The Sun.
London, England, 1830-01-15 00:00:00

SURREY SESSIONS, JAN. 14.

Manvers Parkes aged 60, and Ann Thompson,
aged 40, of respectable appearance, were indicted
for unlawfully conspiring together to obtain certain
goods and merchandize, with intent to defraud, &c.
The prisoners were remanded from the last Sessions.
Mr. THESSIGER stated the ease to be one of con-
siderable importance, and would unravel as wide and
deep-laid plans of swindling and conspiracy, as had
ever been disclosed in a Court of Justice.—
The Learned Counsel then stated the facts of the
case as detailed in the following evidence :
John Disney—Was a wheelright, residing at
Slough, near Windsor. About Michaelmas last the
prisoner Parkei applied to him respecting a cottage
which witness had to let. Witness said he was wil-

ling to let it, when the prisoner saitihis time was
short, .and he would write in a day or t►wo on the
subject. Witness received a letter signed Parkes,
with the address No. 17, Great Nelson-street, City-
road, stating he would give 301. a year for the cot-
tage if witness built a coach-house and stable. Wit-
ness subsequently refused to take less than thirty
guineas, and then told him he had taken another
cottage in the neighbourhood, but that he had a
friend in town he thought the cottage ►would suit;
and in a few days afterwards lie introduced a Mr.
Thompson (the reputed husband of Ann Thompson,
the prisoner, and who, although at large, is included
in the conspiracy). Thompson agreed to take the
cottage. at 301. a year for one year certain, without
a chaise-house and stable. About the sth of Oct.
Thompson received the key of the cottage and took
possession. Witness saw furniture conveyed there
in Mr. Newman's cart. There were a family of
children about the cottage, and he then saw the
prisoner Ann Thompson. They occupied the cot-
tage about three ►weeks, and on witness's going
there at the expiration of that time, he found they
had left the house locked up and empty.
Crossexamined—Did not inquire into the re-
sponsibility of the parties on account of the re-
spectable manner and appearance of Parkes. The
female prisoner was called Ann Thompson, and wit-
ness had no doubt of her being Thompson's wife.
George Hoskins ►was a coal-merchant, residing at
Slough, and let the prisoner Parkes a cottage there,
about the time stated by the last witness at 25/.
a-year for one year certain. He often saw Parkes
afterwards. He saw blinds at the windows a few
days after Parkes took possession. About three
weeks afterwards, from information he had received,
he wqw.to his cottage, and found it empty and the
door Open. There were marks of a cart and horse
having -been there, and an appearance of packing
goods.

Mr. Barton, a cabinet-maker, slated that Parkes
came to his shop, at 'Windsor, and ordered some
window-blinds and bedsteads, which were sent to
his house. The window-blinds were fixed on the
3d of October. Subsequently Parkes ordered, and
had sent to him, two beds, one mattrass, a dressing-
table, and six chairs. 'Witness had never been paid
for them.

Cross-examined—Parkes called twice upon me.
He asked for credit until after Christmas following.
Witness was in the habit of giving credit to re-
spectable persons.
John Thompson, a cooper, at Windsor, deposed
to Parker coming to his house about the 24th of
September last. He ordered an oval tub, basket,
boot-jack, blacking, &c. to be sent to his house,
amounting to 51. 18s. 3d., which were delivered to
the prisoner. There was no agreement about credit
or ready money. On the Saturday following
Parkes erdered some brewing utensils ; hut not
having paid his former bill, witness declined sending
them. A slop-pail and cover of a peculiar construc-
tion were amongst the goods furnished.
Thomas Nixon, dealer in glass and earthenware,
at Windsor, stated that, on the 23d of September,
the prisoner Parkes, called at his shop, and ordered
a large quantity of glass and earthenware to be sent
to his house at Slough. On the 9th of October he
ordered more wine and ale-glasses. The bill in all
amounted to 71. 155., but was not sent in at the
time. He had never been paid.
Michael Atkinson, a shopman to Mr. Beveridge,
an ironmonger at Windsor, stated that the prisoner
Parkes came to his master's shop on the 23d of Sep-
tember, and said he bad taken a house at Slough,
and wanted to furnish it with ironmongery goods,
which he ordered to the amount of 211. 3s. Lpon
being applied to for payment, he said he should
return some of the goods on a certain day, but when
that day arrived he found the prisoner hail de-
camped.

Edward Thomas Newman, a cabinet-maker at
Windsor, stated, that on the 27th of September
last Parkes came to his premises, and said he had
taken a house at Slough, and wanted upholstery
goods, and requested witness to call at his residence
and measure the windows for blinds. Witness
called at his house and received an order for the
blinds. A few days afterwards the prisoner Ann
Thompson, and a person who demeaned himself as
her husband, and described himself as William
Thompson, called upon witness, and ordered tables
blankets, &c., which weresfurnished. In a day or
two they again visited witness, and the prisoner
Ann Thompson selected some mahogany chairs,
which she desired to be sent home that day, as she
intended having company that evening. The chairs
were sent as directed. The value of the goods fur-
nished to Thompson was 401., and those to Parkes
201. In consequence of information, witness on the
24th of October went to the prisoner Parkes's
house, but found it in appearance empty and shut
up. There were evident marks of a horse and cart
having been there. Soon after witness met Mr.
Hoskins, who let Parkes the cottage, and he told
him that his tenant had gone away in.the night.
Witness then pursued on horseback as far as Cran-
ford Bridge, where he took a postchaise and traced
the caravan with goods to Putney, where on the
road side he saw the caravan drawn up, with the
prisoner, Ann Thompson and her children on the
top of it, and two men, named Vaughan and Waters.
Witness passed on to Wandsworth, where he pro-
cured the assistance of a constable, who apprehended
Ann Thompson, and lodged the goods at an inn.
Waters and Vaughan were allowed to go about their
business. Amongst the goods were articles fur-
nished by witness both to Parkes and Thompson.
Thomas Ambrose, of Francis-place, Westminster-
road, deposed to going to Slough with his caravan,
by order of Mr. Thompson and Parkes, and re-
moving the goods from Thompson's house at
Slough, and also certain articles from Parkes's
house. He removed the first load ou the night of
the 24th of September, and conveyed it to the
house No. 5, Barrett-street, where Thompson and
Parkes received the goods. The second load was
taken away from Slough between two and three
o'clock in the morning. Witness had before re-
moved goods for Parkes from Hammersmith. The
man Waters assisted in loading the van. He then
lived in Stamford-street, Blackfriarsi-road, but the
house was now shut up.
.John Thomas Collins deposed to apprehending
Ann Thompson by desire of Mr. Newman, and of
securing the van of goods.
The various tradesmen who had given evidence
had examined the goods seized in the van, and found

various articles they had furnishel Loth to Thomr-
son and to Parkes.
Mr. JEMMETT, for the prisoner Parkes, contended
that no conspiracy had been proved.
Mr. BACON, as Counsel for Ann Thompson, fol-
lowed on the same side, and urged that she was a
married woman. True it was she might have
pleaded an abatement ; but she had been ill advised.
The Learned Counsel was about to hand in a copy
of the certificate of marriage, but not being authen-
ticated, the Court refused to receive it. Mr. Bacon
then proceeded to comment on the hardship of
Thompson's case. She had been in priso❑ four
months, and was the mother of six children ; and,
whether she was married or not, she had acted
under the orders of her natural protector. He
trusted the Jury would pronounce a verdict of
acquittal.
The Jury, after some minutes' deliberation, under
the direction of the Court, acquitted Parkes, but
pronounced Ann Thompson guilty.
Mr. Serjeant SCRIVEN passed judgment. The
sentence of the Court was, that Ann Thompson
should pay a fine of 20/. to the King, and be im-
prisoned till that fine was paid.
The prisoner, who is endemic, was supported in a
chair whilst judgment was passed.
The CHAIRMAN then warned Parkes of his future
conduct. _ _ _

Parkes was arrested for debt directly he left the
Court, and was conveyed again to prison.
The Court was crowded throughout the trial,
which lasted nearly the whole of the day.

NSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JAN. 14.

John Ironside, a cow-keeper, late of Little Saf-
fron-hill, was opposed by Messrs. HEATH and
COOKE, on behalf of three creditors, named Biggs,
Dawkins, and Welch.
The insolvent came first before the Court on the
Gth inst., when it appeared, that on the 29th June
last he was arrested for a debt of .55/, upon which
he immediately gave bail, Mr. Webber, his present
attorney, being then his professional adviser.—
Immediately after giving bail, he prepared to dispose
of all his property ; and on the Bth of July, he sold
by auction 2`d cows, a horse and cart, and furniture,
for 374/. 175.; he afterwards sold a quantity of
grains for 1.51., and the fixtures and fittings up of his
premises for 30/., making altogether nearly 4301.
Out of this money he paid 2001. into the Bank of
England, to replace a like sum which he had with-
drawn for his own use two years before, being trust-
money for the benefit of the children of a person
named Mitchell, who died many years ago, and left
the insolvent and a person named Bright trustees.
He also paid a few particular creditors, and had 1241.
left, which he had since spent. •
The Court on that occasion ordered the case to
he adjourned, for the purpose of proving the original
trust, and all the circumstances connected with it.
To-day the insolvent came up again, when he
called Mr. Benjamin Bright, a grocer and cheese-
monger, who stated that he was executor to his late
father, who was co-trustee with the insolvent for
the children of the late Edward Mitchell. This
witness :produced the probate of Mitchell's
He also called the stock-broker, who proved the re-
investment of the 2001. in the Batik of England.
Mr. HEATH submitted that the conduct of the
insolvent bad been of a most fraudulent description.
On being arrested, on the 29th of June, for 551.,
he gave bail, and immediately disposed of every
thing lie possessed. By these means he obtained
possession of a large sum of money, which would, if
properly applied, have produced 12s. in the pound
to all his creditors. Instead of acting as he ought,
he chose to put 2001. in the fund•, which he had
frudulently abstracted two years before : he paid
two or three other creditors, and spent the re-
mainder, leaving creditors to the amount of 7611.
without a single shilling. There was no doubt
that at the time of his arrest he contemplated
taking the benefit of this Act, and it was a most
fraudulent act to dispose of his property as it was
proved he had done.
Mr. BARRY, on the part of the insolvent, con-
tended, with regard to the re-investment of the
200/., that that was no more than the insolvent was
bound by his trust to do. It was not an act done
for his own benefit, but it was in pursuance of a
trust which be was bound to fulfil; and, to show
that the insolvent himself could derire no benefit
from it, a distringas had been lodged at the Bank of
England, to prevent him from getting any portion
of it back.

Mr. HEATH interrupted Mr. Barry by saying that
that fact did not appear in evidence; and if it were
true, it ought to be proved.
Mr. BARRY then called up the witness Mr. Bright,
who said that he had caused the distringas to be
lodged.
In cross-examination by Mr. HEATH, the witness
stated, that after the insolvent's last examination, he
applied to Mr. Webber, the insolvent's attorney, as
to the best way to secure the property in the Bank,
arid Mr. Webber advised a distringas to be lodged.
Mr. Webber had consequently lodged the distringas,
but the witness could not tell whether ha or the in-
solvent would have to pay the expenses of that pro-
ceeding.
Mr. llEfiern addressed the Court on this point,
and observed that it was monstrous to see what

tricks were played in order to enable insolvents to
cheat their creditors. He trusted that the Court
would take into its consideration the conduct of Mr.
Webber, who, as an attorney of this Court, first
got the insolvent bailed when he was arrested, then
undertook to get him through this Court, and now,
since the previous examination, had lodged a di:-
tringas at the Bank to protect the money paid in by
the insolvent from being touched by the creditors—
an attempt, however, which the Learned Counsel
hoped would fail.
Mr. BARRY should not attempt to defend Mr.
Webber in all that he had done, but he contended
that the insolvent should not he damnified by it.
The Learned Counsel repeated that the insolvent
was bound to return the money which he had for-
merly borrowed into the Bank of England. As to
selling the property, the insolvent paid a portion of
his creditors, and while he had 1241. in hand, he
offered to compound with his other creditors, which
they refused, and he was consequently obliged to
render to prison. The Learned Counsel hoped that
the Court would not think the case to be of such a
nature as to visit the insolvent with any severe
judgment.
The CHIEF CommisstoNatt delivered his judg-
ment of the Court. After recapitulating the :main
points of the case, he observed, that it had been
proved in evidence, that from the beginning to the
end of the proceedings, Mr. Webber, an attorney
of this Court, had been actively employed to fur-
ther the objects of the insolvent. The Court would
be guilty of a great dereliction of its duty, if, on
some future occasion, all the Commissioners did not
take into consideration the conduct of Mr. Webber,
but at present the Court would make no further
observations upon that particular fact. With re-
spect to the insolvent, a clear case of fraud of the
most deliberate description had been made out—a
fraud which had not only been deliberately con-
cocted, but perseveringly pursued even down to the
day when the insolvent applied to the Court in the
vain expectation of being discharged. It was the
province of the Court to protect the creditors, and
render as much as possible such speculations futile
as those the insolvent had been a party to. The
Court then adjudged the insolvent to be remanded
for a period of 14 months, from the date of filing
his petition, for fraudulently making away with his
property.

A woman belonging to the lower class of life
was lately searched and robbed by two Andalusians. The
plan they adopted was to tickle her in such a manner that
she had not power to call out for help, and such was their
audacity that the occurrence took place on the Prado in
open day, in the midst of the crowd. It is said that this
Andalusia,
where, of robbery is by no means uncommon in
where, if we believe the poets and romance writers, every
thing is conducted with piety..:—Nessager des Chumbrer.