The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-24 00:00:00

was granted by Mr. Beckford, in May, 1819, the consideration
was 1,0881. the annuity 1361. ;.the next was an annuity of Mr.
Udney, the consideration 3,2001., the annuity 4001. it was
purchased in June 1819 • the next was an annuity of the
Rev. Mr. Struth 1501.;the consideration 1,0501. ; there was
a second of Lord J. Murray's of 3001., the consideration 2,1001.;
and a third, of 1501., for 1.000 guineas ; the next was an an_
nuity of Mr. J. Payne of 3501., the consideration 2,4501.,
that was still in existence ; there was another of the, same
party of 3501., the consideration 2,4501. ; the next was an
annuity of Count Linsingen of 1191., the consideration 1,1001. ;
the next was an annuity of the late Duke of Kent of 614 h,
the consideration 4,2001. ; the next was an annuity of Sir D.
B. Urban's of 4001., the consideration 2,8001., and another
annuity of 2601. ; the next was an annuity of Lord C. Fitz-
roy's of 3301., the consideration 2,6401. ; the gross amount
of all these was 44,1251. ss. 2d., and all these were real trans-
actions. Witness never applied to the plaintiff for money, ex.:
cept to invest in the purchase of annuities • at different times
the plaintiff had lent money to witness to the amount of above
30,0001., all of which he believed was invested in annuities ;
witness always told him it was ; the house had ample property,
but money not coming in as fast as it was required, witness had
appropriated the plaintiff's money to the immediate necessities
of the firm, which was from the year 1817, under engagements
for the annual payment of 120,0001; on the 9th of October, 1819,
the plaintiff's pass book was made up, and the balance really in
favour. of the plaintiff was 14,3191. 2s. 4d. ; to reduce that ba- .
lance, witness made fictitious entries of annuities and names of
annuitants, so ask) make it but 4191. 2s. 4d. Another settle-
ment of the account took place in May, 1820, when witness-
again made ficticious entries for the same purpose ; in Novem-
ber. 1820. the balance really in favour of the plaintiff was
36,8771. 10s.
Mr. Reinond4 went into the employment of Froward and
Gibbs in September, 1819 ; he deposed to making up the ac.l
counts alluded to by Mr. Gibbs, and that the erasures were not
there when he made them up.
The SOLICITOR GENETTAT., for the defendant, said there
was a conspiracy to defeat the claims of bona fide creditors, whose
only support had been wasted and destroyed by the gross mis-
management of Gibbs, for Mr. Howard, at the time of the
failure, actually believed himself possessed of very extensive
property. Gibbs had represented himself in his evidence to
have acted fraudulently towards Grimstead. His case rested
on fraud and deceit, but it had been well observed, and he (the
Solicitor-General) should use the argument here, that if a man
represented himself to have acted infamously, the question would
' be whether he had so acted, or was so acting at the time by mak-
ing the statement of his infamy for a particular and fraudulent
purpose ?
Several letters from Portea, a conveyancer, to Gibbs, dated
March 1821, were read, in which he desired Gibbs to arrange,
so as to postpone the meeting for the choice of assignees, until,
the plaintiff could arrive from France.
A letter from Gibbs to the plaintiff, dated Oct. 9, 1819, was
read, in which the balance was stated to be 4191. 2s. 4d.
A letter of Rimondl was also read, in which lie stated his
willingness to do any thing to assist Gibbs, and promised •to
attend the office as clerk to the commission.

The pass-book was produced, and Mr. Richard Adam, the
accountant, proved that he had ascertained the amount of the
annuities received up to May, 1819; by that account, 2,3501.
6s. Bd. was the balance up to that time, when a bill to that
amount was given to the plaintiff; and subsequently paid.
Mr. Ambrose Humphries deposed, that a Mr. Wilson, a
client of his, had purchased an estate of Mr. Howard and Mr.
Gibbs, and the plaintiff had been present at some of the inter-
views for the purchase, r.:nd requested that a part of the pur-
chase-money should a, paid to Grimstead in liquidation of
his debt.
Serjeant LENS replied, and contended that the books
which had been produced supported Gibb's evidence, and be-
ing documents created at the' time when nothing of this kind
was expected, cleanly and indubitably proved the truth of his
statement.
Lord Chief JuStice DALLAS charged the Jury, who retired
at half-past seven o'clock, and after half an hour's deliberation
returned a verdict for the defendant.