The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-08 00:00:00

THE NEW RULES AND ORDERS.

It may well to remind professional gentlemen having
business at this court, that the new rules and orders
come into operation on Tuesday next, the 11th instant,
and that all proceedings must be upon paper of uniform
size.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JAN. 7.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Law.)
IN RR WILLIAM PRITCHARD. -EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF
BREACH OF TRUST.
The insolvent, a young man who had been clerk to a
West Indian house in the City, applied to be discharged.
He was opposed by Mr. Cooke, on the part of Messrs.
Barron and Stevens (trading as Rathray and Company)
West Indian merchants, Clement's-lane. Mr. Sargood
supported.
The complaint was that the insolvent had committed
a fraud and'breach of trust upon the opposing creditors, to
whom he acted as clerk, under peculiar and aggravating
circumstances. It appeared that in October, 1851, the
insolvent was engaged by Mr. Rathray, the manager of
the establishment, as bookkeeper and clerk. His salary
was 1201. a year. In February last it was discovered
that his defalcations amounted to 1621., chiefly owing to
non-entries in the cash book of cheques he had
received. The insolvent appealed to the clemency
of the house, and he was not prosecuted, but gave
an assignment and warrant of attorney, and under the
security the deficiency was paid. He was continued
in the service in the same situation. In October
last his habits were irregular, and notice was given
to him to leave. Mr. Gray, an accountant, was
employed to go through the books, and another
and a larger defalcation was discovered. He was then
called in, and he said, " You cannot make a criminal
charge because you condoned the other." He admitted
a defalcation to 2601., and subsequently it was ascer-
tained to amount to 3941. He gave another warrant of
attorney on his furniture, and 1181. had been realised,
leaving his deficiency 2641., and he had been arrested,
and was now in Whitecross-street Prison at the suit
of Messrs. Barron and Stevens. The mode adopted by
the insolvent in his second defalcation was to falsify
some of the accounts sent in, and to get cheques for
the money, and when the cheques were paid to the
parties to get the balance as if it had been paid in a
mistake. In two case he presented the accounts, and
got double cheques. He had lived at the rate of 3501.
a-year.
Mr. Cooke submitted that the evidence showed a very
bad case of breach of trust, and as such he prayed the
court to deal with it.
Mr. Sargood admitted the fraud committed, but urged
a condonation in the taking of the warrant of attorney
by which that which had been a breach of trust was
converted into a debt.
Mr. Commissioner Law gave judgment. He was
aware that the doctrine of condonation had been held by
some of the commissioners of the court to the effect that
if a security was taken, a complaint could not be allowed
on account of the original transaction. He had never
subscribed to such a doctrine, and never should, because
it was in his opinion a doctrine neither warranted by
common justice nor common sense. Therefore, this case
would be considered as if no security had been given.
His Honour, in reviewing the facts, said he did not
think Mr. Rathray could be charged, as he had been,
with culpable negligence, but had acted with great kind-
ness and Christian benevolence to the young man in
passing over the first defalcation. In a very short time
after the first deficiency was passed over the same course
of conduct was pursued. It was certainly a melancholy
and distressing case, and he (the Commissioner) was
bound to deal with it both as fraudulent and as a breach
of trust. The judgment of the Court was, that the in-
solvent should be discharged when he hadbeen in cue-
tedy for 15 months from the vesting order in December,
by fraudulently contracting the debt with Messrs. Bar-
run and Stevens by a breach of trust. 3
The case was not concluded till six o'clock.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT—Jan. 7.

NEW COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
George Cheeseman, 34, box-maker, John Barry, 21,
abourer, and Margaret Williams, 17, spinster, were in-
.icted upon two separate indictments for picking pockets.
The circumstances of the case for the prosecution were
'lose :—On the evening of the Saturdaypreceding Christ-
las-day, Police-constables Gladwin and Nevill, of the
division of police, saw the three prisoners in the

market-place of Woolwich, following the people about
in the crowd, and the woman tried the pockets of seve-
ral women, and amongst them the wife of a brewer in
the town named Bowman. They went up to a lady
named Tucker, who was making a purchase at the door