The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-03-13 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL ABSCONDING CLERK:

" A FAST YOUNG 11.1.N."—Yesterday, we stated that I
clerk who was in the employment of Messrs Batesong,
cotton brokers, had been arrested in London, on a chare
of emb,zzling a large sum of money belonging to
employers. He was brought up before Mr. 01,,
yesterday morning, after the sittings at the policiconne.
His name is Seac,nato Priestly, and appears ail
twenty one years of age. He was dressed ala node od
the unfortunate class of young men called "fast,' tAs
for which Liverroo, is so notorious, as hardly a
passes without witnessing one of these wretched victiol
to "fast living," being brought before the magistrste
1
on charges of robbing their employers, in order to SIP
port an appearance, and be as good as their fellow ah.
ne.gh bullring clerks. From the statement of Mr. Ciesg
and the evidence of detective office Patrick (an active api
intelligent member of the force) it al3l
that on the 3rd instant, the prisoner abscond
from Messrs Batesons, taking with him a sal „„)
money, the amount of which at present esui
not be accurately ascertained. He was suspected °,
irr,gularities in his cash (he was cash keeper in the bon
previously, but nothing serious was imagined, althea;
,here was a watch put on him. When the Prittnine
absconded, officer Patrick was sent in pursuit of him, • 0
he went to Loudon. Finding the prisoner had di
Jersey, he followed him there, but on reaching the mind
he discovered that he had gone away. He came bee 11„6
London, and after a good deal of exertion, he found it
prisoner had taken an expensive lodging at 22, Cetbd
street. At eleven o'clock on Wednesday morni4,,*
officer went to the house and arrested the prisoner in:
The prisoner had gone by the name of William r
He had a parlour and bed room in the house,
doing the whole thing after the most " spicy" nlano
When he arrested him, he toll him that the charge "i„i•
for embezzling same five or six hundred pounds beloel
to ‘lessrs. Bateson, his employers, when he replie!
No, its only £420.'" He then searched the pris°lo,
who had got bank notes and gold to the amount, of s;°lti
with a laFge quantity of new wearing apparel. ge re
the officer that he was lel into the crime by the bad au" do
and example of other parties, who induced him t°
it. In reply to the bench, Mr. Bateson said, at pressio
he could not tell the amount taken by the prisoner. ba
would have his books Ike., ex mined,i and would then
able to come to aconclusion. Mr. Aikin asked 1:0,
prisoner if he wished to say anything in ans ver to the.
charge ? The unfortunate youth.. who seemed to cti
more about his personal appearance than for his degran
position, replied, in rather a careless manner, "° het
am very sorry for it hat I was led into it by (.'";10
parties." Officer Patrick said, he had got a valuable
gold watch, and a considerable quantity of itull,t)
property with the prisoner. He paid (out of the Who
the balance due by the prisoner' at his lodgings te,
London. The officer was directed to retain the proper
and the prisoner was remanded for the pre.sent.

Zir.73RPOOL BANKRUPTCY COURT.

iintiff in the
The agent
!fendant fol•
with an iron
Mr. Bluckt
)ad the iron
The bftt
sure.
'lied by M
Muck roan
hat the illon
and that hig
an
umittiog
e that argil'
The bench
rcitted, sea
prisoner:tont.

ERZ

EA 11°R5

pars 114
ftertal
" tba
k at ot
re 13
it a as
roof-
-19 as
le vie' v
vho dayc
proteFi
,ted ribla

BEFORE MR. COMMISSIONER STEVENSON.
In nthtls SWERBlr•—Yesterday his Honour gave judgment
r
of
gains ease, in which, as will be seen, an important
hre law has been raised. Mr. Pemberton ap-
aei behalf of the creditor making the application ;
sereero Avison on the part of the official assignee.
e."ilnur said—This is an app'icati on on behalf of
assignee'''r for an order by this court requesting the official
Rai. under this bankruptcy immediately to pay over
elan tribute a certain sum, lately paid to him in pur-
eredice is
°f an order of the Vice-Chancellor, amongst the
beatorq under this bankruptcy, without any deduction
by tl arst made thereont far certain extra costs incurred
has beegeMeial assignee in the suit in which such order
a?til;c en made. The circumstances under which this
tnothl;b3n arises are these : Peter Sowerby, who.
lath,
r with his father, Peter Sowerby, became binkrupts
tit Year 1822, and who both obtained their cer ificates
bade YPar, by his will, dated the Ist January, 1851.
aleootlie following direction and bequest : And I
the
.s.,stre
just debts to be paid, in which T include
sl.vannaid in full debts proved on the estate of Peter
it) a'rby the elder, and Peter Sowerby the younger,
Pete,7ll(nission of banknp'cy issued against the said
St werhy the el der and Peter Sowerhy the yourg?r, on
vta, F bruary, 1822. Thomas Avis ;n, of Liverpool,.
direct solicitor to the commission. I hereby will and
earesti.lnY aforesaid executors an trustees within three
ati,i4, 'roll the date of my deceasedto pay unto the official
ktifii,,nee of the aforesaid bankruptcy estate, or to some
Ch,nert'e d Person to be appointed by the High Court of
have erY in trust, to pay all the aforesaid creditors who
le soh Proved their debts on the aforesaid commission, so
-
tatd
cart as will make the dividend on the afore-
Proved
*, state equal to 20s in the pound on all the debts
tialt2siriea vin.g
The no interest thereon to be allowed or
saaid test tar died on the 19th 1/Ternber,
considerab'e personal estate. The corn.
and „P,. of bankruptcy has been brought into this court,
th, Turner has been appointed the official assignee
sled der, and he has lately. as such official assignee,
of lb 4 bill in the Court of Chancery against the executors
that Will Will of the said testator, Peter Sowerhy, allecing
te-th"" debts proved under the said bankruptcy amounted
it the sum of £5,912 17s 7d, and that a dividend of 4s 6d
ttleue„,'„wind had been paid, leaving £4,656 7s 103, the
I,4ce-f" uortaid of such proved debts, and praying that
by a't mentioned sum in full be forthwith paid to him.
bet. e defendants. On the cause coming on for hearing
th,tre, the Vice-Chancellor Stuart, the Court declared
qe'it°,e Plaintiff was entitled to have paid to him, as
sad ;,'` assignee of the estate of Peter Sowerby, the elder,
111f4,• e'er Sowerby, the younger, so much as should be
the "ent to pay the debts proved on their estate, under
te4Ziltniision of bankruptcy issued against them, which
the cried unpaid, and directed an enqniry as to who were
redi'ors under the said bankruptcy, entitled to be
What under the said will, and on account of
abonld Was due to them respectively, and that it
ealr ,ue referred to the proper taxin,, master of the said
that v") tax the plaintiff the costs of' the said suit after
the s `lll, and that such costs when taxed should be paid to
beinr,'d Plaintiff by the said defendants. On this enq iry.
itail,inade, it was found that the sum of £3,126 Sc 10d
e„l4toe to the creditors, or their representatives, and the
,jliati;:4lllng on tor further directions before the Vice-
Veed,„`Lor Stuart, his Honour ordered that the defendants
lhsien" within one month, pay to the plaintiff, or official
l'qe'r,l °I the estate of Peter Sowerby, the elder, and
atpl gets uverby, the younger, the sum of £3,126 5s 101,
hie the defendants should also pay unto the plaintiff
ttiatt,, in the case, to be taxed by the proper taxing
thi, 'r of the court. The defendants having appealed from
rile order to the Lord Chancellor, the same order was
d' With a variation directinc, that the sum of
tilt.t,tir,'23 7d should be deducted' from the before
deereLned Sum of £3,126 5s lOd for legacy duty
the da`i, 10 be payable thereon, and also ordered that
occai:'endants should pay the plaintiff his further costs
ilacit;(llled by this appeal. This sum, after such deduction.
have e° Paid over to Mr. Turner, and his coats in the suit
14 Y'aid en taxed and paid to him by the executors, out of
I testator's be estator's estate; but his extra costs, which have
these en included in such taxation, remain unpaid, and
baao"Oa are now claimed by the solicitor in the snit, to
1) Paidoutof this sum so paid over to Mr. Turner,
4he 50re
t .4, °Y distribution be made amongst the creditors of
tr4,"ator, according to the direction of his will ; and
this ttroer has, therefore, hesitated and delayed making
ereditdistribution• The present applicant is one of the
itaPte:rBl3f the testator and his father under their bank
ke" cielialld has, therefore, applied to this court to make
befere referred to, req tiring Mr. Turner to
l
the °lt,' this sum amongst himself (the applicant) and.a
!ny d creditors under this bankruptcy, without making
'Aar pe e-"etion for these extra costs, or for any other
"that h9e, it being contended, on the part of this applicant,
dietb'°,ereditors are entitled to have the whole ofehis sum
tv4l,euted amongst them, so that each may receive full
clibt.lt shillings in the pound on their respective
take To this application a preliminary objection has been
leak'', on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction t
hti4edi any order over the sum in question, but which
enchretinli, it is contended on the other side, is clearly
4.l4rred upon this court, under the 12th section of the
Ltlll:!'t't Law Consolidation Act, as having control over
lio," In the hands of Mr. Turner, as an officer of this court.
to ' the words of the 12th section, which can be considered
4.'4113' manner to affect this question, are as follows:
the court, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction,
Intik,has.: superintendence and control in all matters of
ktlYe'llPteY, an,l shall hear, determine, and make order in
te,,,-atter othankrentcy whatever, so far as the assignees
relating i 0 the disposition of the estate and
aadaof the bankrupt, oe• of any estate or effects taken
b"orettile bankruptcy, and c'cirned by the assignees for the
:ithltof the creditors, and also in any matter of bankruptcy
4.110 hoer, as between the assignees and any creditor or other
511,)t;,alaPearing and submitting to the jurisdiction of the
°„ltti,:nl and.i under some one of these provisions, morei.n
te'arlet under the words, "relating to the disposition
tfee2te estate and effects of the bankrupt, or of the estate or
,%,hieni taken under the bankruptcy, and claimed by the
'lst,;_es for the benefit of the creditors," it is contended
'ttlq,..Lais court has full authority to make the required
t
This is a very important question, involving
t4rb" authority of this court to make the order appliedh
atillioti if it should be considered that this court has such
ll'e.thrttY, then also involving the question whether. it
acede;dutV of the court to require this fund to be distri •
l'ibie,,`o like manner, as if it formed part of the estate
ttlq "„t to the bankruptcy, and therefore in respect of which
4adeetight to be the usual course adopted of advertising
‘llqatftlaring dividends, the expenses of which and other
ikt Charges ought to be borne and paid out of this fund.
'est,eiaidering that the sum in question arises out of the.
I,ertiti'f,eB Property, acquired after he had obtained his
"`ltltit.,ate, and the beuest of which is purely a matter o.
itiet,"„Ott the part oft he testator, it appears to me that it
rice it fall under any of the provisions in this 12th section ;
as abcannot be deemed to be part of the testator's estate,
Mate-,lL(rupt, nor can it, I think, be considered to be
,it; 'at en under his bankruptcy, for I apprehend that
,'")tb''eatnstanee of the fund having been directed to be paid
°fficial as:ignee, must be regarded as merely a selec-
be„Yatbe testator of the official assignee, as a convenient
e-em distribute the funds according to the purposes of
tip,";tu, and that he does not take this fund in his official
t'le%4, but as a person answering to the description of
tractboast for
assignee, under the bankruptcy, and as a Alive
for the creditors, as the intended objects of his
vlbic y' There is nothing in the orders made in this suit
thick „Cln, I think, alter this view of the case ; and I
,
tqe„ toe circumstance of the testator having directed the
e4tltl)7:t° be paid either to the official assignee, or to some
o erreee
Oat,. Person, to be appointed by the High Court of
f7ttat-e'rY, strongly confirms this view, showing that the
h'illtiTer.was merely selecting a person as trustee. And
teig thriongi, also, that the Court of Chancery
the
proper to appoint come
.per.so.n to
thl'l4 6-n "le money, no question as to the julisdietion of
1`,,15e,-41 would have arisen ; and, taking this view ef the
which the fund becomes vested in Mr. Turner,
has not, I think, any control over the fend in his
Ie even as an officer of the court, for, quo ad, this fund
tVr'not,
Ar I think, be considered amenable as such officer.
appears, to me that h eve no jurisdiction over
r't'e uo, but wee the creditor, like any other ordinary
4enr 2'4e treat, must enply to the Court of Ch.ancery. to
4r • ''Org,be a correct distribution
-e what he may consider to
to win • I
which do not, of course
es'ttoe,
,Some conversation took placepropose to give any
their own costa.
e that each party shouldpaays to.but his
I?,e,'lnberton gave notice of appeal, and his Honour fixed
,41-4e'',8,,,t at £3O.
t4,„4 '.le,"• Gees —The bankrupt, a builder, of Egerton,
his last examination. Mr. Evans appeared for
11;e1-Inees and offered no opposition. The bankrupt
111,412 a'dav was fixed for the certificate meeting._ _
tippe-,,tavAM LEVI.—On the application of Mr. Wood-f
trp,l7 last examination of this bankrupt, outfitter, of
Was adjourned, ,by consent, for a week.
541?1t41-„c4.1.1e AND FoDEN.—The last examination of these
14"Ire"elci% commission agents, of Liverpool, was also
Att

11
ape°rtant decision has been made by the ms2i3tratei
hie etaetafelt Petty Sessions. Mr. James Morrow of
NI '44°43°n, caused a carman to be summoned for driving
(144,1: and cart on Sunday. The Bench decided that
`frth,r had any authority for driving on the Sabbath
(;'„l2 o'clock on Saturday night until after 12
)i.,
14 Ninday and for all carmen to take notice from
e that the 'lowest fine they could enforce in future
41 sterling.—Newry Telegraph.

COTTON BROKING EXTRAORDINARY.

CURIOUS DISCLOSURES,

At the Manchester Bankruptcy Court, on Wednesday,
the case in re Wright, a bankrupt, was proceeded with, and
the examination of Mr. John Norms, formerly a cotton
broker, of Liverpool, who sought to prove a debt of
£30,000, was resumed. In reply to questions pr ,posed by
Itlr. Attinson, Mr. Nunns made the following statement :
Toe total amount of my charges for comrnision, from
September, 1854, to July, 1856, when the bankruptcy
took place, is about £5,010. This is for buying, selling,
and forwarding. The total amount of cotton forwarded
by m 9 during the same period to the bankrupt's two mills,
for consumption, was abmt £44,047 17.4 71. The letter
now produced is in my handwriting. The following is a
copy :

Liverpool, 27th October, 1855,

My dear Mr. Wrighf,—l beg to enclose you your accounts,
made up to April, 1855. The remainder to this date you
shall have early next week. I shall expect to see you on
Monday, to arrange something about payments, &c.—Your
sincere friend.

When I stated the other day that when a delivery of
accounts was made they comprised all the transactions up
to the end of the month when scch deliveries were made,
I misunderstood the question. What I meant to say was
that several acccounts were sent in together, containing
the transensactions of each month, but that they were not
sent in always up to the month preceding that in which
they were delivered. The answer, therefore, which I gave
the other day was not c trrect. The accounts between Sep-
tember, 1854, and the bankruptcy were sent by my clerk.
When they were sent I cannot tell. I have no doubt the
bankrupt would have an account for each month. I can-
not tell what were the accounts sent subs( qeent to April,
1855. The account lam preparing will Or's, the names of
the parties from whom the purchases were inVe, so far as
relates to cotton purchased for resale. The same infor-
mation can be furnished with regard to the cotton for
consumption, if required. At the request of the bankrupt,
invoices purporting to be of cotton purchased from me were
sent to Samuel Lees and Co. They were made as in the case
of a purchase. When this practice was first commenced, I
did not know what the bankrupt's object
,was. The cotton
purporting to be mentioned in these invoices never had any
existence, and all the alleged purchases from me were ficti-
tious. I suppose the bankrupt's purpose in requiring these
invoices to be sent to Lees & Co. was to enable him to raise
money from Lees & Co. During 1855 and 1856 I prepared
38 of such invoices. The invoices were prepared from old
The
and the weights were copied from old invoics.
The amount of the invoices was taken from bankrupt's
instructions. The amount of each was not to exceed
£l,OOO. They were generally for £950. These are
entered in the contract book as cotton bought, per Samuel
Lees and Co., on bankrupt's account. Messrs. Lees are
creditors in respect of these transactions. These invoices
were generally sent by me direct to Samuel Lses and Co ,
without the intervention of the bankrupt. S tmetimes I
received, in return from them, remittances to the amount of
the invoices, less the usual discount for cash, and sometimes
the bankrupt received the money. The amount of the invoices
so sent to °am uel Lees & Co. was about £37,000. This prac-
tice was continued up to the time of the bankruptcy. The
last was dated 23rd Jane, 1856. When remittances were
sent to me as mentioned, I was certainly aware that they
were so sent on account of the fictitious invoices I had for-
warded. It was upon account of these invoices that I
made a claim upon Samuel Lees and Co., for brokerage,
and they paid me. This has been adjusted since the
bankruptcy. I have given the bankrupt credit in the
account sales for the total amount of these invoices
sent to Samuel Lees and Co., debiting him with inter
est in the account current, and charging bim a c
mission, as in a sale. The entries were precisely the
same as on the occasion of my making a sale for him
of import cotton. If the invoice was made out to Joseph
Wright and Co,' I charged one per cent for selling, and if
made out to " Joseph Wright," I charged one per cent. for
selling, except when I drew, and then I charged one and a
half per cent. I never drew in respect of the cotton pur
chased by the bankrupt in the name of Joseph Wright and
Co., which was his Stockport firm. The applications to
me by the bankrupt t prepare and send those invoices to
Samuel Lees and Co. were by word, and also in writing.
I produce the following letters I received from the bank-
rupt, dated December, 1854, February, May, and October,
1855 : _ _ _

Caton, 6th December, 1854

My dear John,—l forgot to tell you yesterday, to send
Samuel Lees and Co. an invoice for cotton, dated 4th Decem-
ber, for £930 or thereabouts, on account of Stockport mill
This will come in for a payment to Marriott again Send it
to-morrow.—l remain, your sincere friend, J. WRIGHT.
Caton, 15th February, 1855.

My dear John,—You will receive, I expect, from Samuel
Lees and Co., from £9OO to £l,OOO. Pray manage to pay
Marriott a thousand pounds, to make all right with them. Send
to Samuel Lees and Co. an invoice for £950. It should have
been sent before. I, however, named it to them on Tuesday.
Date it last Saturday, 10th February, for Caton. You can
arlogiso for not sending it sooner, as you have had a wedding
in the family. As to the £l5O I must beg by all means that
ynn will manage this for me. Do, by some means, my good
fellow, or I shall get into disgrace with Mr. Lees, and I am
most anxious not to do so.

Caton, sth May, 1855.

My dear John,—Have the goodness to send to Samuel
Lees and Co. an invoice about £960, for Stockport. Date it
to day, the sth May. You had better send it on Monday.—l
remain, dear John, your very sincere friend, J. WRIGHT.
Caton. 30th Oct., 1855.

My dear John,—l entirely forgot to tell you to send
tomorrow, without fail, an invoice for cotton to Samuel
Lees and Co., say about £960. Date it Friday, 26th
October, for Stockport. You had better say you regret you
have omitted to send it before.—l remain, dear John, your

sincere friend, J. WRIGHT.
There are several other letters of a similar kind. There is
one for almost every bill. I forwarded the invoices
according to the instructions in those kters, but I did
not make the apologies as requested. With regard to my
tran4act;ons with Messrs Joseph Leach and Co., on
account of the bankrupt, sold cotton to them on
account of the bankrupt or cash. The purchases were
made direct through me, and not another broker. These
were absolute sales, but the cotton was bought by Leach
and Co., and it was subsequently sold to them on my
account. I have, not given the bankrupt credit for the
profit which arose on such re-sales. I admit that I soli
the bankrupt's cotton to Joseph Leach and Co., on my
own account, below the market price, in order to raise
money for the bankrupt, I charged bankrupt a cprntnis-
sion for selling the cotton on his account, and I did not
infprm the bankrupt that I was myself the purchaser
through Joseph Leach and Co. In these cases, where
I acted both as seller and purchaser of the binkrupt's
cotton, I did not consult him as to the price which should be
required ; but he knew that the price varied according to the
market, from ed to /d per lb for cash, I can, by reference
to my books and accounts, tell what profit I derived feom
the whole of the sales of the bankrupt's cotton to myself
under the circumstances before stated. I think it was
about £5,000. The amount of commission charged by me
on the fictitious sales comprised in the invoices sent to
Samuel Lees and Co., was £265 133 10d, and this was for
the transactions with Samuel Lees and Co. from September,
1854, up to the time of the bankruptcy. The examination
was then adjourned.