Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-11-23 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH-SATURDAY.

THE R)YAL BRITISH BANK.—THE QU ZEN v. ESDAILE
AND OTHERS.—This morning was appointed for hearing
the arguments of counsel relative to the rule obtained by
the above defendants against the Attorney-General, for
particulars relied on to prove the charges of conspiracy
and fraud preferred against them. The Court was densely
crowded. Mr. Dallas, the American Minister, was
accommodated with a seat on the bench. Sir F. Thesiger,
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, Mr. Welshy, and Mr. H. Browne
were counsel for the Crown. Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Sergeant
Shee, Mr. Boville, Q.C., and about a dozen other learned
gentlemen appeared on the part of the defendants. Sir F.
'Thesiger said he appeared to show cause against several
rules that had been obtained against the defendants in
this court, but before doing so he explained the absence of
the Solicitor-General in the case, that it might not be
considered he was neglecting his duties. During the
time of the vacancy of the office he (Sir F. Thesiger) was
applied to by the Government to prosecute, to which he
consented, and he assumed the responsibility of advising
the proceedings. When the learned Solicitor-General
received his appointment, he found him (Sir F. Thesiger) in
his present position, and he very handsomely declined to
interfere. The learned counsel then proceeded to show
cause against 15 rules that had been obtained by the
defendant, which might be consolidated and regarded as
cne for the purpose of their Lordship's consideration.
They, however, varied in some respects, and it was
necessary, therefore, to distinguish between them. Four
of the rules were obtained on behalf of Mr. Stapleton,
M.P., Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Cameron, and Mr. M'Leod, and
were very large indeed, requiring the prosecution to
supply them in writing with particulars of the specific
offences intended to be charged against them under each
of these counts ; then there were also four rules to show
cause why they should not be furnished with particulars,
in writing, of the specific statements of the charges to be
relied on under the 2nd, 4th, 6th, Bth, 9,h, 10th, and 11th
counts ; and one confining the particulars to what was
called the even counts, including the 12th count, particu-
lars of which had been ordered by Mr. Justice Crompton.
The learned counsel then proceeded to argpe that the
counts in the indictment were sufficiently explicit, and it
was for the Court to say whether or no the counts were
of a sufficiently explicit character to give the defendants
a adequate knowledge of the offences they would have to
answer on the day of trial. After a lengthened argument,
in which Mr Serjt. Ballantine, Mr. H.Brown. Sir F. Kelly,
Mr. Sergeant Shee, and Mr. Edwin James took part, the
counsel for the prosecution, on the intimation of the
Court. consented to abandon the general counts in the
indictment, and to furnish the defendants with the
pa-tieulars of the overt acts to be relied on at the trial,
and not to give evidence on any other of which notice had
not been given. Sir F. Kelly, on the part of Mr
Stapleton, applied for additional particulars with
reference to the balance sheet stated to be falsified,
particularly with reference to an item of £610,204 Os. ld.
for convertible securities, &c., &c., without which he
would be unable to answer the charge. A similar
application for particulars was made on the part of Mr.
Cameron by Mr. Digby Seymour. The Court was
unanimously of opinion that the furnishing of particulars
should be left to the discretion of the prosecution,
observing that the accounts referred to had been supplied
by the defendants. Application refused. Further
proceedings were stayed till Wednesday, when the
particulars in reference to the indictments are to be
furnished, that the trial might take place at the after
term of the sittings at Guildhall.