The Sun.
London, England, 1834-10-06 00:00:00

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, OcT. 4.

COMMISSION OF THE CHRAPSIDE BANKRUPTS.

An examination, which occupied several hours, took place
before Mr. Commissioner EVANS, at the Bankruptcy Court,
Basinghall-street, relative to the forgeries lately discovered
to have been committed by Mr. John Bentley, of the firm of
Bentley, Dear, and Richardson, of Cheapside.
The first witness who was examined was Mr. Baugh, a
clerk in the banking establishment of Vere and Co.,
who produced a promissory note for 10,0001., drawn
by Bentley, Dear, and Co., in favour of Gumersall and
Co., and payable three months after date ; he stated that
the house of Vere and Co. received it on the 20th of Sep-
tember, from the firm of Gumersall and Co.
Mr. Thomas Bedford Gumersall, of Lombard-street, bill-
broker, a member of the Society of Friends, was then exa-
mined on his affirmation, and he stated that between the
10th and 22d of September he received from the house of
Bentley and Co. bills to the following amount :
One bill for 995 15 0
One bill for 992 16 11
One bill for 1,044 0 0
Two bills for 10,0001. each
The two bills for 10,000/. each were made on the 18th of
last month, and, under an arrangement with Mr. Dear, it
was agreed that he (witness) should receive the two bills
for advances that he had made. He did not recollect mak-
ing any advances to Mr. Bentley when the two notes were
given, but a debit appears in the cash-book of 1,0001. hav-
ing been paid by their house on the 18th of Sept., after the
notes were given. _ .

Mr. AsiiußsT, the solicitor by whom the examination
was conducted, then put the following questions to Mr.
Gumersall, and obtained the annexed answers :
Now, have you not stated that these notes were given
when you signed and gave to Mr. Bentley a guarantee to a
person named Barr, who had condemned a large quantity of
Mr. Bentley's paper ?—I do not recollect that I made any
such statement.

Did you give Mr. Bentley a guarantee for Mr. Barr ?
Yes, I gave a guarantee for 9,0001. or 10,0001. I believe
the guarantee was given on the day before the notes were
drawn—returned to me—and given again by me either the
day before or the day after.
Witness then stated that he understood from his partner
that the 1,0001. advanced to Mr. Dear on the 18th, was in
part consideration of the two notes for 10,0001. each, which
had been made by Mr. Bentley. We (said the witness)
received the bills for general purposes on account, and not
for any specific moneys that we had advanced.
Do you recollect the interview that took place between
Mr. Dear, Mr. Richardson, and yourself, on the 15th of
September, and their stating to you the suspicions which
they entertained of their partner ; and that they would
stop the house, unless your house would advance the 7,0001.
excess of bills, held by your house ?—I do not recollect it.
Can you affirm that no such communication was made by
them to you on the day in question ?—No, I cannot.
Do you not recollect that the fact of their suspicions of
Mr. Bentley, was then stated to you ?—Yes, I wish to
qualify that. I have no recollection of dates at all as to
that particular date ; it was stated in my presence, but not
stated to me.

Will you state what the question was ?—To the best of
my recollection I asked them whether they had the least
suspicion of my being in any way cognizant of the frauds,
by means of forged bills, said to have been committed by
Mr. Bentley, having heard that they entertained suspicions
upon that point.
Now, were not the whole of your transactions with Mr.
Bentley, to which you have spoken on this examination,
after the interview in question ?—No, I- cannot state—it is
impossible.
Which of these transactions occurred before this inter-
view ?—As I have before stated, Mr. Dear received one
thousand pounds from our hands, on account of their firm,
for some bills that, I believe, were brought by him or their
clerk.

With the exception mentioned in your last answer, were
not the whole of the transactions with Bentley, or Bentley
and Co., to which you have alluded in this examination,
after the interview ?—I can decide upon the whole, except
one lot, that is the first, for 9951. 15s. which appears in our
rough cash book to have been left with us on the lath. The
other transactions were after the interview, to the best of
my recollection ; but I have no doubt about it.

Now, as you admit that you know that Mr. Bentley was
at the time suspected by his partners, will you now affirm
you have no recollection of what passed in conversation at
the interview when he made two 10,000/. notes in your
counting-house, in your presence, and signed them in the
name of his firm ?—I cannot recollect positively ; only the
usual conversation took place that is used between parties
who bring bills for discount and parties who procure ad-
vances of money.

Do you admit that the last answer, upon reflection, is all
the information that you can give as to the transaction ?
—Yes it is, to the best of my recollection.
Will you affirm that Mr. Dear and Mr. Richardson did
not, at the interview, when Mr. Ashurst stated his suspi-
cions as to Mr. Bentley, also state that they would not
consent to go on with these suspicions on their minds, un-
less your house would advance the necessary supplies to
pay all their bills ?—I will certainly not affirm that they
did not say so.

Do you believe that they did not say so ?—I believe they
did not say so in my presence.
Did you communicate to Mr. Dear or Mr. Richardson
any thing relative to the making of the two 10,0001. notes,
and of Mr. Bentley's application for cash upon them before
Mr. Bentley absconded :—No ; I did not.
Do you know when Mr. Bentley did abscond ?—,No,
only by hearsay.
When did you see him last ?—On Sunday, the 21st of
September.

Where did you see him first on that day ?—At my pri-
vate house at Cambridge-terrace ; he came there.
At what time in the morning ?—I think it was about
eleven o'clock.

Now state what passed between you and him when he
first came to you on the Sunday morning ?—He wished me
to devise means to enable him to withdraw the amount of
paper which he had previously stated was in the market of
a fraudulent description—namely, bearing fraudulent ac-
ceptances only ; that was the purport of his visit entirely,
and which I was aware that both his partners wished to
have done.

Was that the whole substance of what then passed ?
Yes.

What did you do or say ?—I went out with him.
Where did you next see him ?

Mr. Wood, the solicitor, who appeared on the part of
Mr. Gumersall, objected to the course of examination.
The course of examination was to implicate the witness
with the absconding party in a criminal charge, and was
contrary to all practice.
The COMMISSIONER, admitted the objection, and directed
that the question should be struck out.
Examination resumed—Did Mr. Bentley at any time
previous to the 15th of September give you a list of bills
of exchange for the purpose of your taking up the bills
mentioned in that list ?

Mr. Wood again objected, and the witness was ordered
to withdraw.

After some discussion between the Solicitor to the fiat
and the Solicitor for the party under examination,
Mr. Wood requested permission to confer with his client,
and left the room for that purpose. After a very short in-
terval he returned with

Mr. Gumersall, who, addressing the Commissioner, said,
" My professional adviser, Mr. Wood, has instructed me
not to give answers to certain questions that may be put to
me respecting my knowledge of the bills in question. As
a man, I beg most distinctly to state that I am perfectly
ready and willing to give every information that is in my
power, well knowing that I am perfectly innocent of any
guilty participation in these fraudulent transactions."
Examination again resumed by Mr. Ashurst—To whom
did your house pay the two notes for 10,0001. each ?—One
was pa id to our banker, Messrs. Vere and Co., and the
other to Richard Thornton, Esq., of the Old Swan.
When did'you pay the note for 10,0001. to Messrs. Vere
and Co.?-0n Friday or Saturday, the 19th or 20th of
September.
Who paid it into their house ?—I do not know.
Who do you believe paid it in ?—I believe it was my
partner or his brother, I do not know which.
On what day is the payment of it entered in your books ?
:—On the 20th of September.

Have you any reason to suppose that, as it was entered
on the .206, it was not delivered to them earlier P—lt was
in their house earlier.

When was it first in their house ?—On the day on which
it is made received in our books, viz., the 18th of September.
Was it in their hands at any time before the 20th of
September for any other purpose than safe custody ?—I
believe not.

For what purpose was it placed in their hands on the
20th ?—As a collateral security.
For what ?—For advances of money.
What advances of money were made upon that note by
Messrs. Vere and Co. to your house ?—No specific amount.
I ask (said Mr. Ashurst), what advance of money was
made on that note by Messrs. Vere and Co. to your house ?
—No specific amount on that note individually.
What- advance of money was made by them to your house
on that note, and others delivered to them at the same time?
The advance made to us by Messrs. Vere and Company on
that and other bills was twenty-three thousand pounds.
When was the advance amounting to 23,0001. made ?
The advance, being moneys to call on demand,
was consi-
dered the advance of the day, for which the collaterals were
lodged, and, consequently the advance on the note alluded
to was made on Sept. 20.
When was the advance amounting to 23,0001. made ?
I don't know that I can better answer the question than by