The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-11 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 10.

CONSPIRACY--THE QUEEN V. GOMPERTZ AND OTHERS.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. WATSON, Q.C., who appeared with Mr. Cowling,
for Mr. Robert Witham, one of the defendants, then
proceeded to address the Court. He said he was in-
structed to say, on behalf of his client, who was the
youngest son of Mr. William Witham, that he was
wholly innocent of the crime brought to his charge,
and that his conviction must have arisen out
of some misconception on the part of the jury
who tried him, and that his conviction could only
have arisen out of some of those circumstances which
generally weighed in the minds of a jury called upon to
try an indictment of conspiracy. Mr. Francis Witham
died before the indictment was brought before a court of
justice, so that, whether he was guilty, or whether he
had been made a dupe of, or not, werequestions which it
was unnecessary now to determine. His client was 19
years of age at the time, and when the indictment
was instituted against him he had only been two years
in his father's office. His father and grandfather had
occupied a high position as solicitors, and had carried on
business in the same office, in Gray's-inn-square, since
1J72. Capitaitn Rose was an outcast from his family, an
outlaw, and in great pecuniary difficulties, his only
means :of subsistence being half-pay, and 200/, which
was allowed. him by his friends, and the reversionary
interest of 8,0001, to which, after all, he had no
claim whatever, as his father had advanced the
money upon. it. Captain Rose, it appeared, had been a
candidate to• represent the borough of Poole in Parlia-
ment, and in order to pay the expenses of the contest a
Mr. Sleds lent him 1,0001, but as he could not get it
back again he instructed Mr. Parr, his solicitor, to pro-
ceed to London in order to obtain its repayment from
Captain Rose. Being thus pressed, and being anxious to
get rid of tlae importunities of Mr. Parr, he and Gompertz,
on the 25 th of Avgust, during the Jong vacation of
1841, attended at the office of Messrs. Witham, and in-
duced Mr. Robert Witham, who was the only person
there, and he had nothing whatever to do with the ma-
nagement of the firm, to write a letter to Mr. Parr,
stating, in the name of the firm, that they had every
reason to believe that the bills of Captain Rose,
for 30,0001, would be duly paid by Parker.
'There could be no question that this letter was obtained
for the ex ~press purpose of satisfying Mr. Parr, and was
obtained from a young man of 19, who was not entrusted
with any voice in the management of the firm, by Rose
and Gompertz, both of whom were experienced men of
the world. This was the only evidence against Robert
Witham. Rose, however, stated at the trial that the letter
was written. without any pressing request on his part, or
on the part of Gompertz. On the very day the letter was
exhibited to Mr. Parr, and an order given to him or
Messrs. Witham for 1,000/. Shortly after, Parr, at a
meeting at the Carlton Club, he having received a letter
from Mr. Witham sen., saying that Parker was not his
client, and that he did not know him, stated that he be-
lieved the matter was all humbug, and that they had
only:misled him.
Lord D EStMAN said the worst part of the matter was
that the Withams acted as the attorneys of Rose and
Gompertz, and that a solicitor named Smith acted for
the imaginary Mr. Parker, thus favouring the assump-
tion that they did not act for Parker because there was I
fraud in the transaction.

Mr. WAr.s.ox went on to say, that notwithstanding
the letter of Mr. Witham, sen., stating that Parker, who
was to advance the money on the bills, was not his
client, Rose, who knew of the circumstance, signed
the bills shortly after. Then it was stated by Mr. Parr
that Mr. Robert Witham was at the meeting at the
Carlton Club, whereas it appeared from his affidavits
that he never was in the Carlton Club in his lifetime,
and that the evidence given in the course of the trial was
a mistake ; he was often taken for his brother, who is
dead.
Lord DEN AN stated that the Court would look at the
affidavits before hearing Mr. Watson further.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 10.
THE ATTORNEY- GENERAL V. BAILEY.

In this case, which was tried last term before the
Lord Chief Baron, verdicts were returned for the Crown
upon the first, fourth, and fifth counts of the declaration.
The first count charged the plaintiff with being in pos-
session of four illicit stills; upon this count a verdict
was found with the sum of 2,0001. The fourth count
charged the defendant with distilling spirits without a
license ; upon this count a ♦erdict was returned with
the sum of 5001. The fifth count charged the
defendant with removing spirits without a permit;
the verdict upon this count was also for the Crown,
with the sum of 4,0001. The defendant carried on the
business of a wholesale chemist and druggist at Red-
burn, in Derbyshire.

Mr. MARTIN now moved for a rule either to set aside
the verdict, or for a new trial. Although it had been
proved by the witnesses called at the trial upon the part
of the Crown that these stills had been improperly
used, yet these stills were primarily intended for the
purpose of distilling sweet spirits of nitre, and as this
article was exempted from the operation of 6 George IV.,
the defendant was not bound to take out a license, and
therefore the verdict returned upon the two last counts
was wrong. If the party owning stills kept for the pur-
pose of distilling such spirits of nitre should use his still
for the purpose of manufacturing spirits properly so
called, there were other Acts under which he could be
puni.hed, but under the 6 Geo. IV. it was now con-
tended that the defendant could not be convicted.
The COURT held the verdict to be good, and consi-
dered
that the defendant came under the definition of
the Act.—Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 10.
(Sittings in Banco.)
ROBINSON V. BROWN.

This was a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground of
the improper admission of evidence. It was an action
to recover 4001. secured on a bond, and the verdict 'bad
been returned for the plaintiff. The plaintiff had not
served the defendant with notice to produce the written
notice with which he had been served of breach of bond,
and at the trial evidence as to the substitution of a letter
was given, without the letter itself being produced.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Butt showed cause
against the rule, and Mr. Sergeant Ryles and Mr. Burns
supported it.

was, whether
hLeotßhDerCrroEperrJntrostTiclecEofsadiedf,authltehqaduebsteieonn
gaitveisnsttioe
the defendant ? He was of opinion that there had not,
as the defendant should not only have given notice of
the default, but have called on him to produce the same
on trial. His opinion, therefore, was, the evidence was
insufficient to go to the jury. He did not think the prac-
tice of notice regarding bills of exchange admissible
in the present case. Failing in that, he con-
sidered the rule for a nonsuit should be made
absolute. But that the ends of justice might bo served,
the Court perhaps would be able to frame the rule,
though leave on that head had not been given,
_so as
to enter a verdict, and then the question might be
raised whether the production of the paper was material
or not in the case.
The other Learned Judges concurred, and the rule
was made absolute.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 10.
(Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)
IN RE THE LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM EXTENSION
RAILWAY TO LEAMINGTON.
His HONOUR had appointed twelve o'clock to-day to
give his decision as to whether the insertion of a notice
of dissolution in the London Gazette was an act of
bankruptcy, and at that hour the solicitor to the fiat was
in attendance.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said that the point was
of such great importance that he wished for further
time to consider, but perbar. the solicitor would wish to
argue the point.
The SOLICITOR said that he was prepared to do so.
The Learned CoMMISsIoNER tr.,ked whether he wished
for, time, or to employ counsel?
The SQLICIIOB said he was ready to argue the case

~.....,,—... --....„-,
himself at any time appointed, and two o'clock to-day
was fixed.

At two o'clock to-day this matter was called on by
appointment for the question to be argued whether a
notice of dissolution of the company in the London Ga-
zette was in itself an act of bankruptcy.
Mr. Pocock appeared as solicitor to the fiat.
The Learned COMMISSIONER asked whether any per-
son appeared on the other aide to oppose the adjudica-
tion ?

Mr. POCOCK said he was not aware that any opposi-
tion would be made. He then proceeded to argue that
under the 27th and 28th sections of the Act gthland 10th
Vic., c. 28, any creditor was at liberty to sue out a fiat
after notice of dissolution was given in the Gazette,
whether the company had decided that the dissolution
was to be considered an act of bankruptcy or not, if
such fiat was sued out within three months from the
time such notice was given, and that the dissolution
of the company was in itself an act of bankruptcy, for no
further proceedings could be taken to carry out the ob-
ject for which it was formed.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said he was of opinion
that it was so, but the Act was by no means clear, and
he should not decide without consulting his brother
Commissioner. He would take down the argument and
consider the matter.
Mr. Pococx said that he had also to submit that the
shutting up the (Ace and ending trade was an act of
bankruptcy under the general law.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said that if the bank-
ruptcy could not be sustained under this Act it could not
be made out at all. The company were not traders.
Mr. Pococu said that if the creditors could not come
in under this Act they had no remedy against the share-
holders, for the managers bad almost all absconded, and
it was only by ascertainini, the debts under the bank-
ruptcy that they could go before the Lord Chancellor to
have a distribution from the shareholders.
Mr. POCOCK said Mr. Commissioner Goulburn had
expressed a very strong opinion as to the validity of the
proceedings.
The Learned COMMISSIONER then adjourned the case
till Friday next.