The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-04 00:00:00

Fittynes V. Lyon
...

She'silon :. litefon
and another •
Betyworth and another
v. Tatman' and atm'.

COURT OF CILA:4CERY, 31nxnAir, Jur.y 3.

On his Lordship's coming intoCoart this morning, he said there
were two causes in which he would,,tive judgment to-morrow : the
names of them were Lancaster sad Atk neon, and Goodson and
ElliFnn. In both those causes ha had hoped that a compromise
would have taken place, but as the partiis were not so disposed,
he would deliver his judgments to-filo:tow. In the case of Lan,
raster 0. Atkinson, it was a suit between two sisters, one of whom
filed it hill against the other, charging that, at a particular period,
the defendant found the means of taking a large sum of money eta
of the escrutoire of their common father, and had appropriated tl.e
same to her own use and benefit. Upon the death of the father
the plaintiff and the defendant proceeded under his will to
divide the property of the deceased between them, with the
exception of eight hundred and seventeen guineas, two halt
guineas and a seven shilling piece, which the defendant was
c'isrged IT the bill v ith having abstracted from the place
of its deposit. The diitendlut, in her answer, seemed to
suggest or intimate that the charge might he retorted on the
plaintiff, and she added to that, th tile plaintiff had possessed
herself of sums of money during her life-time In the same way :arid
the defendant further said that the dealings which she (lie defend-
ant) had with the Bank, arose out of her proper savings. Ili. fle-
nour (the Vice-Chancellor), on hearing the cause, directed an issue
to try whether the money in question had bean in possession of the
father in his life-time.

His 14011D9111P said that he considered that decree to be right at
far as it went. Upon the other hand, unless something !toed in the
way of further proceedings, in point of form the defendant had, as
a matter of justice, an equal right of inquiry against her sister; and
therefore he should direct an additional issue to meet that right. A
more unpleasant case could not hnve been filed on the records of the
Court; but as there did nut appear any hopes of a compromise, he
would deal with it according to the justice of it. Ile would pel
the terms of the issues to be tried. and would hand them down to-
morrow morning.—As he had intimaud, he would give judgment
in " Goodson and Ellison," and in `• Exparte Harrison in the mat-
ter of Sykes," to-morrow.
The Court was occupied the remainder of the day in hearing
appeals of no public interest.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COFRT, Jrcv 3.

DOLLAND IN THE MATTER OF MARSH: STIACEY, AND

CRAHA M.

...... •
In support of the petition in this case, Mr. MoarrAol.7 applied
on the part of Mr. Rolland, the riesignee of the joint estate of
the bankrupts, for the direction of the Court, respecting a claim of
91,0 W. moueht to be proved by the assignecof the joint estate,
against the separate estate of Henry Fauntleroy. the Learned
Gentleman confessed tint he had been originally of opinion
that this was a claim of which the Commissioners could take
cognizance without the interposition of that Court ; but when
the matter had been, on a former occasion, brought helot* his
Honour, the Court decided that the Commissioner* had not ore.
ginal jurisdiction to that extent. The assignees being the same
for both estates, a trustee had been appointed for the separate
estate, and in hat condition the parties now mine before the
Court. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to state, upon
the 'affidavit of IVilkinson (the accountant under the Commis.
'ion), that several sums of money. amounting in the whole to
91,09Nte, had been fraudulently abstracted from the partnership
funds by Henry Fauntlerov. and applied to the augmentation of
his own separate estate. The items of this nature were in num-
ber between thirty and forty, but it would suffice for the satisfac-
tion of his Honour's mind, to refer to one only. The instance to
which he should confine himself related to an entry in the books
of the firm, in the hand.writing of Fauntleroy, debiting the house
with a sum of 5,600 e as purchased in the 4 per cents. on the 13th
June, 1822. for Major Sire, whereas ZOO/. only were so laid out ;
the joint estate had, in consequence, been rendered liable to Mawr
Sire for the balance (1,e00f.), who had subsequently proved under
the joint commission issued against them for that amount. lie
(Mr. Montagu) apprehended that there was no rule more
clear (for in it his Honour the Vice-Chancellor and the Lent
Chancellor both concurred), than that where one partner ot
firm fraudulently abstracts from the partnership funi, fur the be-
nefit of his own personal estate, that private estate is accountable to
the joint estate, under a commission of bankrupt, bir the amount
so abstracted. But, as in the present case, the omission of the
proof must depend upon the facts of fraudulent abstraction by
Henry leauetleroy, the course to be pursued was, by directing an
inquiry for the Commissioners as to that fact ; and upon their re-
port to the Court, his Honour would direct whether or not the
debt now claimeel ought to be allowed to be proved against the se-
parate estate. He understood that his Learned Friend, Mr. Rose,
had been instructed to argue against the admission of that claim,
but he tele. Montagu) was utterly at a loss to conceive what an.
swer to it could be set up.
Mr. RosE, on the part of the creditors of the joint estate, resisted
the inquiry demanded, contending that. upon the principle of con-
venience, a principle on which that Court always acted in cases tf
bankruptcy, his Honour would not order an inquiry into accounts
so complicated as those of the parties in the present case ; a pro.
ceedirg which would be so extensive as to swallow up the whole
assets of the separate mate, unless, indeed, in the first instance.
the principles upon which the application fur such order was founded
should have been clearly made out. In the case before the Court,
those principles had been by no means clearly established. The
application was founded upon the affidavit of the accountant, which
sated that, owing to a certain disposal of the funds of the firm by
Henry Fauntleroy, the joint estate hail become subsequently
chatged with certain debts. Here was no proof, however, that
Fauntleroy had fraudulently, and without the privity of his part.
tiers, taken the moneys in question ; and unless the fraud were
clearly established, and that it was for his own private use that
unfortunate man had committee it, there was, lie would contend,
no case made out by the petitioner. On the contrary, there was
every reason for believing, that the lion had all the benefit of
Fauntleroy's frauds ; those had been frauds committed upon indi-
viduals, customers of the firm, which would enable the creditors of
lie joint estate to prove against the innocent creditors of the sepee
rate estate. He held in his hand the affidavit of Mr. Forbes, the
solicitor of Fauntleroy, which chewed that the ebstractions of that
unhappy person formed, in fact, a part of the system of finance by
which the firm had been supported ; and, indeed, it was very clear
that these bankers had for many years been insolvent--that they
were aware of their own insolvency, anti that nothing could Sire
them from bankruptcy but an interposition of Providence, in the
shape of a shower of gold, or some such ntrangement as that by
which their partner, by his crimes (for such they mien now be de-
signated), ted the partnership fund from day to day. He defiee
his Learned Friend to prove that the money now claimed had been
abstracted for the separate use of Fauntleroy. That unfortunate
individual had been entrusted with the entire management Or an it:.
solvent concern ; and ihere was nu possible mode of keeping up its
credit, unless by the commission of crimes similar to that for which
he suffered, or (as he had already said) the special miraculous in-
terposition of Providence. The Court would therefore see, that
where debts are thrown upon a whole concern, it was not compe-
tent for the joint estate to leave the creditors to prove against tue
separate estate, and plunge it hemp' inquiry that would absorb
the whole of its funds.
Mr. Feenea billowed on the same side, contending that Fume,
leroy had fm.a series of years supported the credit el the linn by
fraudulent means.
Mr. 3loseec n-1 call tiro, Mr. Ferrer to chew his autho-
rity fur stating that tire funds of the house were provided by Faun:-
teeny.
Mr. Fenn E n then read the affidavit of Mr. Forbes, from which
it appeared that several sums of money, which had t een fraudu-
lently obtained by Fauntleroy, had been applied to the uses of
the firm.
Mr. Aimee...icy objected that theft WAR CO official copy et this
affidavit. which must. consequently. go for mstbing.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said it was not iniportatie fur at
It could only form ground fur inquiry.
Mr. Mosrreou was anxious to eat'S expense, and as it was
probable that the Commissioners might at the present time be oat
of town, he was willing to refer the point to the Master.
The Vie E-ClIAXer I. Lott. —I f there were any foundation f r
the auspie on that the other partners participated in the fratitis out..
mitred by Fauntleroy, this would be revery important inquiry.
Mr. MONTARC.-.-WC drty cs et} rind eontaitteal at th4t

drwit. I think it would have been much better if Mr. Forbes had
elated bra it tbathe had received all has facts from Fauntleroy, while
th,t individual was in prison under a charge of felony.
The V tcn•Vit CELLOR.—HeII. ista prima fah: [Mt of fraud
cm the part of laisatlerny. An entry wit made by him in the
Leek* or the firm, stating that he had applied the tom of b,OOOL in
the purcl•ase of stock, when, as it afterwards turned out. only 501)/,
worth had actually been purchased. The defence is that the fraud
bad taken place witb the knowledge and concurrence of his part-
ners. It that were the fact, it is finite e:ear that the joint estate
could not prove ogling the separate e,tste.
Aril" • Consultation between the Counsel on both sides respect,
lug a Teatime,
Ale Ross said, he was inatructed by Mr. Forbes to state, that
then. was no imputation whatever of the mkr partner, being Al-
Meant of the frauds of Fauntlertry in his contemplation when he
wade the affidavit which had been read I bat he (Mr. Hose) sub-
mitted, that if money came even without their knowledge Into
their house, and had been applied to tho purposes of the firm, their
joint creditors must not be allowed to prove against the separate
e•IN11.
Idr. Maseacto.—The derbiration of Mr. Forbes is highly etc-
difahle to him. There is not a single entry in the hooks of the firm
to ,L,ew that the moneys in question were applied to the uses of the
Ills lIONOUR then directed. " that it be referred to the Commis-
sioners so inquire. as against his partners, whether any and what
moneys had been fraudulently drawn by Henry Fauntleroy from
the •partneeship funds, and applied to his own use, and that the
t'ennoissio,•ent be at liberty to sute any matters genetally."
In this order Counsel on truth sides acquiesced.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MONnen. JULY 3,
Till: NINO V. LOWLAND AND ()THEM
This was en indictment. charging the defendants, Hugh Row-
land, Howel Richard Rowland, formerly a partner in the firm of
Ashby, Rowland. and Shaw, of bombardostreet, engravers. Hugh
Rowland, of fluildford, paper.rnalvr, W. Gordon, of Fenchurch.
buildings, Wilhem Knits R. Tavernse. and John honey, fur a
conspiracy, for the purpose of defrauding Mr. Benjamin Shaw and
Ale. Ashby.
The defendants pleaded Not nUillf.
Mr. SCAIII.r.TT said, 313 the two latter defendant' approved to
have been merely instruments in the halide of the others, he was
desirous that a verdict of acquittal should be returned as to them,
and they were acquitted accordingly.
Mr. seeneern. Mr. Ornmer, and Mr. Anoteuos, con-
ducted the prosecution; Mr. COMMON SEUGEANT appeared for
Ilugh Rowland. senior; Mr. 11.10DENICK for Howell Richard
Rowland; and Mr. CHARLF.3 Pitteetes for William Gordon.
The defendant Knox had no Counsels
Mr. Anne en e s otorted the case.
Mr. SCANLETT stated the case for the precaution. lie corn.
;rented by reminding the Jury of the difficulty of establishing a
charge of conspiracy ; because, in cases of this kind, -the principals
always took care to guard 'lndust detection, and it could only be
from the ieferences that could be fairly drawn from the whole corn.
idellion of the transaction, aided by the few facts which the minor
agents could disclose, that the charge could he established; and
he trusted he should be able to lay before the Jury such evidence
at would prove, beyond • doubt, that the partim were guilty
of the charge made against then in the iadictment. In the year
1820 the defendant, Howell Richard Rowland, entered into par.
:Arship with Messrs. Ashby and Osborne, formerly of bombard.
street, and that partnership was, as to Mr. Osborne. dissolved in
June. 1823, when the prosecutor, Mr. Benjamin Shaw, was ad.
mitred into the partnership, in consideration of his bringing into
the firm the sum of 1,0001. By the deed of partnership, Mr. Row.
hind, fun., was to draw and accept all bills of exchange on the prat
of the firm, and the fraud tmr the carrying of which into effect the
conspiracy was entered into was, that the defendant. 11. R. Row-
I Ind, !eel, subsequently to Its leaving theft', of Ashby and Co., in
September, 1821, accepted various bills of exchange fin consider-
*Ste sums of money, and those bills sere, through the agency of
she other defendants, negotiated. Ulan one of those bill. nice.
change an action had been brought some time ago against the pro-
semitone by 31‘.3layhew, of Chancery-lane, who had purchased
it of the defendant Gordon for 10s. in the pound; but so satisfied
were the Jury that for th's bill the firm of Ashby and Co. had
never received any consideration, that a verdict was intim that, ly
found for the defendants. The Learned Counsel having detailed
the facts as they afterwards appeared in evidence, proceeded to call
his witnesses.
Mr. Richard East proved the execution of the deed of partner.
ship between 31eriars. Ashby, Rowland, and Shaw, on the 24th of
June, 1e24.
Mr. Pnidenee proved the execution of the deed of partnership
between 31111011, Ashby, Osborne, and Rowland, in the year 1820.
Mr. Benjamin Shaw, the prosecutor, one of the assignees of the
estate of 31esarti. Howard and Gibbs, stated,-1 paid 1,6001. to be
admitted into partnership with Ashby and Rowland, who were
country bank-note engravers. Rowland acted as cashier. Oh any
return, after a short absence In France, Mr. Ashby applied to me
for an increase of capital, and, in consequence, I wished to inspect
the book.; the cash-hook had a lock upon it, the key was kept by
Roe land. When 1 examined it, 1 discovered that he had not en-
tered the 1.0001. which I had paid, neither had he brought his own
share into aeonunt. The amount of sums stated as received from
country bankers, and not entered in the emit-book, was es imntrd
by Rowland himself at between POW. and 00111.; I subsequently
sitscovreed that it amounted to 1.2801. Rowland said he would get
to his father and get paper to that amonnt. When this happened
1 .bid not know anything about the bills. I said, that unless he
replaced the deficiency. I could not permit him to remain a partner,
and he agreed to go out on condition of my giving him a premium
of 5110/. He said, there would be found on the hooks it sufficient
amount eAvenced by him to pay his share, and that there would
be about 23W. due to him. As I was about to receive 6,0001., and
was anxious to get him out of the concern, I made an arrangement
with him for that purpose, and shortly after he left the firm.
R. Twycrues examined by Mr. (lynx ex.--1 know the defen-
eants Gordon, Knox, and young Rowland. They often met at
Gordon's house. I remember receiving a bill from Gordon, who
wished to have it discounted. I went to Illayhew, who discounted
it. I took the money to Gordon and gave it to Mrs. Gordon. who,
in Cordon's presence took the money, observing, " This is a
snug business and well done." 1 received four guineas for my
trouble. I afterwards met young Rowland, who inquired about
the hill. I told him I had got it discounted, and had given the
money to Gordon. He complained that Gordon had not given hint
any part of the money, and had tali him he had not teceived it.
Gordon wished me to try and get off Shaw as nn assignee of How-
rod end (lihbs, but I refused to have any thing to do with it. I
was in prison with Knox en account of this indictment. Young
Rowland often called upon Kr.ox and gave him money. _
Cross-examined by Mr. Poi tr.I.IPS.-I'here was nobody preterit
at the conversation when 31 f 4. Gordon received the money, excell
myself and Mr. Go don. I remained in prison on account of this
imlicunent for 12 months. I did not apply to my friends to hail
toe. I applied to a friend named Mulligan, but renew' tai be
t.l
renew
bail with the other that was found for me by G on. I dill not
apply to any other di my friends, because Golden kept promising to
had me hail the whole time. I was never up at Marlborough.
term* Police Office on a criminal charge. 1 got qt. for the bill
fro= Mayhew; I kept 71., end gave the rest to Gordon. I told
(cordon it was all 3layhew gave me. I did not tell Gordon I kept
beck 71. Ii was I who first proposed to Gordon to hnve the bill dis-
criunted at Mayhew's. Gordon considered Shaw as the only solvent
name upon the bill, but thought he would not put it without legal
proceedings, and he (Gordon) would not mind taking less than
mete° was werthotoonerthan have • lawsuit. When I took thebill
to 31ayeew, I did not assure him that I would answer for Rtneand's
signature attached to it. Gordon did not tell me that young Row-
land owed him • great deal of money. I have spoken with Shaw
upon the subject of the indictment, but have had no money nom
him-lately. 1 did not tell AI ullagen that I had. I have been lie-
ing in Slaremia.trourt for this fortnight, but I have not slept Mere,
because 1 had business elsewhere. It was not fear of dunning that
made not keep away. I saw Shaw whilst I was in prison, and
knew I was to be acquitted on this indictment ; I knew it, because
1 had done nothing. (A laugh.) I was told it by Revers, persons.
Shaw hinted at it several days aim ; he did not make any terms
with me for it ; he made no conditions with me whatever, nor did
I ever tiny to anybody that he had. I have asked Gordon for mo-
ney, and have received very little from him.
P. Roach was the next what's, who stated that he was an ae-
countant and a enter. He proved that an anonymous letter, writ-
ten
to Mr. Benjamin Shaw, was in his (witnes.'s) handwriting,
which was written by him on the 27th of June, 1824, at the defend-
ant Gordon's house, and at his request. Gordon told er:tness tint
lie had • trial coming on, and that lie wished to have a person to
prove that the endorseme .t on the bill of exchange, to which that
trial related, was male by Ashby end Shaw prior to the disseilu.
time of partnership between them and the defendant Rowland, jun.,
and he said that if he (whams) wo 113 d i such • thii g it would be
worth his white. ileritneas heeita cd, and ultiontely refused to have
anything to do with it.
creme-examined by Mr. Patel try—l am an accountant. I
have never been in a Court of Justice as • Witting betiore. 1 live'
at le, Cumberland-street, Tottenham.cournroad, hut that was not
the address I gave to 31r. Gordon. I told him I would endeavour
to find a perton to prove the fact he wanted, and nuntioned one
Rolverteem whom I thought would do it for iie 3lr. Gordon did
no: turn Inc mit of his house, nor did I ask for 11. for the intro-
duction nt that person to him.
John Moore said he had known Mr. Gordon for eight years, end
recollected that person making application to him in June, 1825. i e-
epeetirg a gmitlenian who resided at Kilburn, and who was emi.,g
abroad to avoid his creditors. He wished some one to go to the
house of that gentleman (whom witness afterwards understood wilt
Mr. Shaw), to swear that he had item Mr. Shaw, and that he had
been denied to hint. and foe this the person was to have ten
rounds. Afterwards Mr. Gordon told witness that the object of this
was to make Mr. Shaw ft bankrupt, and that if they could do that
they could overwhelm him with debt.
Coss-examtre t by 111 r. I'm Let re---I have been abroad, bet
not to Hoteny tiny. I went es Americas in IBM ; I went volun.
tartly, by the desire of the Gave re neat. lit laugh.) I had a
quarrel with fiovetnment at di t isue in Ireland. (Laughter.) I •
tensoined atoned twelveyenrs, and was thee allowed to return home.
Mr. John Shaw, of Siee.lane, Illitekletsbure. was next examined,
who stated that he Reared a hill for 1124 Mt. 4(1. at the request
of the defendant Rowland, jun. the had veered several for
him, some of which Rowland told witness were tor the use of his
father, ore of the other defendants. ''coat;( Rowland, to the
time witness accepter/ the 112/. Itti. hill, observed. that he would
make old Shaw pay that bill. The bill wee dated 17 it Sep-ember,
1824, and endorsed Ashby, R ,alend, mid Co. %Vance. wee se.
rested m Getoirer, 1824. et the suit of lie. a Rickets an attorney.
Mr. alietket proved that be had caustd the last witness to be

arrested on a bill for 11171. RS. fid., which was afterwards paid by
the elder Rowland, anti the bill waa since delivered up to Mr.
liar-
mcr, as that defendant's attorney.
Mr. St Alit ETT called upon Mr. Harmer to produce the bill.
Mr. COMMON SERGEANT objected to the insufficiency of the
j notice, it not having been served in due time, and that the evidence
could not be gone into.
The Loon Ctt.iEt JURTICE decided that parol evidence was
admissible in criminal eases of such matters, and directed that the
evidence should proceed.
Mr. a'Beekct then proved the particulars of that and several
other bills, all of which had been paid by Rowland, sea., and given
up to dlr. Harmer, itie &Putney.
Mr. SCARLY: T then examined Ramey (one of the defendants
that WAX acquitted). as so bin having waited on Mr. John Shaw
while that gentleman was in prison, at the request of young Row-
land, to get Mr. Shaw to sign a written document.
Mr. John Shaw was also re.calletl, to prove that the last witness
had called on him several times with such a document, which he
refined to sign, and which was afterwards returned to young
Rowland.
Mr. SC ARLET T now called for the production of that paper;
but not being able to prove a notice to produce it, the defend-
ant's Counsel refused to admit having any such document.
llamcy was again called, and underwent a close cross-examination
as to his knowledge of the transaction between Gordon and young
Rowland. He stated that he remembered seeing the bill for 133/.
14.. endorsed in the name of Ashby and o. before Rowland had
left the partnership. He denied having received M. or 101. from
W. Hotilint to prove that fact. Ile had been taken before the lewd
Mayor respecting the bill, but it was nut inquired into. When
the ac.ion was brought by Mr. dlaytwow against Ashby and Co. to
recover its amount, witness did not offer his evidence to prove its
acerprance btfure the dissolution.
Mr. Henry Thi•mas, an attorney, was then examined, with a view
to criminate the defendant Knox. He stated that Knox called
upon him and produced two bills ofexchange, drawn by Knox, and
accepted by the defendant Rowland, jun. in the name of the firm
of Ashby. Rowland, and Co., for.bool. Knox informed witness
that a Miss Benton had discounted the bills for him, and wished
that he (witness) would recover the amount from the acceptors.
Knox showed that the consideration for the bills was the assignment
of some property he had obtained in a transaction with a Mr.
went. _ . . .

Mr. Braithwaite, a silversmith of Cockspur-street, proved that
the defendant Knox had offered to make a large purchase of plate
from him, in payment for which he tattlered one of the bills now
produced for :lOW.
Mr, Lloyd proved that the defendant, Hugh Rowland, paid him
a bill drawn by the defendant on Asbly and Co. and accepted by
Rowland, jun., for U2l. 12s.
Mr. Franklin, a rag merchant, also proved that he received a
bill fur 1481. 6a. 1()d. from Rowland, son., dated 301hAugust, 1824,
in which the name of the firm of Ashby, Rowland, & Co. appeared.
George Burge, the nephew of the defendant Hugh Rowland.
proved haring received a bill from him for 1121. 10s. 4d. dated 15th
October, 1024 s which witness still held.
A clerk limn the house of Drummond and Co. proved that the
defendant Lowland, sen. had deposited a 4101 biU at their house,
and subsemiently two other bilis, one for 2001. and the other for
3001., in winch the acceptances of Asbby and Co. appeared. They
were dishonoured, and pm into the hands of Mr. Clarke, Messrs.
Drummond and Co.'s Attorney.
Mr. ( larke proved that he sued the defendant Rowland, Pen. on
one of the bills, whs gave a cognovit for the amount, and the bill
was afterwards given up to him.
Mr. Forney, an accountant, stated that he had examined the
books, and that there did rot appesr to he any deht due from the
arm of Ashby and Co. to Rowland the father. The bills which had
her n p °dated were not entered in the cash book of that firm.
i! employed on the hooka, the defendants Gordon and Row-
land, jun. called co hint. Gordon said he had had some convcrsa.
lion respecting the differences between Rowland and Shaw, and
that he should be glad to lend any assistance he could. Witness asked
him if.he meant pecuniary assistance; Gordon replied, " No, but to
exp'ain the accounts." Witness said it would be material if he would
furnish a list of all the bills in circulation. Gordon said he could
not exactly do that. because Mr. Sbaw had resorted to law. Wit-
ness tasked Mr. Gordon why young Rowland had put such a num-
ber of bills in circulation? to which Gordon replied, that Mr.
Shaw bad used Rowland veto ill in turning him out of the partner.
ship, and that he supposed fie (Rowland) had put them in circula-
tion ito give Slum a benefit ; by which witness understood hint to
mean to punish him (Shaw) for it. Mr. Rowland was then present.
Cioss-examined by the COM MON SE R G FAN T—They did not
laugh when this was said. Witness knew what was meant by the
expression.
Phis witness underwent a long emu-examination by Mr. BRO-
DERICK and Mr. PHILLIPS respecting the entries in the cash
books, and the conversation had between the parties, but nothing
material was elicited.

Mr. Shaw recalled, to prove the payment of the 1500/., the consi-
deration money to be paid by him for being admitted a partner.
Cross-esanrned.—Gordon said two or three times that he had not
a button's worth of interest in the concern : he never said that
young Rowbtnd owed him any money.
.Mr. SCAR LETT said that was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. COMMON SERGEANT then addressed the Jury at great
length on behalf of the defendant Hugh Rowland, the father, and
contended that there was not a particle of evidence to affect him.
It did not appear that Mr. Rowland had ever known of the exist.
ence of such a pnrson as Mr. Shaw. The money was advanced by
him to his son to assist the sinking affairs of the partnership, and the
bills which he received from his son were in consideration of those
advances. His client was a most respectable man, and having al-
ready suffered so much for the faiths of others, it was too much to
attempt to Inculpate hint in any guilt that third parties might have
committed.

.......
Air. Bs ODENICI next addressed the Jury on behalf of the de-
fendant Howell Richard Rowland, and contended, that according
to the trots of the deed of copartnership, his client hail a right to
negotiate bills of exchange in the name of the firm, and that the
whole of the acceptances had been given with a view to prop up
the tottering state into which the affairs of the concern of Ashby and
Co. was involved. It was proved in evidence that the whole of the
bills were drawn and accepted before the termination of the part-
nership, although it had been attempted to be shown to the con-
trary. As to the charge of conspiracy, there was not a scintilla of
evidence to connect ehher of the parties with each other, for the
urpase of concocting a fraud ; and unit ss the Jury were satisfied
that such had been the case they must acquit the defendants.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS, on behalf of the defendant Gordon, eaid,
that however foolishly, or however suspiciously, the- parties might
have acted, still, unless concert could be eatablbthed against them,
or at least two of them, the Jury could not convict either of them
on the present indictment. The Learned Counsel then commented
at great length on the evidence, with a view to discredit the wit-
nesses., and to show that no conspiracy had existed.
The defendant Knox, when called on, was not in Court.
The COM3ION SERGEANT then called witnesses to speak to the
character of Rowittud, sen.

Upwants of fourteen of the most rtspectable gentlemen of the
City of London and of-Guiltitbrel gave the defendant the very best
character fur honesty and integrity of dealing for a long series of
years.
Two persons also spoke en behalf of the defendant fionlon.
At a quarter past eight o'clock the 'Loan CarEr JUSTICE
began to snm up the evidence to the Jury. llit Lordship thought
that ahhough an honourable man would not have acted as the de.
feculent Rowland, Ben. had done, still his Lordship did not knew
that by using the acceptances of the firm in which his son was a
partner, without the knowledge of the other partners, that there-
fore the defendant ought to be found guilty of a conspiracy ; be-
cause it might be, that when he was doing this he was ell along
supposing that these bills would be ultimately taken up by himself,
and that they would nut form a charge upon the partnership. If
the Jury thought this was the intention of the defendant they
would acquit him. The case, however, of Gordon was very dit-
felon and if the witneases ware deserving of credit, he did not see
bow that clefendaut could induce the Jory.to exculpate him from
the charge. If the Jury should be of opinion that either Rowland.
see. Gordon, or Knox, was guilty, then it appeared to him tile,
must find Rowland, jun. also guilty, as he must he aware that
he was acting, not for the bent it of the partnership, but for some
other purpose.
At nine o'oloek the Jury consulted together, and in about ten
minutes returned a verdict of Not Guilty r.* to the defendant Hugh
Rowland the father; and Guilty as to the defendauts Gunton,
Knox, and Rowland the son.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, OwlnnALL, JULY 3.

WILLINSON TATTERSALL.

This was an aci;;Wtecoerth;•iati;;Ticil bags of Egyptian
cotton, vtilucti at 65991. 15*. _ _

_tllt ap,ivartil by the statement of Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN. and
the testiourty of several respectable witnesses, that IMr.Wilkinson,
a respectable merchant in London, bad purchased a large quantity
of Er.yptian cotton, which was to arrive at Trieste ; that he had
authorised his broker at Liverpool to 5e111,500 bags, and that in
the month of February, 1825, the defendant purchased 3D bags,
at 17d. per pound. to be of " the usual average quality of that
interest." The plaintiff having ascertained that the shipping
in the klediteranean was extremely scarce, chartered the ship
Bristol to go to Trieste to bring the cotton to England. In
August the plaintiff received a letter from Trieste, teleising
Lim of the shipment. of which he informed the defendant the same
day. In October following, tlt= vessel arrived at Liverpool with a
cargo of 1;i0t1 bogs, and the tilaintiff then sent the invoice to the
defendant, and tenderini the d liviiry of the cotton: But the
tirrentlatit returned the invoice, and refused to accept the cotton,
and it was for this breach of contract that the present action was
brought.
On the prat of the defendant it was chiefly relied upon that the
plaintiff had not complied with the terms of the contract, in deli-
vering an average quality of the cargo, but hail selected the best
cotton for himself, which yielded a high price in the market, and
left as inferior article for the defendant, that was unmerchantable.
In reply, the plaintiff argued that this was a nacre afterthought ;
she defendant never had applied, till after the action was brought,
to inspect the quality of the cettoit ; awl it was asserted that the
real cause why the defendant had refused to fulfil his contract was,
that between the time that the sale PA place and the arrival of the
cotton at Liverpool a reduction of one-half' had taken place in the
value of the article. _

The defendant offered to prove that he had made aubootics of all
the 34.1 bags of cotton, and that therefore such a reason could not
have Moo need him, because he would have been glad to have
completed his eontr pet, in order to realise the profit on those sub.
asks, if the article had been of an tiAusl average quality • but
The LOUD CIIIEF JUSTICE decided that such evideute was

41.'
Of
-