter for honour and integrity.
The jury retired at twenty-five minutes to four o'clock,
and returned-into court at twenty minutes past four, when
they gave a verdict of guilty against Taylor and May,
and acquitted Myers. They at the same time strongly
recommended Taylor to the mercy of the court, on account
of .the good character he had received, and also said they
were of opinion that Messrs. Meeking ought to have excl..
cised more caution before they purchased the goods.
Baron Channel', in passing sentence. said he entirely con-
curred in the verdict of the jury, and although he was
not called upon to do so, yet he could not, at the same
time, help saying that he concurred in the observation
respecting the conduct of Messrs. Meeking, because he
could not help considering such a proceeding was cal-
culated to strike at the root of all honest and fair dealing
in trade. Believing that Taylor had, to a certain extent,
been made the dupe of May, he should make a difference
in the sentence he should pronounce, and he should there-
fore order Taylor to be imprisoned for six, and May for
twelve months, with hard labour.

-PAINFUL CASE.—On Saturday evening, a youth about
15, :.ay well dressed, and said to be the son of a former
g overno.t. of the borough gaol, named Hightley, was arrested
at the Pi `a. .head Baths, under the following painful .
cir-
cumstance?. Fur some time past a number of bathers
complained at their clothes (whilst they were engaged
bathing) had bei"ti rifled of money and other things, a watch
was kept, and sUqlicion fell on the prisoner, who was in
the daily habit of c'o'ming to the baths. On Saturday
evening the superintent.'ant of the baths directed a gentle-
to mark what money he' had whilst going to bathe. He
did so, and marked 275. Is4e prisoner was in the place
at the time, and soon after t.he money was marked, left.
The gentleman was called, and 01 his money was gone.
The prisoner was arrested, and on his person was bound
the exact sum marked. He was lodge,d in the Main Bride-
well, and will be brought before the ,magistrates this
morning at the Police Court.

DUCHY OF LANOA.B rER.-BERTOLACOPS
PETITION.

The committee met on Friday for the first time. The
following members were present:—Mr. T. H. S. Sotheron
Estcourt. (chairman), Viscount Goderich, Mr. J. Hans
Hamilton, Lord Harry Vane, and Mr. Wm. Coningham.
Mr. F. R. Bartolacci was the only witness examined.
Having stated the circumstances connected with his dis-
missal from the office of auditor of the Duchy of Lan-
caster, and which have been already set forth in his peti-
tion, he said that Mr. Roebuck had advised him to hold
over the petition until 1857, in order that it might receive
the fullest consideration. Until his appointment, the.
auditors were not excluded from the court or council of. the
Duchy. The court and council were identical to 0, certain
extent. Mr. John Lockhart was his predecsaaor, and he
was told that he was a member of the ;louncil. He was
given, somewhat vaguely, to underetand that he was not
to be a member of the council nuless whsn the duties of
his office required that he should be present at the council.
After taking the oath of office, on the 15th May, 1854,
the clerk of the council told him that his patent would
be forwarded to him, and he did not get the patent until
three day s after he was in office. He was not aware,
until his patent was sent to him, that an attempt was
made to curtail the functions of his office. There were
formerly two auditors, one for the northern, and the
other for the southern portion of the duchy. In 1854,
Lord Belper, then Mr. Strutt, stated in the House of
Commons that he was a person of high character. He now
understood that it was intended to exclude him from the
council. Lord Belper told him that circumstances might
arise which would require his attendance at the council.
He was refused free access to the minutes of the council on
the ground that he was not a member of that body. The
auditor was required to be a party to the sale of any duchy
property. Notwithstanding his exclusion from the council,
he was called upon to sign the bills of sale of the duchy pro-
perty, and attach the word " auditor." The bills stated that
the prices obtained for the property were the best that could
be obtained. The property was not put up to auction, but
was sold to parties who had made private contracts with the
Chancellor of Derby. He was called upon to sign these
private contracts. He objected, because he was not aware
of the contracts until after they were made, and because
he was not consulted as to them. He objected in
the first place to the mode of auditorship, and he also
objected to affix his signature to these documents, because
he thought there was not a. fair valuation put upon a
particular portion of the property. He wrote to Earl
Granville on the Bth of January, stating his objections in
detail. The answer was that the Chancellor thought that
he had mistaken the land; that he did not think it neces-
sary to have a new valuation, as the rating of 1828 was
considered rather a heavy one ; and that it was not consi-
dered that the land sold had increased in value. The
letter concluded with the remark that the auditor's name
was merely attached to the bill to show that the sale took
place in conformity with the law. The witness had not
concluded his evidence when the committee rose, and the
examination will be resumed this day.