The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-30 00:00:00

ALLEG ED FRAUD.

On Saturday Mr. I3urcham concluded at the
Southwark police-court a very lengthened investi-
gation, involving matters of grave importance to
the mercantile community. Mr. William Francis
and Mr. James Hooper, one of the leading firms,
carrying on business as William Francis and Co.,
of No. 3, New Leather-market-street, Bermondsey,
were charged " for that they were intrusted by
Thomas Summers, of Cheltenham, with certain
securities for the payment of money—to wit, two
bills of exchange, together amounting to £522 125.,
with directions in writing to remit the proceeds to
the said Thomas Summers; and the said William
Francis and James Hooper did,on or about the 19th
of June last, unlawfully, in -violation of good faith,
and contrary to the purpose so:specified, convert to
themselves the use and benefits of such proceeds of
the said bills of exchange."
The defendants pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Crafter, solicitor, conducted the prosecution,
and Mr. W. Pearce, instructed by Messrs. Tucker,
Greville, and Tucker, appeared for the defendants.
Mr. drafter said—l appear on behalf of the pro-
secution against two gentlemen well known to the
mercantile world, to prefer against them a very
grave charge, which, if proved, Ay result in rather
serious consequences towards them. The charge
is brought against them under the 7th and Bth
George IV., cap. 29, sec. 49, which makes it felony
for ans one to appropriate the proceeds of any bills
of exchange to their own use without the authority
of the owners thereof. The prosecutor in this in-
stance is a tanner, carrying on business at Chelten-
ham, and he has for a long time had large dealings
with the defendants for goods. Some time ago he
was in London, purchasing at their warehouse,
when he asked Mr. Hooper if he could get him
a bill discounted in London, and on re-
ceiving an answer in the affirmative, he
was introduced to Mr. Balch, their cashier.
On the 10th of June, according to arrangement, Mr.
Summers forwarded two draughts to the defendants,
one £272 75., and one for £250 55., enclosed in a
letter, with a reference to the Shropshire Banking
Company, Wellington, with directions to remit the
money any time in a week. On the following day
my client received the draughts back to be endorsed,
he having neglected that. He accordingly en-
dorsed them, and sent them again to defen;lants, in-
closed in another letter, refusing their own draughts
in exchange for his, making an excuse for his neg-
ligence in not endorsing his, and requesting the
cash as soon as convenient. Not hearing from the
defendants again for some days Mr. Summers wrote
to them on the 25th to know if they had negotiated
his bills, and, if they had, why the cash had not
been remitted. He received an answer on the fol-
lowing day acknowledging the receipt of his letter,
and stating that the bills had been discounted a
week ago, but that, owing to the failures in the
leather market, they had no cash to dispose of, but
they euelosed a bill of exchange on a good firm for
£5OO, which he could negotiate at home. On the
receipt of such a message with the enclosure, my
client became highly indignant, and he communi-
cated with Mr. Balch immediately, expressing his
surprise at being told his bills had been discounted
a week, and that they had not sent him the cash.
He told the defendants in that letter that the bill
for £6OO Was of no use to him, and if they could
not help him with the cash for his two bills they
should have returned them. He relied on the money
then, but his cam was not so urgent but that he
could have done without them. On June 28, in
answer' to that, he received a letter from Mr.
Balch, informing him that thndefendarita had•sus-
pended payment, and referring him to Mr. Joseph
Sawyer, accountant, 1'73, Fenchurch-street, who
had the arrangement of their accounts. Thc
draught they enclosed for £5OO in exchange for his
own was drawn by defendants on Hooper and Par-
kinson, whom they must have known were in dibfi.
=Weis at the time; therefore he contended that
they had unlawfully converted his money to their
own use by means not at all honouraWe to mer-
chants of any standing.
Mr. Thomas Summers called—I am a tanner
and dealer in bark at Cheltenham. I have had
frequent dealings with the defendants for gods.
On the 9th of May I first had an interview with
Mr. Hooper in his private counting-house. We
were alone. I said to himlleethrthat I
with
trouble
othad
bl
pebeen trading
rather largely in leather,.
_could he favour me with
introduce mye to bankers,Mr.
Balch
amper? Mr
Hooper told m
anddi discounting, o
makeunt ing ,
tahse Ime d ihadennyot
flk
would
fuller
so}
fwhowent d
downid
to that e
w business.areho u s e I
then s
leatheraltio about £3OO. On
the following day I attended and gave the defen-
hishpi
and
dmadefeft
cumar'schhaiaensrde
defen-
dant my acceptances, and balanced my account.
All ray bills with them have been duly honoured.
In consequence of an interview with Mr. Balch ou
the 9th of May I sent two bills of exchange for
£522 12s, to the defendants on the 10th of June to
be discounted. They were the acceptances of my
father, who is a tanner. I did not endorse them,
anted they were sent back to me, and, as soon as

endorad them, I forwarded them again to the de-
fendants.

Mr. Burcham—On this occasion you say you saW
Mr. James Hooper. Did you see the other defen-
dant?

Witness—No, I never did. I saw Mr. Balch,
who came to me on the same day (9th of May)*
Mr. Hooper was not present at that interview, as
he told me he would send Mr. Balch to me, as b°
managed all their pecuniary affairs, and they paid
him £5OO a year to do so. I saw Mr. Balch, who
said he had been spoken to by Mr. Hooper about
discounting some bills for me ; had I any about we
then ? I said no, but that I would send some up
shortly. I returned home, and on the 10th of June
I remitted two bills of exchange, together amounting
to £522 125., at three months' date, requesting
the cash. On the following day those bills were
sent back to me .for endorsement, I having
neglected that duty. I endorsed them, and or
closed them in a letter, of which the following Is
a copy :

" Cheltenham, June 12.
"My dear Sir,—l am sorry my own negligence bas
caused you trouble, but now beg to hand the draughts en'
closed. lam not in any hurry about the cash. Suit your
own convenience. lam very sorry I cannot do with your
draughts ; the fact is I am full up with paper, and there i 5
no acceptance that I can more readily negotiate than those
you have, but I don't want to fill up my bankers faller
than I can help, hence .my soliciting your aid. Yours, ~
"JAMES SUMMERS•
Mr. Crafter—Have you received the cash for
those bills ?

- Witness—l have not. I never gave them artY
authority to withhold the money, Not receiving 001
communication from the defendants for some dayo'
I wrote to know whether my bills had been ner
tiated. That was on the 25th of June. On th!
following day I received a letter from Mr. Balch
acknowledging the receipt of mine, stating tbsi,
my bills had been discounted a week ago, and that'
owing to failures in the leather-market, they f
no cash to dispose of; but they enclosed a bill,
which the following is a copy :

"X,500. June 21, 1860.
" Three months after date pay to our order the suni 4
five hundred pounds for value received.
"w. FRANCIS and Co.
"Accepted, payable at Martin and Co.•s.

_ • _ _
" HoorEß and PARXINBOI4.
In his letter Mr. Balch tells me I can easily nee/
tiate that in my neighbourhood as it is first.rate.
felt much annoyed at that, and wrote in reply tlll_,
the bill was of no use to me. If they could 11
have helped me with the cash for my 01/1
draughts, they should have sent them back.
asked them to do so at once, and I would reel!,
theirs. I relied on the money, but the case Iv't
not so urgent but that I could have done withoo
them.
it
Mr. Crafter—Have you since ascertained tb
they stopped payment ?
Witness—A letter came to my place at CheltenhO
on the 24th of June. I was from home at the till
On the lst of July I returned, and on opening
letter I found it came from Mr. Balch, announewn't
that the defendants had suspended payment. n
the 3d I came to London, and on the next day Wye
defendants' warehouse. I saw a notice on"'
door referring all parties to Mr. Sawyer, accosttant, 133, Fenchurch-street. I immediately
wjIJ
there, and saw Mr. Hooper. He said to me, I
see you presently," and we went into the street.
ri
said to him, " Mr. Hooper what have you kill
with my money ?" He said, "I am very sorry, u,,
could not help it, as we have been so tremendool
pressed for money. Yours is the only case that
not bear coming to the light." I said, "How est,
you to serve me in this way, and not send me tg7
money according to my instructions ?" Mr.
then said it was a very black case, and the only%
in their transactions that would not bear the Wei
He also said that they were so tremendously presfsit,
for money that they were obliged to make use ofd
He did not know what could be done. Mr. Frolinn,
was going to Norway to collect £3,000 or Otoo
and, he said, " I think we can let you have tog
or £3OO without any one knowing anything nes
it ; but see Mr. Francis about it." I did not,o,
Mr. Francis about it, but he was pointed out to wft
Further evidence having been given in sele
of the case,
Mr. Burcham said he should commit the dot°
dants for trial.
• dip
Mr. Pearce—As you have made up your min
pt
do so, sir, in such a case as this you will ace'
bail
Mr. Burcham—Oh, yes ; the defendants' re
Ao,cor
nizances in £5OO and one surety in £250 will "
The required sureties were entered into.