The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-01-20 00:00:00

VIVERPOOL BANKRUPTCY COURT.

BEFORE MR. COAIMISSIONER PERRY. •
IN RE WILLIAM TYSON.—Tbis was the. adjourned
cereifie toe rueetin e Mr. Aspinall, instructed by Mr.
LoWrfes, opposed onbehalf of the assignees: and Mr. John
Yates, jun., appeared for the bankrupt.,. Mr. Aepinall, in
opening the opposition, slid that the task imposed on him
would be one of little difficulty, were it. not for a circom-
stari6 which he had 'observed throughout the whole case.
felt that it would be unnecessary for him to bring
beCie the court the many and various circumstances which
arose out of, the case against the character of the,bankrupt,
were it not for the alinoit defiant aspect in which the case
was oresented to the court, from the beginning to the end,
by ilie gentleman who appeared on the bankrupt's behalf,
and in whose judgment the court, and all who knew him.
had the greatest possible confidence. Indeed, he (Jr.
Aspinall) would not be at all surprised if it were
attempted .to be shown that the bankrupt, who had
untioubtedly committed the most grievous offences against
theh'nereantile law and public good, should be considered
.ce e of the most honourable traders and respectable men that
e vet:, 'came within a court of justice. He believed that
,`there was against the bankrupt a catalogue of commercial
effeeces. such 'a's imperatively called on the court to
pronounce upon him as severe a judgment as ever was
passed on any bankrupt. He proposed to go very shortly
thrOu,gh this catalogue, though he conceived it would not
be necessary to trouble *the court with with any lengthened
statement of matters which had been again and again before
it, and which, in his (Mr. Aspinall'e) mind, appeared
amply sufficient to satisfy the court that the bankrupt had
been gulty of more than ,one offence pointed out by the act
Of Pirli:iment. lie would begin with the minor offences, and
though. if they stood alone, he would not press them, still
they we-e here so ietertVeven with the bankrupt's acts, that
they deserved consideration when determining the punish-
Ment which his conduct merited. The learned counsel then
„referred to the removal of part of the bankrupt's furniture,
and contended that though it was done by his family yet
that he eonli not but have been cognisant of it. The next
,offetece.which he adduced was the payment to Mr. Wright
,of Crosby of a sum of money after the bankruptcy; for
ttoCit ;le the receipt was dated the 14th June, yet when they
coeehlered the manner in which all information in regard
to such pevme,n's were dragged from the bankrupt, there
could, be but little dotibt that the payment was after the
stoppage, and probably after the bankruptcy. The next
offence in order was the payment of the £370 trust-money
to Mr. Jones, and this the learned gentleman characterised
as a most distinct case of fradulent preterenee. With re-
gard to the transaction with Mr. Humphreys, he (Mr.
Aspinall) feared that there would be a difficulty in making
it out strictly an offence within the 256th section of the act,
but the Court could not overlook the varying statements
which the bankrupt made in regard 'to it, and should infer
from-them and his general conduct in the matter that at the
time the bankrupt himself knew that it was not, to use a
mild phrase, commercially honest. The next matter which
he should urge against the bankrupt was that,which above
all others in the case had excited public attention. He did
not say for one moment that because, it had excited public
iii;eantion the Court ought to lay greater stress on it than if
ihe case came now for the first time before it ; but it would
be' impossible to deny that the transactions of the bank-
rupt with. Mr. Pemberton called for the strongest comment.
did not *ant to make more allusion to it than was
necessary, Mr. Pemberton not being before the court, but
,one could not help speaking of it when considering a case
`scarcely
highest possible commercial importance. One could
conceive a question which in a Court of Bank•
ruptcy was of greater importance, than the question
whether the conduct of the bankrupt in this matter was
such .as to enti le him to his certificate—whether he was
jestified in borrowing money at such enormous rates of
interest, and particularly so when not compelled to it by
eni.sfertune on misfortune, or by What might be called the
iiressere of the usurer; fir by his own admission as elicited
from him by his own attorney, he was once clear of Mr,
Peenberton, lent nevertheless again wilfully and deliberately,
knowirg what had before occurred to him, and what it,
would cost him, actually ran his neck into the noose, not
to destroy himself, (that would be a matter, simply of his
own choice) but to destroy the estate and property in which
his creditors had an interest. Despite of that consideration
be went on.borrowing money at rates of interest, the very
!tuentobo of which alarmed one—X3 per cent per month, £6
per cent. per mouth, in addition to further commission when-
ever Me. Pemberton had occasion to resort to his banker
for money, and in fact, it would seem that he was always
prepared to give any amount of interest so long is the lender
was prepared to give him money. It was impossible that the
court could say, that a man who was wilfully guilty of such
transactions, under circumstances of peculiar flagrancy, with
reference to the omission of any statement of them in
his-hooks; that a person who, while contracting heavy
liabilities, and leading his bona fide creditors to believe that
he was acing honestly by them, was at the same time
deliberately putting it out of his own power ever to be able
to Tay-any of their debts, it was impossible for the court to
''say that such a person was not guilty of 'contracting debts
by fraud. Could, it be suppoied that, if he had told the
nature of his transactions with, Mr. Pemberton to his
`creditors, they would have continued to give him credit ?
Not one of them would have done so. They might have
excused an indiscretion or rash speculation, but they cer-
tainly would be far from sanctioning in any way a course of
conduct which could not but end in ruin. It was impossible
that a man who had been guilty of transactions of that
description could be allowed to go unscathed out of a court
which had in its hands the care of the fair dealing and
commercial honour of the community. No honest man
vrould-sanc ion it for a single instant; but that the court
Would alloW such a case to pass from under its hands without
the strictest jedgme nt and reprobation which the legislature
empowered it to pass was not to be supposed by any one
Who knew how' justice was administered in Thie country.
Having referred to the manner in which the bankrupt kept
his books; th'e omission from them of most important entries,
the learted counsel continued to say that if ever there was a
case which made it the duty of the assignees to ask the court
to refuse the certificate absolutely, the present was such a one.
There were Offences proved against the bankrupt any one of
which would make it a grievous and shocking scandal to the
whole commercial world, if he were again admitted within
the commercial circle wirbout payment of his debts; and
he (Mr. Aspinall) hoped that the court would show by its
judgment that it entertained the same opinion Of the case.
Mr. Yates said that it now became his duty to address
the court in support of the application of the 'certificate ;
and'he might observe that whatever else characterised the
ease; itwas, at all events, distinguished by the most relent-
less and eppressive opposition that was ever offered to any
bankrupt in the court, and that though those gentlemen
who urged it thought that they did so in the discharge of
their duty, he was satisfied that the day wo aid come when
they would regret it. At this very moment, two thirds of
hie creditors entertained for bin, the.very highest respect,
nor had he forfeited the good opinion aril good 'will of
the enass of- people.with whom he had- come
;into contact
in the course of his tradings, which extended over twenty one
years. It was unfortunate for the bankrupt that so much
publicity had been given to the case. Every day bad they
the newspapers caLiig attention to "Tyson's bankruptcy;"
they had second and third editions about it ; it had furnished
them matter for articles, and in every way public attention
had been called t I', though with the exception of one sin-
gle subject presenting no new feature. Because he happened
to have been in contact with Mr. Pemberton, and to have
borrowed money at a large. rate of interest, the newspapers
considered that it was interesting to the public; bat while
they gave to the public all that they considered interesting,
ifo pittilidity whatever was given to the statements in
explanation. He ventured to hope that the court would be
free from the prejudice 'attempted to be imparted into the
the case, and that it would receive at,, its hands an impar-
tial hearing. Mr. Yates then reviewed in their order the
three first charges .urged against the bankrupt, and con-
tended that a case should be ititrinsically weak when it was
necessary to lay such stress on charges so susceptible of
refutation. As to the removal of the furniture, it
was done in his absence, and without his know-
ledge, and the moment he be'came aware of it,
he Mentioned the circumstances to the messenger of the
court. As to the alleged payment to Mr. Wright, of
Crosbe, he himself
,denied it, and when shit denial was
borne out by the receipt,' it was most extraordinary that
counsel should have asked the court to infer otherwise. As
to the payment to Mr. Jones, it was trust money, and was
paid under pressure ; while his transactions with Mr.
Humphreys, notwithstanding 'all that had been said of it,
was no homiest and bona fide a one as could be. The,bank-
toot wanted money to carry on business. He applied first
to the first mortgagee on his property ; then to the Borough
Bank ; and finally to Mr. Humphreys, who had bills to a
large amount rattling against the bankrupt. He lent
the money the bankrupt paid back a pertioe of it to meet
bills'falllng due '(What was there improper in it ?) ; but
the result showed that if Mr. Humphreys bad refused the
mortgage, and held the bills, be wouldhave obtained more
mon'ey; And 'now, as to the impro_perobankeeptcy: It could
not be denied but the books were badly kept, but he sub-
tnittkl that it would be unfair to break the bankrupt
on the Wheel fOr an offenco against the law of bankruptcy,
of which every tradesman in Liverpool was in fact, guilty.
There was net a tradesman or merchant .
through Liverpool,teirbooks a
that not
even the assignees, who would carry roug h
temporary loan.' It might be better _they did so, but
they knew that sums were every day borrowed under such
circumstances and no entries made of them. With regard_
to the borrowing of money at excessive rates of interest, he
(I.lr. Yates) was not at all going to defend it, and he was
sorry that the bankrupt should have given occasion for its
being urged against him as ground of opposition, The
moment that he heard that there had been such a borrowing,
he suggested to the bankrupt that they should get an
account, and to that Mr. Pemberton very fairly consented.