The Sun.
London, England, 1853-10-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

' COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—OcT. 19.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
IN BE WESTBROOK.—THE ISLINGTON CATTLE-MARKET.
In the case of Richard Westbrook, who was made
bankrupt as a hay dealer, of Lawrie-terrace, New-cross,
and Islington, a petition had been presented, seeking to
set the adjudication aside, oti the ground that the bank-
rupt was not a trader, and that the whole proceeding
was a collusive one to relieve Mr. Westbrook from his
liabilities, and not for the purpose of distributing any
property among his creditors. The petitioner was Mr.
Samuels Adams, banker, of Ware, in Hertfordshire,
who was a judgment creditor of Mr. Westbrook for
3,4211.
It appeared that in 1849 a joint-stock company, called
the Islington Cattle-market Company, was in course of
formation, under the Act 5 and 6 William 4 ; they were
provisionally registered • and Mr. Westbrook, Mr. Kirk
(also bankrupt), Mr. dark, and other gentlemen were
appointad directors ; and they entered into a contract
with Mr. Williams for the purchase of land at 'lslington,
for the purpose of a market, rendering themselves liable
to forfeit 50,300/. if they failed to complete their con-
tract. A. deed of settlement was prepared and exe-
cuted on the 29th April, 1850, by which the capital
was fixed at 200,0001., in 20,000 shares of 101.
each • but of this number only 1,600 shares had
beerZallotted and taken up. While endeavouring to
lot:in the company, the directors kept open the
ground as a layerage for cattle on their way to and from
the market at Smithfield, charging so much per night ;
they also supplied hay to the drovers for the purpose of
feeding the cattle. This hay they purchased in large
quantities, and sold it by retail ; and this was the trading
on which Mr. Westbrook and Mr. Kirk had been made
bankrupts. To meet their expenses, the directors had
drawn large sums on the company's notes at rates of in-
terest considerably exceeding 5 per cent. ; and these pro-
missory notes, to the amount of upwards of 30,080/., now
remained unpaid. The directors had sustained heavy
losses in keeping open the market as a layerage, and in
endeavouring to establish it as a market. The company was
never completelyregistered, and the directors havin g failed
to complete their contract with Mr. Williams, he took
proceedings in ejectment, and took possession of the land
and buildings. Mr. Clark, one of the directors, had
made an affidavit stating that the market was not kept
open as a layerage for the purpose of gaining a profit or•
obtaining a livelihood, but for the sole object of com-
pletely forming and establishing a market ; also that Mr.
Westbrook was not a bona fide shareholder,, not having
paid the deposit in the said company. The deponent further
denied that the bankrupt had been a hay-dealer at Ne,w-
cross or Islington, or that he was, at the date of the pe-
tition, a trader within the meaning of the bankrupt laws.
Affidavits in support of the adjudication were made by Mr.
Charles Barker, advertising agent, of Birchin-lane, who
was a creditor for 1061. 13s. 4d. for advertisements ; and
Mr. George Eade, the secretary of the company, who
detailed the steps taken in the formation of the company,
and stated that there was no clause in the prospec-
tus which authorised the layerage of cattle. He fur-
ther deposed that the directors purchased hay 'in large
quantities, and sold the same in single trusses, to the
drovers or others wanting the same; that it was not
compulsory on them to purchase the hay there, as they
might have brought it with them, or purchased it else-
where; that the charges for hay were entirely distinct
from those for layerage ; and that any of the public who
chose to come and buy hay there might do so. On the
other side, it was denied that this was ever done, and
alleged that the sale of hay was merely auxiliary to the
layerage of the cattle.
Mr. Cooke and Mr. Petersdoff appeared in support
of the petition, to annul ; Mr. Lawrance represented
the petitioning creditor under the bankruptcy (Mr.
Barker) ; Mr. Lucas appeared for the assignees ; and
Mr. Armstrong for the bankrupt.
It was urged by Mr. Cooke, that there had been no
trading, and that the bankruptcy was a collusive one,
to relieve Westbrook from his liabilities. Several cases
were cited, to show that an aljudication could not be
sustained unless there was property for idistribution,
either in esse or in posse.
His Honour observed, during the argument, that
mere concert was not enough to set aside an adjudica-
tion ; it must be also shown that it was done in the in-
terest of the bankrupt only, and not at all in that of the
creditors.
Mr. Eade late secretary and accountant to the com-
pany, deposed that the layerage and foddering of cattle
was carried on at the !,market-place at Islington; that
large quantities of hay had been purchased down to
Midsummer, 1852, and sold in truss.
John Nicholls, drover and layer-keeper, deposed to
the sale of hay to the drovers for their cattle.
• The bankrupt, in examination, stated that he had
been in his father's bank at Reading, but not as a part-
ner. Of late years he bad been in no business till he
became acquainted with the Islington Market, about the
end of 1848, when he negotiated to purchase it from the
Perkins family for 85,0001. He heard that it bad cost
upwards of 200,0001. His means were not sufficient for
the purpose without mortgaging the property. He had an
interest in some reversionary property which sold for 40001.
The vendors agreed to let 50,0001. of the 85,0001. remain
on mortgage. His object in making the purchase was to
form a company and complete the maret. He paid a deposit
of 3,0001. on the purchase. He negotiated the sale of
the market with Mr. Shaw, Mr. Clark, Mr. H. A.
Harrison, Mr. Kirk, Captain F. W. Hamilton, Mr.
Grantham, and Mr. Wall. They were to give 105,0001.
for the market ; he had had two previous offers of
100,0001., which he had refused, having been solicited by
the chairman and directors to hold the market for them.
This purchase, if completed, would have left him a clear
profit of 20,0001. He was to receive 5,000/. in money and
the rest in shares. When he applied for the 5,000/. it was
inconvenient to the company to pay it, and they gave him
a bill of 6,0001., the extra 1,0001. being to cover discount,
commission, &c. Finding some difficulty in discounting
the bill, at the request of the chairman, Mr. Shaw, he
placed it in the hands of Mr. Attree, of Chancery-lane;
it was ultimately discounted, and he got 5,5001. from it.
The shares agreed on, 18,000 in number, were allotted to
him.; they were now in the hands of the official assignee.
He was not then a director, and did not know the ar-
rangements the directors made for paying the Perkins
family. Had previously carried on the layerage and deal-
ing in hay on his own account for a twelvemonth. His
shares were allotted and handed over to him in March,
1850. He and the other shareholders signed the deed of
settlement about the 29th Apirl, 1850. He took an active
part in the affairs of the market down to March, 1852.
During the whole of that period hay was bought by
wholesale and sold by retail, and this was a profitable
portion of the business. They had calculated on this
as a main source of profit. Had the market been tho-
roughly established, the sale of hay would have been
continued ; it would have yielded an enormous profit,
from the greater number of beasts. The drovers might
have brought their own hay, or bought it elsewhere.
His name was not up as a hay-dealer, but it was on the
carts.

The further hearing of the case was adjourned for a
week. The case lasted the whole day.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.---Henry Bartley, who hacl been
remanded since Saturday last, was again brought before
the Lord Mayor, in the custody of Daniel Forrester,
the officer, charged with feloniously uttering a cheque
for 81. 45., with intent to defraud the Royal British
Bank.
The following is the additional evidence :
Mr. J. W. Duncan said, I am cashier at the Royal
British Bank. On the 14th inst. the following letter
was brought to the Bank by a messenger :
" 55, Piccadilly, Friday, Oct. 14, 1853.
" Sir,—Please to add this to my account, and give
the boy a cheque book, also two five pound notes. The
cheque is for 251. JOHN DICKINSON.
" To the Cashier at the Royal British Bank."

This letter contained a cheque for 251. upon the Union
Bank of London, and was brought by a boy of about
14 years of age, who told me that another boy was wait-
ing for an answer. I did not give the two five pound
notes as requested in the letter, but after putting the
cheque book in an envelope, and addressing it to J. G.
• Dickinson, Esq., 55, Piccadilly, I handed it to the boy.
The cheque book produced by the officer is that which
I so delivered. The cheque produced for 81. 4s, has
' been taken from the cheque book. The cheque for 251.
upon the Union Bank was returned to us on the 15th,
in consequence of the drawer not being known. I do
not know the boy who brought the note.
Mr. J. G. Dickinson, I am a laceman, at 55, Picca-
dilly. I keep an account at the Royal British Bank.
The cheque for 81. 4s. produced is not in my handwrit-
Ituh, and was not signed by my authority. I know no-
thgof the cheque for 25/. ; it never was in my pos-
session,
in The letter purporting to be signed by me is
write it.
rnY Writing, nor did I ever authorise any body to
and Co." 14hign my name to cheques " J. G. Dickinson
but I knew hienlprisoner never was in my employment,
I had a boy in ria: errand boy to a neighbour of mine.
account of some my employment whom I discharged on
which came to circumstances rmstances of a suspicious nature
prisonneorwledge, and I knew of his inti-
macy with the
and the cheques, it is o-,, Upon looking at the letter
whom
ceiraiT possible they are in the hand-
writing of the lad
Could
dismissed from my service.
The Lord Mayor—
service on account of any act " say
that he left your
Witness —I could hardly 8 of dishonesty ?
rather say he absconded fromaY that, my lord ; I should
Mr. Horace Bloxhatn—l amine.ca.
street branch of the Union Banl2llier at the Recrent-
tember I received the following order °III
the 28th Sep-
as follows :—" Sir,—Please to give thewbench I produce,
book. Wright, Brothers, and Co., 220, High a cheque-
I accordingly ordered a cheque book to bell.3lbeirn"
person who brought this note, but I dogivennot to the
recollect
who he was. The cheque for 251. has apparently be en
taken out of the book. We have no account with John
Wright, the supposed drawer. I do not know the • pri-
soner. I never saw him to my knowledge.
The prisoner, who declined putting any questions to
the witnesses, on being asked by the Lord Mayor whe-
ther he had anything to say in answer to the charge,
and after being duly cautioned replied, " No, I have
nothing more to say than I said before—ldid not write
the cheque nor any other paper.'
He was then fully committed to take his trial at the
next sitting of the Central Criminal Court.
W. Deane and F. Wiseman were charged by Mr.
Coleman, clerk to the Registrar of Seamen, under the
101st clause of the Mercantile Marine Act, with having
fraudulently used a forged certificate of character and
service to enable them to enter into her Ma jesty's
service. Mr. Coleman said the prosecution was of
by the Board of Trade, who were determined in every
case to enforce the provisions of the act, and exhi lited
WO Placards* which had been extensively circulat' rd as

cautions, pointing out to seamen the punishment to 1
which those were liable who should attempt to violate
the law. ,
The Quarter-Master to the Naval Rendezvous, Tower-
hill, said—On Wednesday last I saw Deane reading one
of the bills exhibited outside the office. It being part
of my duty to obtain seamen for the navy, I asked him
if he wished to join. He answered in the affirmative,
and I asked for his references to character and ability.
He said he had not any, but that he would get some by
the next day. On Thursday I met him in the street,
and he told me he had the necessary papers, and I di-
rected him to be at the office by one o'clock. Shortly
after that hour I went to the office and found Deane
and Wiseman, both of whom offered to me their refer-
ences, which I found not to be made out on the present
form. I asked them where they had obtained them.
The Lord Mayor—What do you mean by the present
forms g

Mr. Coleman said it might be necessary to explain to
his lordship, that in consequence of the facilities offered
by the permission given to tradesmen to sell the blank
forms of certificates of characters and discharges, the
Board of Trade had in January last, at the suggestion
of Alderman Sir Robert Carden, before whom similar
cases had been heard, restricted the issue of the present
form, which differed materially from those formerly in
use, and which could only be obtained from the ship-
ping masters by captains on paying off their crews, and
hence the forgery of documents of the kind had been
considerably diminished.
The Quartermaster continued—l told them I did not
like their appearance, for both papers seemed to me to
have been written by the same person, although they
came from different vessels, and purported to be signed
by different individuals. I also told them of the conse-
quences, but they still declared that the documents had
been given to them by their masters, and, in order to be
satisfied that I was not enlisting bad characters in her
Majesty's service, I took them to Mr. Coleman.
Mr. Coleman said the prisoners were brought to my
office by the last witness. Deane said his name was
John Lee. I told him that was different from the name
in the character. I produce the articles of the Garland,
for which he had forged a character, and I find the
name of John Lee in it with a bad character. I know
the prisoner asWilliam Walker Deane, and his register
ticket is now in my possession, and points him out as a
deserter. The name of the master of the Garland is
James Brown, not William Brown, as in the forged do-
cument. Mr. Coleman then produced evidence equally
unquestionable against Wiseman.
The prisoners admitted that all that had been said
against them was perfectly correct, and said they were
sorry for what they had done.
The Lord Mayor sentenced them to imprisonment,
with hard labour for 14 days.

BOW-STREET.—William Brewer, a young man,
was charged with obtaining several parcels of stationery
from wholesale houses, by false pretences.
John Rider, call-boy at the United University Club,
stated that the prisoner stopped him iuWaterloo-place
one afternoon, and offered him a shilling if he would go
and deliver a note for him. Witness consented, and then
accompanied the prisoner to a coffee-house in Chandos-
street, where he wrote something on a slip of paper, and
desired him to take it to Mr. Reynolds, card-maker, in
Vere-street. It seemed to be an order for 50 packets of
cards, and was signed "HenryJ. M'Clarey." The goods
were delivered to witness, and conveyed by him to the
prisoner ; but owing to the success of previous frauds at
the same house, a policeman was sent to watch the desti-
nation of the parcel, and the prisoner, on receiving it,
was taken into custody.
Mr. M'Clary, stationer, of St. James's-street, in whose
name the goods were ordered, proved that the signature
was a forgery, and the prisoner wholly unknown to
him.

Other similar cases were established, and in the course
of the inquiry the manoeuvres employed by the prisoner
to ascertain the names of firms doing business with each
other, also transpired. It appeared that about a month
or six weeks ago the prisoner went into the shop of
Messrs. Andrews and Co., of 167, New Bond-street, and
after purchasing a trifling article of stationery, pointed
to some packets of playing cards in the window, and
said, carelessly, to the young man in attendance, "By
the bye, of whom do you get the best sort of cards? I
am going to start business myself in a small way, and
should be thankful for the information. The assistant
replied that the cards in the window had been supplied
by Messrs. Reynolds, of Vere-street, and he also men-
tioned two or three other firms with whom Messrs.
Andrews had transacted business. A week or two after
this conversation a dozen packets of cards were sent from
Messrs. Reynolds without having been ordered by the
firm, and it then occurred to the assistant that there
might have been some fraudulent attempt by the young
man in question, which had been probably defeated by
the delivery of the goods at their house.
In another case the prisoner had used the name of
Mr. C. F. Seyfang, printer, of Farringdon-street, taking
the name from the name on the doer, or from the Direc-
tory ; but it happened that Mr. C. F. Seyfang had been
dead some years, and the signature was never used by
the present firm, who signed themselves " Seyfang
and Co."

The prisoner had obtained a considerable amount of
property by the above frauds before he was detected.
Mr. Henry committed him for trial.

WORSHIP-STREET.—The Rev. Thomas Rousel,
incumbent of St. Peter's, Stepney, waited upon the ma-
gistrate, to complain of a nuisance, calculated to injure
the health of his flock. A large quantity of manure and
other offensive matter had been suffered to accumulate
underneath several of the arches of the Eastern Counties
Railway, at Stepney, and poisoned the atmosphere. In
the course of his visitations about the locality, which
was densely populated, grievous complaints were con-
stantly addressed to him as to the deleterious effects of
the nuisance complained of upon the health of themselves
and families, many of whom were at present suffering
under aggravated attacks of diarrhoea, typhus fever,
and other dangerous maladies. After hearing their
representations, he felt it his duty to transmit an urgent
statement of the facts to the railway authorities, in
which he implored them to take the necessary steps for
the suppression of the nuisance, but they had not even
the common courtesy to notice his communication.

Mr. Hammill said that the public were greatly in-
debted to the reverend gentleman for taking up the
matter, but it would be necessary in the first instance to
place himself in communication with the district sur-
veyor, whose duty it was to furnish him with every as-
sistance in the prosecution of his laudable object.
Mr. Rousel—l have already spoken upon the subject
to Mr. Shaughnessy, the surveyor, who accompanied
me this morning to inspect the place, and appeared per-
fectly appalled at the enormity of the nuisance, but ex-
pressed his opinion that a renewed application to the
railway authorities was not likely to lead to any satis-
factory result, as he had complained to them more than
once in similar cases without the slightest effect.
Mr. Hammill said that he should direct one of the
officers of the court to proceed forthwith to the railway
station with an intimation to the officials that he ex-
pected them to adopt the necessary means for the total
suppression of the nuisance without further delay.

WESTMINSTER.—Mr. Wright, a corn merchant
in Millbank-row, and one of the sanitary committee of
the parish, applied to Mr. Arnold to complain that some
men belonging to the Commissioners of Sewers were at
that moment engaged in emptying a cesspool common
to several of the inhabitants in York-buildings, Grub-
street, Westminster, down one of the old sewers which
they were unable to flush. He had previously been to
the Commissioners of Sewers' office, and had received an
assurance from a person high in authority there that
cesspools should only be emptied into flush sewers, where
it could be washed down ; in violation of which assur-
ance the proceeding of which he complained was going
on. He had spoken to the men engaged in the opera-
tion, and they refused to desist. He wished the magis-
trate to send some of his officers to put a stop to it ; it
was in the heart of a densely-populated neighbourhood,
and it was impossible to say what mischief might result
from the proceeding.
Mr. Arnold expressed his willingness to do anything
in his power, but said he must look to the act of Parlia-
ment first, to see what power he had.
Applicant said he had felt it his duty to solicit the
magistrate's interference for the poor people of the locality
in which this was going on, because they were not in a
condition to help themselves. If this was being done in
Belgravia or any other fashionable place, it would soon
be put a stop to.
Mr. Arnold immediately directed Wood, the inspector
of nuisances of the district, to pay prompt attention to
i
the matter ; and f any offence against the words of the
statute were committed, to take proceedings against the
parties offending.

SOUTHWARS.----Mr. Nugent, a gentleman residing
at No. 5, Suffolk-street, Pall-mall, was summoned before
Mr. A'Beckett, to show cause why he refused to pay
the sum of is. to Thomas Nicholls, cab-driver, No. 3,249.
The cabman said that on the 13th inst. the defendant
engaged him on the rank near Suffolk-street to drive
him to the London-bridge terminus. He proceeded the
nearest way, and because he did not happen to get there
in time for the train, defendant paid him a shilling less
than his legal fare.
The defendant said he did not dispute the fare, but he
considered that the cabman had not driven him the most
straightforward and usual way. Instead of driving
along the Waterloo-road, the New-cut, Union-street, to
the London-bridge terminus, he went down Stamford-
street, across the Blackfriars-road, Holland-street, and
through the Borough-market. There was a stoppage
near the latter place, and the result of which was that
he was too late for the train by five minutes. Had he
gone the usual way he would have been in time, and he
should not have disputed the fare.
The cabman said he went the shortest way, and as the
gentleman did not signify which way he was to go, he
was entitled to the shilling.
Mr. A'Beckett said the cabman was always bound to
ne
go the shortest way, unless otherwise directed.Marers.
atnhda
t'
sure that
said he thought the other way was the
tiefht told
he had
thenot d
driven that way, he should
hwaaMvs e rrsi agAvhet'Beekt
a,
asthtehhe certainly tartaitnhey went a circuitous route. He
was sur
pay him ls. fare, 2s. co:: went efendthaent shortestthat
the
way
he bwmhiacnh
he was bound to do unless directed otherwise. He must
complainant's loss of time
The defendant immediately, paid
paid
of summons, and ss. for the
the money and left
the court.
LAMBETH.—
Mr. Bruford,
a gtntlman residing in
the Brixton-road, was summoned
sum of Bd., alleged to be due for four a -cabman for the
the top of his cab at the time that tlirpa.rcels
ee ladies carried o
defen-
n
an
dant's family were riding in it, d
of whose fares had been
paid.
The answer to the charge was, that the parcels, con-