The Sun.
London, England, 1855-10-29 00:00:00

Danish Bonds on which the question before the court
arose, and said the jury would have to consider whether
or not they could reasonably infer that the transactiens
which took place in reference to those bonds were such as
from their nature partners in the same bank must be cog-
nizant of. It had been proved that those bonds had been
purchased for Dr. Griffith and left with the defendants for
safe custody, and they were particularly marked by their
amounts, dates, and numbers. It did not appear whether
Dr. Griffith had ever seen them, but that was not mate-
rial, for it was not necessary that lie should see them
in order to be their owner in point of law. Dr. Griffith
stated that he had transacted his business almost solely
with Mr. Bates, and that he had never received the
slightest intimation of any change having taken place in
the custody of these bonds, the interest for which he had
carried to his account every half-year, and that he never
gave the defendants any authority to sell or convert them
to their own use. After the application at Boer-street
Mr. Strahan called on Dr. Griffith, and, admitting that
some securities had been disposed of, added that it was
the first dishonest act of his life. That observation, how-
ever, referred to the 5,000/. Danish Bonds subsequently
purchased and substituted for the original bonds, and not
to the bonds mentioned in the present indictment. Mr.
Strahan's counsel had told the jury that they must take
this statement into consideration, and conclude from it
that Mr. Strahan was not cognisant of any previous im-
proper proceeding done by another in reference to tbo
securities. However, ho ~Mr. Baron Alderson) must
tell the jury that they were not bound to be'iere either
the whole or any part cf the statement made by
Mr. Strahan on that occasion. They must take it into
their fair consideration es one of the circumstances in
the case, and no more. Mr. Strahan was certainly in-
correct in saying that ti-at was the first fraudulent trans-
action on his part, if he were a party to the transaction
of 1854, unless he salved his conscience over by the no-
tion that reparation was made for that which before was
, a wrong act, and that the wrong had been removed by the
*subsequent substitution of fresh bonds. It was just pos-
sible for persons totako that view of their conduct, but the
law did Lot. The jury were entirely to judge on that mat-
ter; and here he would observe that the statements put in
for the purpose of ma,kieg a "disclosure" showed that Dr.
Griffith had been a loser to a considerably larger amount
than the 5,0001. Danish Bonds in question. The checkfor
12,228/., which was paid in bank-notes, was dated March
18, 1854, which agreed with the items in Sir J. D. Paul's
private account. A clerk of Foster and Braithwaite re-
ceived the bonds from Mr. Beattie, and there could be
no doubt, from the numbers and amounts of the bonds
sold, that among them were those bought by the firm
in 1851 for Dr. Griffiths, deposited by him in their hands
for safe custody, and safely kept by them up to that
time. These bonds wore thus sold by Sir J. D. Paul,
and this transaction was the subject of the present
charge. Thera could be no doubt as against Sir J. D.
Paul—waiving for a moment the question whether the
disclossre before the Court of Bankruptcy were an answer
to the present charge—that a clear offence against the
statute had been committed in disposing of these Danish
Bonds intrusted to him for safe custody. This was a clear
breach of trust on his part, which breach of trust in a
banker was punishable as a reisderneanour by the 7th and
Bth Geo. IV., chap. 29. He should not have considered
it necessary to carry the case any further, but evidence
had been called to show that the bonds were sold to
Messrs. Rothschild, Cohen, end other parties, that these
parties received the dividends upon them, and that the
defendants had ceased to have any property whatever in
the bonds thus sold by Foster and Braithwaite, although
the dividends were regularly carried to Dr. Grif-
fith's credit. Then the gentlemen bad been called who
negotiated this loan, and who proved that every bond
had a distinct number, the conclusion being that these
Danish Bonds were individual things, which were not
to be replaced by other bonds of equal value. There be-
ing, then, a clear case against Sir J. D. Paul, unless he
had absolved himself by the disclosure, the next ques-
tion was whether the other two partners were parties
to the transaction. A partner was civilly responsible
for the acts of his copartners. And why ? Because by
an agreement between him and his copartner ho was con-
stituted an agent for all acts done in pursuance of the
partnership for his copartner. He was therefore civilly
responsible for all acts done, either in the presence or
absence of his copartner ; but he was not responsible,
and could not be held responsible for any act done by
his copartner criminally ; because no man could consti-
tute another his agent to do a criminal act without his
personally desiring him to do it, or acting with him in car-
rying it into effect. Ile was only criminally responsible
for the acts of his partner if he personally took part in the
transactions, and therefore the jury would haveto look, not
merely to the question of whether Strahan and Bates
were partners in the cencern, but also to whether they
could be considered as being parties to the criminal act
of Sir John Dean Paul in selling the bonds in question.
If they were not proved to their satisfaction to have been
in a state of what was celled " complicity" with Sir John
Dean Paul in the act with which he was charged, God
forbid that they should be held responsible for his crimi-
nal conduct. When the jury came to take the case into
consideration they would nue, however, together leave
out the circumstance of their being partners, because, as
partners, they might have a knowlege of the nature of
the business which was going on, and it was for the jury
to say whether, being partners, arid having the means of
knowing, the circumstances were such es induced them
to believe that the defendants did know and were privy
to the fraudulent transactions which farmed the subject
of the present charge, What were the ciscumstances
which were calculated to lead to the inference of the
guilty complicity of all the partners! In the first
place there was the money which was brought to the
bank from the sale of the bonds by Messrs. Foster and
Braithwaite, and the aggregate amount of which was
placed to the credit of the private 'account of Sir John
Dean Paul. He would not contend that it would neces-
sarily follow, but, generally speaking, he thought a
partner would inquire how, and under what circum-
stances a sum of 12,0001. or more came to be 'placed to
the private account of one of his copartners. Then,
again, they were told that the securities of Dr. Griffith
were kept in the strong room, and there appeared no
reason to doubt that they were there up to a certain
period, after which they could not have been found, nor
were any others substituted for them until the month of
June. Did people never walk into their strong rooms,
or !mow what was in them, or did they not look after
the securities deposited with them, or were they not pre-
sumed to look after the removal of any portion of these
securities ? The defendants had the means of knowing ;
the question was, did they make use of those means,
and did they know the circumstances 1 Then there was
the circumstance that afterwards the whole of the de-
fendants made a statement, or " disclosure," as it was
called, in which they spoke of the 5,000/. Danish Five
per Cents. deposited with Messrs. Overend, Gurney, and
. Co., on the 30th of April, 1855, and followed by 10,0001.
Three per Cent. belonging to Dr. Griffith, sold by Messrs.
Foster and Braithwaite on the 14th of March, 1854.
But nothing was said of the 5.,000T. being sold in the
first instance. They stated the feet of a partial sale, but
they did not state the whole of it. Did they know the
whole transaction, or part only If they knew the
whole, why was ;t that nothing was said about the first
sale 3 Or did they think that the substitution of one set
of bonds for the other took away
rt the fraudulent
case charac-
ter of the first transaction ? One pa o the wag
perhaps not so strong against the defendant Bates. He
did not state in his examiaetion that he knew of hie, own
knowledge of the males or deposit of securities, or had
anything to do with them. While the other defendants
in their separate examinations spoke of securities
"pledged or converted by me," Bates only spoke of
securities "pledged or converted by any or either of my
partners." With regard to Strahan there was the cir-
cumstance to be taken into consideration of his state-
ment to Dr. Griffith, which had been urged as negativing
to some extent the fact of his knowledge of the first
transaction. This was a circumstance in the case proper
for the consideration of the jury. the evidence showed
that the act of selling the securities was the act of Sir J.
D. Paul,' but if the jury,were satisfied the act was done
with the knowledge and consent orthe other defendants,
and for the purposes of the Ugh they were equally guilty