The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-04 00:00:00

FALSE RETURNS IN MARK-LANE, TO
ENHANCE THE PRICE OF CORN.

Yesterday, a subject of the utmost importnnee was brought
before the Loan Mayo': and Mr. Alderman TRostrsos. by the
Receiver-General of the Corn Returns at 31ark.1ane, in consequence
of a practice which has for sonic time existed amongst some of the
corn-factors. _ _

The justice-room at the Mansion-house was crowded during the
investigation, anti the greatest possible interest was manifested.
The defendants are corn-factors of respectability, atal were
legally assisted on this occasion by Mr. A Dot. onus and Mr.
Law; upon the other side was Mr. BOLL•ND.
The LORD Illaroa and Mr. Alderman THOMPSON were
attended by the City Solicitor.
Mr. HONLEII, the chief clerk, stated, that the defendants,
Messrs. Frederick and Thomas Roston, of Mark-lane. corn-factors,
appeared upon set information charging them with having made
false retoma to the inspector. He then read the information,
which statd particularly the nature of the offence, as it was after-
wards described by the Counsel for the prosecution.
The defendants pleaded Not Guilty.
51r. Itot.tann said, he attended in support of the information,
which was filed by Mr. Jacobs, the Receiver-General of the Corn
Returns, for the purpose of repressing a most dangerous practice
which had for some tare existed—he meant the practice of falsify-
ing the returns of the corn sold, in order to enhance the priez in the
market. This scheme had succeeded in the early part of the year
with respett let one article, and attention wax drawn to the tubject
in consequence, *lilt respect to bailey, of which there were great
quantities in bond from foreign parts, and which perhaps it was
anxiously wished b interested permits should by any means what-
ever be released. The Untruth which the defendants were charged
with having told, was, that between the II th and I tith of October,
they had caused to be returned to George Levick, the Inspector of
the Corn Returns for the City of Loudon, an account in which
they represented that they had sold 842 quarters of barley, at
Ms. per quarter, when in point of fact they had made no such sale.
The proceeding against the defendants was founded on the Act of
the Ist and 241 of (leo. 4. c. 117, sec. 12, which said—" And be It
further enacted, that every such corn-factor shall, and lie is hereby
required, to return, or cause to be returned, on the Wednesday in
each and every week, to the said Inspector of Corn Returns, an ac-
count in writing, signed with hts own name, or the name of his
agent, of the quantities of each respective sort of British Corn, ao
by hint sold and delivered during the week, with the total quantity
and value of each sort of corn, and by what measure or weight
the same was sold and delivered during the week, with the prices
thereof, the amount of every parcel, with the total quantity and
value of each sort of corn, and by what measure or weight the
sante was sold, with the name of the buyer thereof, and of the
person for whom such corn shall have Ven sold by hint respec-
tively, in default whereof, every such Cotraattor shall, for every
such offence, forfeit and pay the sum of IW." The Act then goes
on to state, that the Inspector of Corn Returns shall transmit
weekly an account of the quantities and prices of corn received by
him from the Corn-factors to the Receivers of the corn returns.
Without going, Mr. Holland observed, to the full extent, into the
nature and effect of the offence complained of, it was obvious that
it tended greatly to the injury of the fair trader, by contributing to
raise the price of barley. The injurious effect upon the consumer,
also, was very great ; for, although barley was not absolutely so
great a necessary of life as wheat, no one could deny the extensive
importance of H. The practice was thus of double injury. The
Court were aware that when grain attained a certain price, the ports
were open for the admission of foreign corn, and it would be seen
that there were individuals who were desirous of seeing that effect
produced, and did not hesitate to falsify the returns, for the purpose
of producing it. Be should stall Mr. Levick, the inspector of the
Returns, to prove the particular return put in by tire defendant,
and he should also call Messrs. Gosling, the persons to whom the
barley it. question purported to be sold, to prove that they bought
no barley at the time, answering the description mentioned in the
return in any respect. He (Mr. Holland) understood, that for the
defence it would be attempted to be set up, that there had been
some sort of sale or other. Now, not only was it required by the
Act, that there should be a bona fide sale of the articles, but that
there should be an actual delivery • and it could be no answer to
this charge to say, that there had been a delivery by sample, for
there must be an actual delivery of the bulk, otherwise fictitious
sales might be made of any quantity, the same sample bag world
serve in twenty instances, and the purpose of the Act would be
entirely defeated. The Receiver-General of the Corn Returns had
brought this case before the Court, rather than proceed against
the defendants in the Court of Exchequer, a prosecution which
would have proved extremely inconvenient and expensive to the
defendants.
Mr. Anot.rnos said, the 49th section of the Act provided
against such prosecution, and therefore the prosecution before two
Magistrates, which was the only one that could be maintained, was
no great act of mercy or forbearance.
Mr. Levick, Inspector of the Park Returns, was then called—
He stated that he was Inspector of the Returns.
Mr. Anus-anus claimed the production of the witness's ap-
pointment, and when it was produced objected to it as inralri.
The Act states (sec. 7.) "That the Inspector of the Corn Iteturtis
for the city of London, shall be appointed in the manner herein-
after directed : that is to sty, the several proprietors of the Corn
Exchange its Mark•lane„,ahell, and they are hereby authorised and
required to meet, situ under their hands and peals nominate and
appoint tit and proper person (not being a corn-factor, merchant,
clerk, agent, or other person buying corn for sale, or for the sale of
malt, meal, or dour, made thereof) to be Inspector oftdrnlteturni,
and every such Inspector shall be, and is hereby required, within
one week after he has received his appointment, to deliver the same
to the Lord Mayor," &c. It then goes on to require the Inspector
to give bonds, to take an oath for the due performance of his office,
and also to cause the certificate to be enrolled at the Sessions.
The witness, on his cross-examination by Mr. Auotattits,
said that he believed there might be about sixty of the pmprietori
of the Corn Exchange, but he could not positively say. A general
meeting was sumrooned for the purpose of appointing hint accord-
ing to the Act. He was appointed by those who attended, and lie
believed that the signatures, about twenty in number, to his ap-
pointment, were the signatures of those who then attended.
Mr. Anot.rurs contended that the appointment was worth no-
thing at all, as it hail not the Mgr:attires of all the proprietors of the
Corn Exchange. lie could not help the defects of the Act, but it
clearly required that the appointment should be made and signed
by all the proprietors.
Mr. HOLLAND in answer to this objection referred to the next sec-
tion of the Act, which said, in case the proprietors, or the major
part of them, shall refuse or neglect to appoint as aforesaid, then
the Lord Mayor and Aldermen might appoint. The Act, in thus
mentioning the " major pert" of the proprietors, did away with
the position contended for, that the signature) and attendance of
every one of them was necessary. There was every reason to believe,
until the contrary was shown, that those who did sign the appoint-
ment were the major part of the proprietors.
The LORD Maros and Alderman Tito SIPSOg, after consult-
ing the City Solicitor, declared the appointment to be valid.
The witness then produced the return of the alleged sale, which
was signed by the defendants, John and Frederick Ruston.
Cross-examined by Mr. Anocant's.—The returns in question
had a tendency to raise the price too high. lie calculated the average
from the various returns he received.
Mr. A noLPH Vs.—Have you not the power of refusing or dis.
allowing returns when you suppose them to be too low ?
Ni'itness.—l have never seen any thing of that kind in those
returns.
Mr. ADOLPHI:S.--I ask you, have you never disallowed or kept
hack returns, because they were in your opinion too low?
ll'itness.—l swear I never have disallowed or kept back one.
The witness here complained that an unjust insinuation was in-
tended to be conveyed by the question.
Mr. A noLPHUs said, the question cooveyed no more than it was
intended to convey, as he hail an idea somehow or other that returns
were occasionally kept back. There were some persons whose
profits would be mluced by the raising of the prices.
The witness solemnly declared that he never had disallowed a
return.
Edward Gosling, the witness who was summoned to prove that
no such sale as that stated in the return had been made, was then
called, but he did not appear.
The Solicitor for the prosecution said, be did not expect that the
gentleman would appear.
31r. HOLLAND admitted that this information must be quashed,
and he therefore proceedei to the next, which was against the same
defendants, and alleged, that on the 10th of November they made a
t'alse return to Mr. I aevick, stating, that they had sold tin certain
persons under the name of Ford and Co. 2.17*.0 quarters of barley,
at 495. per quarter, to Messrs. Court! and Co.
Mr. Levick produced the return, which was, signed by one of the
defendants. Ile said he knew Mr. Ford as a buyer of barley, butt
be knew no ouch persona as Gourmand Co.
William Ford stated, that he is a maltster, residing at Nine
Elms. Ile had a partner named Hewitt, and they were sometimes
called Ford and Co.. Ford and Hewitt, or Hewitt old Ford; but
his partner did not take an active part, and he alone was known nn
the Corn Exchange. Ile did not sell on the day mentioned in the
roam 2,410 quarters of barley, through the defendants to 51ensts.
Gonne and Co.
Mr. Anna en its cross-examired the witems, to shoat the some
other house, under the name of Ford and Cu. might hate been con-
cerned in the transaction. The witness said, he knew ao other
home of that name that dealt in barley.
Mr. HOLLAND hoped that Mr. Adolphus had come Mate MACE-
ceptionable defence than that which had been adopted in the former
case, in answer to such a charge.
Mr. ADOLPHus then addressed the ('curt for the clefenalents.
Ha said. that without taking into consideration the policy or ism.-
policy of those infomiations, or of the Act of Parliament under
which they were laid. and widloat saying whether or not the inane-
then erect of those returns was to raise the price of corn, he *mild
observe, that there might be some scheme, sanctioned by those
whose object it NW to keep down the rice of corn to an improper
rate, :mil that something might have been necessary to counteract
the operation of such a motive. There were one or two propositions
Set forth by his Learned Friend, which were very far from being
well-founded. He (Mr. Adolphus) contended that it was not ne-
cessary that there should be a delivery of the bulk in order to coo.
'ulnae a delivery within the meaning of the Act of Parliament.
A delivery by anomie lii been held, under the Statute of Festal,
cheisyclithienatshogamyeenoafintedhe
to be a good delivery, and hould be a good delivery here. With
restbuliFteuse sha:roastislaist,ilaocfhmtlieielYinw,teria'eehioancdcirr—ortdsinhtdhicene.hn to purchase the quan-
tity of barley specified, and that they did purchase it of a house
name I Font and Co.; hut the proot of this
iopnwoftiesth.etlheattteirt cowonumlansapeiodniainpsg
case was clogged with
be better to gas.: nu esadence ir.tswer to the case fix the
antiiti asastOtolettitoresp.ererciduthcte
"they: ntoy bduiy6,