The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-14 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER COURT, Nor. 13.

HOLKER V. WRAY.
In this case, reported in yesterday's paper, fur " Rule
Granted," read " Rule Refused."

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nor. 13.

CONCOCTION OF " THE LONDON EQUITABLE LOAN COMPANY."
Wm. Charles Haddon, a young man, was opposed by Mr.
Cooke, on the part of Jonathan White Haythorn, a commer-
cial agent, and in person by Mr. Alexander Davidson. He was
supported by Mr. Woodroffo.
In this case the getting up of the London Equitable Loan
Company was exposed. The Duke of Wellington was in the
prospectus stated to be " the patron."
Mr. COOKE said he should take the opinion of the Court
on a point of opposition. The insolvent had been a clerk and
director to the London Equitable Loan Company and General
Deposit Bank. The capital in the prospectus was stated at
500,000/. In 50,000 shares, at 10/. each ; deposit 2/. a share.
Patron, his Grace the Duke of Wellington. Cashiers, the
Bank of England, and in the names of the Directors appeared
the insolvent as " W. Haddon, Esq." Having so established
themselves under the excellent name of the noble patron, with
the Bank of England as their cashiers, they set themselves
about raising money, and unfortunately his client, Mr. Hay-
thorn, who was a commercial agent at Nottingham, was de-
ceived by the noble names and the ftatement in the prospectus
to advance money.
Mr. WOODROFFE remarked that his Learned Friend per.
haps knew he had no case against the insolvent, and was
creating a prejudice. In fact the insolvent had himself been
the dupe of a designing Company.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN had no doubt the public would
be benefited by the exposure.
Mr. Cooxt said the public would be put on their guard
against plunderers who called themselves " Companies." Mr.
Haythorn was induced to advance not in order to become
agent, with a salary, to this precious company. There were
other persons who had been tricked out of their Money in the
schedule. Mr. Haythorn was regularly appointed to his
illustriousorfrom
nr,
situation, and received a fine scrip-book, which was handsome
enough for the intended purpose. Some time after the ad-
vance
spa opfe the, ascertained money,
Mr.
thatiltahyatth n,
BCI police
character
of Wellington had nothing to do with the pretended company,
but that his name had been used for the purposes of decep-
tion.rthe report in
ewDuke a
He (Mr. Haythorn) then discovered the position in
which he was placed, and had been induced to take a warrant
of attorney from this insolvent and two other persons. He
(Mr. Cooke) knew that the Court had ruled that a warrant of
attorney was a waiver of a complaint, and that point he wished
to bring before the Court.
Mr. Commissioner BowaN observed that the Court had in-
variably held that the taking of a warrant of attorney prevented
the party from complaining of the original transaction.
The insolvent was examined by Mr. COOKE. He stated
that he was a clerk to the " Company " before he became a
" director." He had formerly been a dealer in agricultural
implements at Greenhurst, Stissex, where his premises were
destroyed by fire. He saw an advertisement from the Company
for a clerk, and be came to London. He paid 100/. as " se-
curity to become a clerk," and about three weeks before be
was arrested by Mr. Davidson, who had been another clerk to
the same Company, he was appointed a " director."
Mr. COOKE—You are put down as the second ' director,
" W. Haddon, Esq.," after the Noble Duke.
Insolvent—l was a director six weeks before my imprisonment.
Mr. COOKE—On what authority did you put down the name
of the Duke of Wellington as the patron ?
Insolvent—l was informed by the parties who were there,
that he was the patron.
Mr. COOKE—Who were they ?
The insolvent said Robert George Gilbert and Duncan
Smyth ; the offices were in Crosby Hall Chambers, Bishops-
gate. He could not tell who Gilbert was, except that he was
the Secretary of the Company. He (the insolvent) thought
Mr. Gilbert ought to stand in this Court where he stood. He
bad heard ho had been in the same place ; but he had not
heard he was remanded.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN—When was he here ?
Mr. COOKE—About two years ago, and remanded on the
opposition of Messrs. Tegg for eight months. Who is F.
Stanley, Esq., put down as a Director?

Insolvent-LI don't know.
Mr. COOKE—Did you ever see him ?
Insolvent—No.
Mr. CooKE—Was there such a person in existence ?
Insolvent—l was informed he was a person of property.

Mr. COOKE—You are "W. Haddon, Esq., the Direc-
tor ;" and you have described yourself as William Charles
Haddon.

The insolvent said he was the same person. It was done
by the printer.
Mr. Cooxa—Look at this pretty scrip-book, and see ; you
have signed your name as W. Haddon.
The insolvent admitted that such was the case.
Mr. COOKE—W. H. Short, Esq., is another director. Who
was he?

Insolvent—l don't know. He proceeded to state, that
Gilbert had represented to him that he had seen them. He
(insolvent) had merely seen Mr. Smyth. He was a merchant
—according to his own account.
Mr. COOKE—What has become of him?
Insolvent—l don't know. I heard he was a bad character.
Mr. CooKE-. Did you not hear he was at the Old Bailey ?
Insolvent—No; but I heard he was likely to be there—(a
laugh.)
Mr. COOKE—Perhaps the Bank of England had funds of
the "company l"

The insolvent said he had heard the company banked there.
He afterwards heard that Gilbert's wife had property in the
funds. Gilbert told him that the Bank of England was put
down as a " mere matter of form." Gilbert was the treasurer.
He had the money received. There was no sharing of the
money with him (the insolvent). He had as clerk received
two or three small sums, as the other clerks had done. It
was about 10/. He (the insolvent) paid 1001. to these people.
He meant to swear he had paid the money. It was advanced
in part by his money. He paid the 100/. to Gilbert. He saw
Smyth and various other persons there whom he did not know.
There were six clerks to the company.
Mr. COOKE—A pretty show certainly.
The insolvent further stated that the books of the " com-
pany" were left at the office, and be had since been informed
that one of the clerks had taken possession of them. The
clerk, whose name was Symonds, had advanced money be-
fore he (the insolvent) was made a victim. After he was in
prison Symonds came and said he could get hold of the
books, and he thought that Gilbert would then come forward,
and that he should not lose his money, but that Gilbert and
Smyth would pay up the demands on the concern. He was
not aware how long Symonds was a clerk. He (the insol-
vent) went in March last, and the company was broken up
in June. When he was arrested by Davidson, Symonds said
as his (the insolvent's) name was put down as a director, he
could sign his name, giving him authority to take the books,
and that act would prevent any criminal proceedings. He
then signed the authority, and Symonds, he believed, had ob-
tained the books. He (the insolvent) understood that the
major part of the money obtained had been advanced by
Evans. He had not any of the notes given by the parties
applying. He had received of Symonds about 225. since he
had been in prison. He could not tell from whom Symonds
had obtained the money. It was by instalments on advances
made by the company. That sum was brought to assist him
with necessaries. The office of the company was shut soon
after he went to prison. He presumed the others, on his
arrest, ran away. He should be glad to know what had be-
come of them. They owed him 1001. It was only paid as
a deposit by way of security.
Mr. COOKE—We know that is the common trick.
have you not put down the parties as debtors?
Mr. WOODROFFE—He looked upon it as a robbery.
The insolvent further stated that the books would show tin
names of the people who were indebted to the Company. He
had not seen Symonds for a length of time. He bad before
he petitioned sent Symonds to Mr. Valiance, the solicitor, for
Mr. Haythorn to make terms.—( A paper was read from the
insolvent to persons not to
pay any other personbut Symonds.
It was signed as a" director.") That authority was for Sy-

Why

Mr. CooKE—I wish my client was as well off.
Davidson pressed the insolvent for the addresses of persons
who had either obtained loans or become security. He said
he could not giro them.
Mr. Commissioner BowEN remarked that Mr. Davidson►
was the only person WI,o was well off. Mr. Haythorn had'
been extremely ill-used.
Mr. COOKE addressed the Coiirt, contending that the books
should be produced. It was the przetice to require that one
partner should, in his description, set wrth the names of his
partners. This insolvent had not done so. it was more than
probable that there were only three " directors" in this swin-
dling company, and the insolvent should have oentioned in
his description the persons, for the benefit of the public. Such
a swindling concern should be made known to the public- The
insolvent should also describe himself as using the name of
W. Haddon," and perhaps other persons might know him
by that name.
Mr. WOODROFFE resisted the application, on the ground
that the insolvent was a victim, and entitled to commiseration.
It was clear that the company was farmed for the purposes of
plunder, and the high name of the Duke of Wellington had
been used by the gang. His client was an injured party, and
had suffered enough. With respect to the description, he could
only say it was sufficient ; and he was sure the publicity that
would be given to the case to-day would effectuOy put the
public on their guard. The insolvent had no power' to pro-
duce the books, and if the Court made an order to that effect,
it would be a perpetual imprisonment to the man.
Mr. Commissioner BowEN said the argument of Mr. Wood-
roffe would have been very good between two persons, but
this was a question between the insolvent and the public.
Mr. Haythorn had received his appointment signed by the in-
solvents, Gilbert and Smyth, and therefore was imposed upon.
He must be considered as a partner, and as such re-advertise,
and he must also describe himself as " W. Haddon," as other
persons might know him by that name. And it must be re-
collected that the insolvent had taken an active part since he
had been in prison, the only active part that had been taken ;
he not only gave an authority as to the books, but as to the
payment of the money, acting as he signed himself, a di-
rector. The public had a right to call on him to giver Lull
information as to the so-called " company."
The case, which created much interest, was adjourned sine-
die for a re-advertisement, and for the attendance of Symonds.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS-TUESDAY.

Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, Chairman, and a full Bench of
Magistrates. )

These Sessions commenced yesterday. The calendar con-
tains the names of 95 prisoners, twelve of whom are charged
with felony.
The Grand Jury having been sworn, the Chairman shortly
addressed them on the nature of their duties, and they retired..
About the middle of the day the Grand Jury brought in a
true bill, about six yards long and one wide, against Christo-
pher Ilawdon, James Archdeacon Richardson, TV. St. A.
S. Richardson, Henry Watson Lewis, alias James Pople,
and John Sprardle, for a libel and conspiracy.
Mr. BODKIN stated that in this case he had to apply to the
Court for process against the defendants. He applied on be-
half of Mr. Smith, of Chancery-lane, a highly respectable
member of the profession, who was the prosecutor aginst the
defendants, who had in a most disgraceful manner abused him
and others connected with him, in a Paper called the Paul
Pry, and to which they belonged.
The CHAIRMAN—Is this indictment for libel only?
Mr. BODKIN—It is for a libel and conspiracy also.
The CHAIRMAN then directed that the party should give 24
hours' notice of bail, themselves in the sum of SOL, and two
sureties of 40/ each.
Several other cases were disposed of, and the Court ad-
journed.