The Sun.
London, England, 1822-10-25 00:00:00

THE KING V. HOWARD AND GIBBS.

Mr. D. F. JONES stated that this was an indictment against
Edward Howard and James Gibbs, charging them with a con-
spiracy to defraud Richard Dartnell of 1,1071. which they had
in their hands, under pretence of laying 'it out on adequate
security.
Mr. SCARLETT opened the case for the prosecution. It was
almost impossible that the .Jury should not have heard the names
of the defendants in this case, who had acquired an unhappy
celebrity by the ruin they had brought on great numbers of
persons who had the misfortune to trust them. This indictment
was preferred by one of those deluded persons whom they had
persuaded to repose confidehce in them, and to place money
in their hands by the prospect of- enormous interest, which
they professed themselves able- to secure. He had been all
his life in trade; and having saved a little/money by his in-
dustry, and wishing to retire, he was tempted by the offers
of the defendants to confide In them not only as his bankers,
but as agents to invest his money in, annuities. He had part of
an annuity on the life of the Marquis of Sligo, which that
Noble Lord redeemed, and accordingly 1,107/. was paid by Lord
Sligo on his account .to Messrs. Howard and Gibbs. When
he applied for hiS money, they intimated to him that they would
lend it to the Duke of Marlborough; blithe, for some reason or
other, decidedly objected to the Duke as a creditor. On this
Gibbs said to him, " I have his father's will," meaning that the
security was ample. Soon after,'NoweVer, When he received his
account, he found himself debited with 1,200/. for the purchase
of an annuity of,2001: a year from the Mike, and credited with
100/. the 'alleged receipt of one half year,of the annuity. This
was of course intended to inspire confidence ; and so artfully
had the defendants proCeeded, that they made up the account
on this principle, and brought in Mr. Darthell debtor for the
triffinghalance of Is. 5d., which he paid to one of their clerks.
He continued-to receive assurances from' both that all was safe;
but he still pressed for his money •• until at last he was inform-
ed
that the annuities were .paid ,o'ff; that he had lost a very
good bargain by his folly ; but that he had only to sign a de-
henture of Mr. St. John, and he would receive his principal in a
short period. Upon. the faith of this representation, he signed',
the debenture, relinquishing the annuity, and, thought all was
right. To' carry on the deception, the -defendants now debited
him with the 1001., which they professed to have received, as
though a bone fide contract were rescinded. The Jury would
of course expect to hear what was fact—that the debenture was
' worth nothing—it was absolute nonsenseit did not charge the
Mire -or Mr: St. John with the obligation to do any thing—hut ,
took away Niliatorei little security the preious deed might give.
Whal.was The meaning of all this ? The trick was, that the
defendimts had large clahnS on the of Marlborough, and
being unable to obtain any money-from him, they persuaded
ignorant people to purchase annuities from his Grace, and put
the money into theinown pockets. About this time they raised
no less than 10,002/. for the Duke from variouspersons, and no
doubt thus repaid themselves what he owed them. This was
'the case • sufficient evidence -would, he believed, be given' to
-evince that there was a conspiracy between the two parties to
defraud Mr, Dartnell ; and if so, they would exercise a duty to
the public in finding the defendants guilty.
Richard Dartnell, examined by Mr. MauitYaT.—ln 1818 I
carried on business as a stationer, in St. Martin's-court. I have
employed Messrs. Howard and Gibbs to lay out money for me.
The account produced is "that current between us. I saw both
Howard and Gibbs, who were, as I believe, in partnership. In
1017, somewhere about November,'l,lo7/. 4s. Gd. was in their
hands, after the redemption of an 'annuity. by -Lord. Sligo, in
which I had a share. I called. repeatedly, desiring to have the
Money, when.' generally saw Mr. Gibbs. By Gibbs it was pro-
p6sed me to-lay out the money with the Duke of Marlborough ;
I told him I would not have it, as no one would trust the Duke
ivith a shilling.,He pointed to a paper lying under the table, and
said " I haVe gotais father's will ;" I said " What's,the use
of that ?" We then, parted. I afterwards saw Gibbs many
times'prior to meeting him and
,Howard•together and he pro-
mised me the money repeatedly. At last I saw diem together ;
I asked for the "money ; -Howard rePlied; "Oh; my-boy, we
have done the Marlborough annuity for you; and it bears a pre-
mium. I told Mr. Howard he was very welcome to the annuity
if he would let me have the Sligo money. 'We patted, then.—
Afterwaids I said to both of them that it was very odd they
should serve me so, as I never received intimation, or docu-
ment, or account. Howard said, " Have'lit ye, my bey? then
I will send you one to-morrow." The next day I received the
paper produced now. After receiving the paper I often saw
Gibbs, but never Howard, that 1 remember: On April 22d I
received the pass-book from one of Mr. Gibbs' clerks.
The book produced stated 1,2001. to the debit of the witness
for the purchase of an annuity from the Duke of Marlborough,
and to his credit 1,1071. received from the redemption of the
Marquis of Sligo's annuity. There were aLso other items of
smaller amount.
The witness proceeded—l always exclaimed to Mr. Gibbs
against the annuity. He generally promised that 1 should have
my money. I afterwards, on the 21st of August, in the same
year, received a book giving me credit for 1001. receipt of half
a year's annuity from the Duke Marlborough, and making
the balance against me Is. sd. A clerk came and asked me for
ls. sd. ; I gave it to him, and he returned me the book,
which I took away. Mr. Gibbs, never told me the 1001. was
paid. I often went for the Sligo money, but in vain. At last
Mr. Gibbs sent me a letter, to come at -lbw o'clock on a certain
day; 1 went; he put me, down' a 1;0001:note and Other notes,
and -said " Look at them, my boy." I asked if he was goin
to pay them to me ? He. told me to call to-morrow„ and said
he would pay me if I would not tell any of the other annui-
tants. In November, he asked me to sin a debenture, and
said, if, I did so, I should have my money in 'two or three
months. I accordingly signed it on the faith of what lie said.
I carried it away with me at the time. It was after this that
Gibbs told me he would pay me if 'I would not tell any of the
annuitants. I have not got a penny of 'my money, or of „the
annuity. In a subsequent account I was debited with the 100/.
placed. to my credit. [The account was read.]
Cress-examined by Mr.SoLICITOR-GENERAL.—I retired
from business in May 1810.' -I had 'been in business 40 years,
entirely managing my own affairs. The latter part of the time
my business was extensive. I was very exact in all My trans-
actions. . In January, 1312, I first employed Howard and

Gibbs to lay out my money in an annuity, by which I received
eleven percent. fbr fouf years and,a half. • -
,The Loup CHIEFJUSTICE.—You were very fortunate.
'Witness continued.—l afterwards laid out more money on
their judgment, at 11 per cent. I did not expect to obtain this
without some risk. : I might apply.to them to: pay an annuity
in advance, and I believed they accommodated me. I autho-
rized Mr. Gibbs to receive my money,• but never authorized
him to lay it out. My authority to receive the money was
given in December, 1817. Eaily in 1818 Howard and Gibbs
discounted a bill for me of 370/. 1 cannot recollect Whether
'they told 'me that the annuity was partly secured on the post-
office annuity of the Duke of 5,0001. Theynever asked me to
take the debenture in exchange for the annuity. I did not read
it before I signed it, nor till a month afterwards. I think I cal'
swear it was not read to me before I signed it;' but I should
not • like to swear • I did ~not, understand it when I did read it,.
:but I do now. I-liaye never put it in suit against Mr. St. John;
I returned it to Howard and Gibbs',' but I had it' again, and
hate it now. Ido not remember that I was told that the de-
benture was substituted: for the annuity, because the Lord
Chancellor had decided that the post-office annuity was not
chargeable ; but I will not swear.
Re-examined by Mr. MAnityAT.—The first annuity was
paid ,only for three years.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—He was in great luck : if a
man bargains for 11 per cent. he is in luck to get it for three
years.
Witness.a-It was about April, 1818, that Howard said, We
have done the Marlborough annuity for you." ' '
An abstract of the grant of the annuity from the Duke of
Marlborough to Mr. Howard was read.
The debenture from Mr. St. John was next read. It recited
an investigation of the'clebt; and that it was settled, and stated
that Mr. Dartnell should haVe the benefit of a deed for arrang-
ing with the Duke's creditors. It also contained a release of
the Duke of Marlborough, and a proviso that it should not in
any way charge Mr: St. John, who acted only as a trustee for
the Duke's creditors.
William Lewis Davis, examined by Mr. D. F. JONES.—I
was formerly a linendraper, and am retired from business. I
am sorry to say I have 'had concerns with Howard and' Gibbs.
They became partners in 1316 or 1817. I had the misfortune
to, have an annuity with the. Duke of Marlborough in which
they were employed, and they ieceived it ror me. I obtained
my annuity down to March or April -1817, but afterwards one
quarter was deducted, as not being paid. •
On cross-examination he said—My annuity was granted
when the Duke was Marquis of Blandford : in 1817 his father
died.'
George Whitehead, a clerk in the employ of Howard, and.
Gibbs, proved that their partnership commenced in 1813.. They
had large annuity transactions with the Duke of Marlborough.
His annuities were pretty regularly paid till he left' the office.
. John Felton Cook, a clerk. of ,Howard and Gibbs. in,1813,
said that they had demands on the Duke afthat time of 8;000/.
He' knew of none of the 1200/. making its way to the Duke.—
He believed the Duke in January, 1818, was debtor to the
partners in a large sum. • .
This was the case ror theprosecntion.
The SOLIOI'I'DIt-GE'N'EIIAL said, that the duty now devolv-
ed: upon him of stating the answer 'which his clients, Messrs.
Howard and Gibbs, had to give to the present indictment. Had
the prosecutor thought plainer to .shape his case in the form
of a civil action, then indeedllie parties could have met upon
something like fair and equal'ground, and the real merits of the
case would have been. better and more thoroughly understood.
The facts of the case were these :—Mr. Dartnell had been in
the habit of intrusting various sums of money •fo Messrs.
Howard,and Gibbs, to be invested in annuities, bearing con-
siderable interest ; and when the Jury were informed that 11
and 12 per cent. was Mr. antnell's share of the•profit, they
Would easily believe that the transactions out of which such
extravagant profit arose were not of the firm and stable cha-
racter which necessarily attached to the ordinary 'dealings
at 5 per cent. interest. Messrs. Howard and 'Gibbs had been
for a long . time engaged in receiving annuities from the
Duke of Marllioroagh, and in one ,of these annuities Mr.
Dartnell's money became invested in the following manner :
The Marquis of Blandford, before hebecame Duke of Marlbo-
rough, was in the habit of applying to Messrs. Howard and
Gibbs to relieve him from his embarrassments, and he wanted to
raise 10,1100/. upon his Post-office annuity Of 5;000/. a year,
which he enjoyed as successor to the great John Duke of Marl-
borough : that annuity. had only been an incumbrance of -350/.
a year and according to the legal opinions obtained by Howard
and Gibbs from eminent conveyancers, it was quite 'competent
for the Duke to mortgage it for any annuities which.he was de-
sirous of executing. After, however, this was transacted, the
money received by the Duke, the 10,000/. paid to his Grade,
and the debentiires delivered to the owners, Dartnell being
one of the number, a Chancery suit was brought by a Mr.
Davis against his Grace for some arrears due . from annuity
deeds; and it then appeared from the Lord Chancellor's judg-
ment, that the Duke could not by law incumber the Post-office
pension for any of his debts, that being expressly granted by
the, act of Queen Anne, to enable the Dukes of Marlborough
to maintain with due splendour the honours of Blenheim.
—The 'moment this judgment was pronounced, Howard and
Gibbs did all that was in their power, under the circumstances,
to secure the holders of the debentures ; and they obtained from
the Duke a power by which all his Grace's estates, which were
large, and would be ultimately available, were vested in trust
in General St. John, to enable the trust to secure and ultimately
discharge the debentures whichlwere affected by the unforeseen
decision in the Court of Chancery.' How then could Howard
and Gibbs be charged with fraud ? The whole was a bona fide
transaction ; the business was done openly ; they had taken the
most eminent legal advice.in the first instance ;'and acting on
the faith of such advice, they stood wholly protected from the
present charge. He trusted the Jury would banish from their
minds all the unfortunate consequences of the 'defendants'
bankruptcy, and look at this case fairly and calmly, as they
would any other which was brought under their consideration.
He should now support this brief statement by evidence.
Edward Howard, jun., examined by Mr. GURNEY.—Said
.he was the son of the dfendant, and saw the Duke of Marl-
borough execute the deed now in Court, on the 10th of January,
11118, at Blenheim ; and his Grace was at the same time paid
the 10,000/. set forth in the consideration.
Cross-examined—They Mopped about an hour at Blenheim;
whether Mr. Gibbs brought back any part of the 10,000/. he
could not say. Witness left the room when the deed was ex-
ecuted, leaving Mr. Gibbs alone with the Duke. -
Stephen Porter examined—Said be was a conveyancer, who
had ..been constantly consulted by Howard and Gibbs during a
course of years, upon legal matters ; and was consulted in the
year 1817 upon the ability of the Marquis of Blaridford to make
a rent charge upon the 5,0001. a year post-office pension granted
in the reign of Queen Ann, to, the then Duke of Marlborough and
his successors, and his (witness) opinion was in' favour of the
validity of the security. He prepared the deed accordingly, and
had not 'the smallest doubt respecting the security. In the
opinion which he then gavein writing, he entered fully into the
reasons which influenced hi's judgment, because he had heard
that. Air. Butler entertained some doubts upon the point.
Cross-examined—He did a great deal. of business for Howard
and Gibbs, but lie could not say that he did the whole of their
conveyances fee fliur or five years past he had ceased generally
to exercise his piofessiOn ; his principal clients were'certainly
Howard and Gibbs. .
John Abbott examined.—Was clerk to the Duke of Marl-
borough's solicitor; and in June, 1818, he recollected the pro-
posal to substitute other securities after the decision of the Lord
Chancellor in ,Davis's case, and to make General St. John a
trustee of the Duke's estate.
Cross-examined-4n the year .1813,' there was a great deal of
arrear of the Duke's annuities; and indeed at an earlier-period,
so far back as 1816: whether Howard and Gibbs knew such to
be 'the case, ,he could not say.
Ite-exarnined.—When the Marquis of Blandford. became
Duke of Marlborough, he had of course a power to raise money
on fresh securities.
W. Milman, Of the firm of Milman and Co., produCed the
trust-deed given to General St. John, which was framed when
the General was made trustee of the Marlborough estates after
the decision in the Court of Chancery.
Thomas Stevens examined.—Was a clerk to Mr. Gibbs in
the year 1818, and the present debenture was ; executed in his
presence, and read and explained previously to Mr.- Dartnell.
. Cross-examined,He left Mr. Gibbs's service at the bank-
ruptcy, a year or two ago. There were five or six clerks in the
•establishtnent. 'The finn had done a great: deal of business
for the Duke of Marlborough, but he paid not say whether
they had raised new loans to pay off old annuities long due by.
his Grace. .
The opinions of Messrs. Preston and Butler delivered in writ-
ing, the one (Mr. Butler's) against, and the other in favour of
the validity of the post-office annuity, as a security for the Duke
of Marlborough's debentures, were then put in and read.
Mr. SCARLETT in reply contended, that. the mode of de-
fence adopted was a strong confirmation of Mr. Dartnell's evi-
dence in support of the prosecution, for were that testimony irn-
peachable, why not have produced the assignees, any of the
clerks who were privy to the transactions stated .by Mr. Dart-
nell, or those who really could have described the manner in
which the Duke of Marlborough's affairs in money transactions
had been tarred on by Howard and Gibbs, and by which Mr.
Dartnell had been deluded.
The:LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence to the
Jury; and observed that if they were of Opinion that the defend-
ants had bone fide laid out the money, .even though contrary to
the owner's instructions, they ought to acquit them ; if, on the
contrary, they believed it to have been a fraudulentstransaction,
to retain possession of his money, they would then find them
guilty. . .
The Jury, after, two mintes' consultation, returned a' verdict
of Not Guilty. .