The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-06 00:00:00

wife when separate from her 10s. a week with four
children. That was 12 years ago. He went and
took lodgings. He then carried on business as ,
an engraver. He was separated then from her two
years. It was after that she asked him to come
back and live with her. Harriet Sarson visited
him at Tottenham-court-road. She was there

witness. He was not himself a medical man, but

he had upwards of 20 years' experience of in-
sanity.
He had examined the plaintiff again and
again, and discovered no indications of insanity.
He had repeated conversations with him, and tested
him closely respecting the statements in the certifi-
cate. The plaintiff spoke of his wife's conduct,
especially in having him up before the magistrates,
and her extraordinary character and behaviour.
and he spoke to statements of his contained in the
certificates themselves, and asserted their truth. In
particular, he stated that his wife was ruining him
by continually annoying him in his business, &c.
He did not remember anything being said as to his
alleged statement that his wife had gone with other
men.

once.

Have you thrown a carving knife at your wife
while she was sitting at table with a child?—

Never.

Have you thrown slops over your wife ?—Never.
Have you torn the curtains down in a violent
state?—No, never.
Nothing of the kind P—No.
Called her names P—l have used some harsh ex-
pressions sometimes. I may have d—d her when
she has been kicking up her disturbances.
Was d—d b—h one of the harsh expressions ?
I dare say it may have been when she has been
going on so.

Mr. Chambers—Was it your opinion that he was
labouring under any delusion?
Witness (with great gravity and deliberation).—
My opinion was that, if the facts he stated were
true, he was not under any delusion. (Laughter.)
The witness went on to state that on the let of
August the defendant wrote to him the following
letter :
" Sir,—I heard with surprise that it is in contemplation
to send out of your asylum a man named Hall, who was
taken there the other day. As the man is, in my opinion, a
dangerous lunatic, and he, is now confined under legal
authority—one of the certificates being signed by himself—
I beg that he may not be discharged until his wife, who is in
danger of her life, has an opportunity of laying her case
before the Commissioners in Lunacy, to whom she will ap-
peal immediately ; and I am willing to appear before the
Commissioners to justify my own conduct in the matter."
This letter was signed and sent by the defendant,
and caused some sensation.
The witness went on to state that the Commis-
sioners in Lunacy, Mr. Latwidge and Dr. Nairne,
had examined the plaintiff very carefully, and in
consequence of their report he discharged him.
Mr. Chambers—ln your judgment, was he sane
or insane ?

Did you ever charge her with adultery ?—Never.
The plaintiff was asked whether, when he saw
Guy in 1856, he had not said to his wife that she

seemed to take an interest in him. He stated that

what he had said was, that, as she seemed to know
the matter better than he did, she had better answer

Were you jealous of your wife at that time P—No.
You left them, and went away to your dinner,
although you never saw him before ?—Yes. She
answered his questions.
Were you not in the habit of charging her with
having fellows after her P—No, but with having
people after her for debts.
Did you not charge Gny with coming after her ?
No, but with coming improperly to the house.
Had not your wife a bad breast ?—No.
Had you not struck her ?—Na.
Was not her breast discoloured ? I never saw
her breast for years. She had refused to cohabit

with me for years.
You mean to swear you had never struck or

Witness—l should say he was sane.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott, in cross-examination. asked
whether delusions as to a wife's infidelity might
not be a sign of lunacy ?
Witness said they might be.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott—May not jealousy be a dan-
gerous delusion ?
Mr. Justice Crompton—lt may and does lead
often to bad consequences, as we know ; but as to

31,1xa Lci r —No, never.

She used, you say, to run out to the neighbours ?
.Yes.

Do you say she is mad ?—I never charged her
with it.

How do you account for her running out to the
neighbours about you ?—I can't account for it, ex-
cept her disposition to persecute me.
He was then pressed as to the sword and sword-

insanity ?
The witness said if the jealousy were accompanied
with violence and were utterly groundless it might
be a dangerous delusion and a sign of insanity. He
was pressed as to whether the plaintiff had not been
discharged partly from an irregularity in Guy's
certificate, which was founded on an examination
not within the preceding week, as required by the
Act. He said that it was so, and he produced a
copy of these entries in the books of the asylum.
Visitors' book," August 2
:
" We had a long and special interview with the patient
last received (Hall), and which suggested the necessity of a
full inquiry into his case and history. In examining the
certificates under which he was admitted on the 31st ult.
it appeared that one of them, dated on the 29th of July, was
founded on a visit to the patient on the 13th of June, and is
consequently wholly invalid, It follows that the patient
can no longer be legally detained."
" Patients' Book," August 2 :--
" The patient referred to was admitted on the 31st ult.
The second certificate is signed by Mr. Guy, and is invalid,
by reason of his stating that he examined the patient on the
15th of June."
Mr. M. Chambers, re-examining the witness, if
you had believed the plaintiff a dangerous lunatic
would you have discharged him ?
Witness—l did not consider him a lunatic at all.
This closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott submitted that there was
no case on either of the counts or charges.
The learned Judge said it seemed to him at
present that it all turned upon whether the de-
fendant knew that the certificate was untrue; as-
suming it to be so, the absence of belief of truth
would be evidence of malice.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott submitted that there was
no evidence of want of reasonable and probable

stick, but he denied ever taking them up to his
wife. He said she rarely was in his bedroom, and
he never quarrelled with her there. He knew a
person named Cash, a milliner, but did not com-
mit adultery with her. "No," said he, " I have
found one woman enough for me. (Laughter.) She
weighs 16 stone." (Laughter) He was asked fur-
ther as to imputations about the woman mentioned,
and explained his visits to the house by an acquaint-
ance with some one else there. His wife had often
charged him with improper intimacy with this and
other women. He repeated that he had never
charged his wife with adultery or drunkenness.
He repeated again that he had never told Dr.
Semple so. On the 27th of September he had been
bound over to keep the peace in his own recognis-
ance for £lO.

This closed the cross-examination, which lasted
only half an hour, and which certainly had not
shaken his evidence nor disturbed his demeanour.

Re-examined by Mr. Huddleston, he explained
the occasion on which he had done what caused the
magistrate to bind him over. He stated that his
wife had been guilty of some neglect of his children,
and he had said to her, "This is like year d—d
impudence," and he had removed her dinner on to
the dresser (as she was eating it before giving the
children theirs) ; she said, " I'll give you a turn for
this," and ran downstairs to the shop to go out at
the door and raise a disturbance. He ran after her,
and she cried out, " He has kicked me," That was
not true. She said to the servant girl, "You saw
it, didn't you ?" The girl could not have seen them,
as she was in the kitchen, but called out, " Yes,
ma'am"—(a laugh)—although she could not have
seen it, if it had been so. This was what his wife
had complained of, and the magistrate had bound
him over, but had said—
Mr. Sergeant Pigott objected to that, and it was
not pursued.
Mr. Huddleston then re-examined as to the
woman Sargon, but
Mr. Sergeant Pigott said he had not imputed
improper intimacy in respect to her.
The plaintiff went on to say that he had left his
wife 12 years ago because he had found theyaNa-,
• -
'dna at another time 15s. a week, when his own
wages were 355. a week or thereabout. When Guy
came, in 1856, he said, looking at the sword,
" You seem to be well prepared," and the plaintiff
said he told him to leave the house. That was all
the interview which had taken place between him
and Guy before the latter signed the certificate, ex-
cept when he saw him peeping in at the house, and
also on another occasion, when he had followed his
wife to Guy's house. He went on to say that his
wife would of a morning or an evening " tuck up
her sleeves" and say she would give him a turn,
and then go to the door and kick up a disturbance.
His wife had often threatened him.
This closed the examination of the plaintiff, who
preserved throughout most entire self-collectedness.
Mr. Wren, one of plaintiff's neighbours, was called
to confirm his evidence. He said he had known him
for years, and had dealings with him in business.
He was present on the occasion of the arrest. He
had seen him on that day, and conversed with him,
so as to know the state of his mind, and there was
nothing the matter with him. Since he came home
the witness said he had seen him constantly, and
observed no symptom of unsoundness of mind. The
witness was one of those who were sent for by
the plaintiff on the 27th of September, when Dr.
Semple and Dr. Webb were there, and he described
what took place on that occasion. He heard Dr.
Semple say to the plaintiff " You have charged your
wife with committing adultery," and the plaintiff
denied that he had done so. Then Dr. Semple said
" Yes, you have, and I've got proof of it, and there-
fore turn her out into the street," The wife said to
the witness " Did you ever know me to do anything
wrong ? " Witness said "Not of my own personal
knowledge." She then applied to the other neigh-
bour, a Mr. Davy, and asked a similar question.
The plaintiff's daughter, Mrs. Harding, was present,
and said thereupon " Yes, I have known you do
several things; I have known you put jalap into my
father's coffee." (Laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant Pigott objected to this, as not affect-
lng',his client, defendant. It was what took place
after that which was the subject matter of the action:
Mr. Chambers insisted that it was evidence of
malice, or want of bona fides, coupled with what he
should prove Dr. Semple said, alter hearing all this
—that the daughter accused the wife of pledging
her husband's goods.
The witness went on to say that Mrs. Hall
spoke to Dr. Semple, and said, "Am I not justi"
fled in doing so ?" (i.e., pledging goods), and he
said she was, and began to ask the daughter ques-
tions,which the witness told her not to answer. Dr.
Semple was then about to approach the interior
the house, when the plaintiff said he objected, and
that if he persisted he should call a policeman. Dr.
Semple said, " Do so, by all means ; that is what
I want." The witness went on to say that, be-
fore July 28, Dr. Semple had never called on him
to make inquiries as to the plaintiff's state of
mind. The witness had seen the disturbances
spoken to by the plaintiff, and known occasions
when the shop hnd to be closed on account of them.
lie had not noticed the conduct of Mrs. Hall in

cause.
The learned Judge said he was not quite sure
if that was necessary, as it was not like an action
for a malicious prosecution ; but probably it would
come to this, whether the plaintiff had acted bona
fide and with a real belief in the truth of his certi-
ficate. _ _ _

Mr. Sergeant Pigott said that was the view he
took of the case, and he should propose to address
the jury to•morrow (this morning).
And at five o'clock the case was accordingly ad-
journed. _ _

LAW IN7ELLIGENCE, Dec. 5.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings at Nisi Prius in Middlesex.—(Before Mr,
Justice Willes and a Special Jury.)

ROBBINS V. JONES.-THE LATE ACCIDENT IN THE

WATERLOO-ROAD.

The plaintiff in this case was the widow and ad-
ministratrix of Mr. Robins, who was killed by the
falling in of the grating and flag stones in the Wa-
terloo-road some time ago, and she claimed damages
for the loss which she had sustained by his death.
The declaration alleged that the defendant, Cap-
tain Jones, was possessed of houses adjoining a
public footway, that the property was in a dan-
gerous condition, and that he let it, and permitted
it to be continued in the same dangerous state, and
that by reason of this the deceased fell through and
was killed. The defendant pleaded various tra-
verses, and in addition that the place was no part
of a public footway, and that the deceased was,
with others, there unlawfully, and that this caused
the place to fall in.
Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Martin appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Lush and Mr. D. Keane for the
defendant.

The deceased was, at the time of his death, about
27 years of age, and he was earning two guineas
a week as foreman to his father, a carver, guilder,
and frame maker in the Waterloo-road. The defen-
dant. Captain Jones, lived at Croydon, and he held
upon lease from the Marquis of Salisbury several
houses in the Waterloo-road, and amongst others,
198 and 199. In August, 1860, he let 198 to
Messrs. Jeffs, who, however, shortly afterwards
became bankrupt, and Captain Jones, not being
paid his rent, put in a distress upon the per-
sons to whom Messrs. Jeffs had underlet. The
than in possession, however, having been got out,
the door was barred against him, and he thereupon
endeavoured to break in, the tenants in the mean-
time doing their best to remove their furniture.
This caused a crowd to assemble, and a number of
people having stood upon the grating and flagged
footway, it gave way with them, and they fell down
a great depth. The plaintiff's counsel contended
that any person owning property like this which
the public had acquired the right of passing over,
was bound to keep it in a safe state, and that
whether the spot formed part of the public way or
not was not material, for oven if it adjoined the
public way, there was still the duty to keep it in a
safe state. It might be said that Messrs. Jeffs were
the persons who should be sued, but it was sub-
mitted if a person possessed property which was
in a dangerous state, and let it in that state, he was
liable for any injury sustained in consequence. It
would be proved by the witnesses that in April,
1859; notice was given by the parish authorities to
Capt. Jones that the place was dangerous, and al-
though it was denied that they had any authority
to interfere, still it showed that the captain had
notice of the facts. No steps however were taken
to carry out the suggestions of the surveyor until
after the accident had occurred. _

Witnesses were called to prove the facts above
stated.
Mr. Lush then submitted that the defendant was
not liable, inasmuch as at the time of the accident
neither the eeceased nor the other persons were
using the spot for the ordinary purpose for which it
was intended. It was simply constructed for the
purpose of allowing persons to pass across to the
houses, and not for a crowd to assemble upon it.
Further, it was submitted that the deceased by his
own want of care contributed to the accident. An-
other point was, that Messrs. Jeff's were hound by
covenant to repair, and that therefore the defendant
was not responsible.
His lordship thought that it would be the most
convenient course to leave the case to the jury, but he
would reserve to the defendant leave to move the
court, upon the questions of law.
r Ike defendant's else was that he had a few years
ago come into possession of the property, and had
at that time no reason to believe that it was in a
dangerous state. In 1859, Mr. Legg, a retired
builder, examined the place, and thought it safe,
and the same conclusion was arrived at by Messrs.
Jeffs, who were themselves builders, and by the
surveyor of the Marquis of Salisbury.
Ills lordship asked the jury a great number of
questions, which they having answered stated that
they found for the plaintiff, and assessed the

particular.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Pigott—These
disturbances had taken place repeatedly Within
the last few years. Crowds were often about the
house.

Davy, the other neighbour who was present on
the occasion above alluded to, said he told Dr.
Semple "If either of those two are mad [mean-
ing the plaintiff or his wife], this is the one,"
pointing to the wife. (A laugh.) "If it was me,"
continued the witness, " I should leave this night."
The witness confirmed the evidence of the preceding
witness as to what occurred on the occasion.
L thMr. Elliot, the proprietor of the asylum where
e plaintiff had been confined, Wati called as a

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 6, 1862.

damages at £2BO, being £2OO for the widow, and
£BO for the child of the deceased.
SEAMAN V. LORD KEANE AND OTHERB.—THE
AFFAIR OF THE BANK OF DEPOSIT.
This was an action against Lord Keane, the Rev.
Wm. Bean, of Brixton and Worthing, and Dr. Henry
Clarke, of Southampton, who had been directors of
the Bank of Deposit, in order to recover damages
in consequence of the plaintiff having been induced
by false representations to become an agent of the
bank, and having suffered in consequence.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Collier, Mr. Ribton, and Mr. Daly appeared
for the plaintiff; Mr. Bovill, Mr. Welsby, and Mr.
Archbold for Lord Keane, and Mr. Digby Seymour
and Mr. Warton for the other defendants.
Mr. Collier, in his opening speech, said that the
plaintiff was a gentleman who resided at Plymouth,
and the defendants were the chairmen and two
directors of an association that had attained an un-
enviable notoriety—the Bank of Deposit. He be-
lieved that it would scarcely be contradicted that
this Bank of Deposit had been one of the most
gigantic swindles of the present age, and although
they might be already aware of the circum-
stances to some extent, it would be his duty
to state a short outline of the case. Mr. Sea-
man was induced to accept the agency of this
society by false representations as to its solvency
and prosperity, when it had been for 10 years
and more in a hopeless state, and he was induced to
open a branch at Plymouth, and to obtain from a
vast number of persons their deposits from hard
earnings, which amounted in the whole to £5.000
odd. When the bank failed in Nov., 1861, a howl
of indignation was raised against him, he was called
upon to pay back the deposits, and he tried to re-
trieve himself by starting another society, but he
failed, because people refused to join him on account
of his having been associated with this bank. Un-
der these circumstances he was obliged to bring this
action to show that he was no party to these frauds,
and also to recover damages for the injury which he
had sustained. He (Mr. Collier) would give them
a history of this bank. It had its origin in the
National Investment and Assurance Association,
which was established in 1844 by deed poll, and
which had its office in Lancaster-place, and carried
on a quiet unpretending business. Subsequently
fresh—but by no means a better—blood was infused
Into this society, and Mr. Peter Morrison joined it
about this time, as, in fact, did also Lord Keane.
When the change took place a deed of settlement
was entered into, and every provision of that deed
had been systematically violated by the defendants,
The plan was that the funds of the Association
should be divided into three classes; the first was
the Mutual Investment Fund, and under this head
came all the deposits; the second was the Mutual
I Assurance Fund ; and, third, the General Fund.
The holders of mutual stock, it was said, " Are
to be entitled to interest on the amount of stock
held by them not exceeding 5 per cent. per
annum, as shall be from time to time determined
by the Board of Management, to be payable solely
out of the profits that shall have accrued from the
investment fund." From that time, however,
there never was one shilling of profit upon this
Mutual Investment Fund, and yet for ten years
they paid interest, and from what fund P why, out of
the deposits. So that if a man deposited £5 or 55.,
for they were not above taking so small a sum, he
was paid interest—out of his own money. The re-
port of Messrs. Harding and Pulling, the account-
ants, stated—" We do not find that any profit has
at any time arisen from the business that has been
carried on. The following analysis of the entries
in the books shows the gradual progress of insol-
vency from 1852." It went on—" The amounts
inserted in the first column does not include any
loss upon bad debts or insufficient investments, as
it does not appear that such items have been dealt
with," so that the accounts were most favouable for
the bank ; but still it appeared that the loss in 1852
was £4,900, and the amount due to depositors,
£4,300 ; in 1853, loss £12,259 ; due to depositors,
/30,543 ; in 1854, loss £18,105 ; due to deposi-
tors, £79,196 ; in 1855, loss £33,000 ; due
to depositors, £llB,OOO ; in 1856, loss
£48,000 ; due to depositors, £164,000 ; in
1857, loss £66,000 ; due to depositors, £179,000 ;
in 1858, loss, 192,000 ; due to depositors, £226,000 ;
in 1859, loss £112,000 ; duo to depositors, £296,000 ;
and in 1860 the loss amounted to £147,000, and the
sum due to depositors to £348,000. Was not this
an astounding state of circumstances, that the loss
had increased to £147,000, and yet all this time they
were inducing unhappy depositors to deposit more
and more with them ? Now, a few words as to the
capital. In the prospectus it was stated that the
capital was £lOO,OOO ; but that was false, for the
whole amount that was nominally subscribed was
£20,000, and the real amount was not more than
£12,000. The accountant's report stated, " Many
of the printed documents contained the words and
figures, ' Capital stock £100,000,' but it does not
appear on investigating the capital stock account
that the amount has at any time exceeded £20,000,
and of this amount only £8,593 appears to have
been paid for in cash ; £7,100 appears to have
been issued in satisfaction of a claim against the
association, and £4,357 arises from amounts
entered to the credit of parties as cash
payments by them for capital stock. Such amounts
tnrraraFged rolfTem in another account as loans,
and which loans still remain unpaid." Lord Keane
began, for instance, by being put down as holding
capital stock to the amount of £soo—a part of this
£20,000 ; yet Lord Keane never paid a farthing,
for he was put down on one side of the account as
holding £5OO stock, upon which :he received divi-
dends every year; and on the other side there was
lent to Lord Keane /500, upon which he was
charged interest, so that it was altogether a mere
juggle. In truth, their capital never exceeded
£lO,OOO, whilst their debts were hundreds of thou-
sands. Lord Keane became a director and a member
of the finance committee soon after he signed the
deed in 1851 ; and in 1857, upon Lord Geo. Paget,
the chairman, leaving the company, because he dis-
approved of a most improper gambling speculation
that they had entered into with a certain Impe-
rial Company in Paris, Lord Keane became chair-
man, and remained so until the time of failure. The
members of the company formed only a private
partnership, they never having been incorporated;
but in 1854 they obtained an act which entitled them
to sue and be sued as a corporation. They then ex-
tended their business in all directions, and took an
office in Pall-mall East and established branches in
all parts of the country ; they advertised most ex-
tensively, and they did all that they could to obtain
deposits, both large and small. Their annual lia-
bility for advertising and for working expenses
amounted to no less than £82,000, and their receipts
never were one-half that, and they must have known
perfectly well the state of their affairs. His learned
friend would perhaps say it was all that Peter Alor-
rison ; but whilst Mr. Morrison remained in Eng-
land the directors supported him, though, when he
went abroad, they threw all the blame upon him,
and said that they knew nothing about it. The
£82,000 was the expenses in London only, that for
the whole country being £154,000 a year. The ad-
vertising in London was £25,000, salaries
£15,000, and the directors received £13,700. The
bank stopped in November, 1861 ; but in the last
year, when they were upon the brink of irrecover-
able ruin, they received over the counter £30,000,
none of which was entered in the books, and what
became of it nobody knew. At the time of the fail-
ure there appeared to the credit of sundry depositors
and holders of investment stock £362,000, and to
other creditors £2,000, whilst to the account of
assets there was, cash at bankers, £32 7s. 7d.—(a
laugh)—in hand £26 10s. 4d, ; and then there were
various debts which were estimated to realise
£37,000, and other property £4,000, so that alto-
gether the estate was calculated to produce £55,000.
The jury might be inclined to ask how the bank
got rid of the money, and he could throw but
a feeble and imperfect light upon that matter, but
he could refer to how the prospectus said that
they were to deal with their funds. It said—
" This company is established to open to the public
an easy and safe mode of investment. (Laugh-
ter.) The bank of Deposit differs from ordinary
banks in the mode of employing its capital.
(Loud laughter.) The Rev. Mr. Bean, speaking
in the prospectus, said, "We are not as other
banks." (Renewed laughter.)
Mr. Bovill hoped that his learned friend would
confine himself to the cause of the action.
Mr. Justice Willis—The cause of the action being
getting the plaintiff to enter into the service of the
defendants by false representation.
Mr. Coll ier continued—The prospectus said," The
money deposited with this company being princi-
pally lent upon well-secured life interests and re-
versions on Government funds and other property
of undoubted security. The interest, which has
never been less than per cent. upon ordinary de-
posits, is payable half-yearly in January and July."
One of the complaints of the plaintiff was that he
was induced to join the company by a statement
that it was solvent, and there was a statement that
they were so solvent that they were paying their
interest half-yearly. Now as to their investments.
"Utley got up a bubble company in Paris, called the
Imperial, and they exchanged shares and had trans-
actions with that company, which resulted in
£20,000 loss. They established the State Insurance
Company, which had the same direction as the
bank, and that company had been wound up, and
never paid a farthing. The directors of the bank
took 50,000 one-pound shares in the State Office,
and they paid upon them £35,000 out of the depo-
sitors' money, and they also made a loan ofl9 000
which Was likewise swallowed up. What ;hey
did with respect to the State Fire Office they, did
in the case of the Consols, and also of the A.gricuts