The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGEN CE.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—AUG. 11.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulhurn.)
IN RE PARKER MERCHANTS BEWARE OF ADVEN-
TURERS.
This was an application for discharge from custody of
Benjamin Parker, of No. 1, Adelaide-place, Lowd n-bridge,
trading as Truman, Parker, and Co., as merchants.
Mr. Bagley (instructed by Mr. Tripp, acting for Mr.
Bebb) opposed on behalf of Messrs. Lingenbrick, mer-
chants of Vienna ; and Mr. Sturgeon supported the appli-
cation.
Mr. Bagley stated that the bankrupt had traded as
Truman, Parker, and Co., and had sent out circulars,
showing the advantages of consignees sending their goods
to him, although at the time he was an uncertificated bank-
rupt. Mr Bagley here read the circular :
"1, Adelaide-place, London-bridge, London,
Ist December, 1856.
" Messrs. Lingenbrick, &c.
" We take the liberty by the accompanying to acquaint
you that we have established a commission and expedition
(agency) business, and to offer you our services, supported
by sufficient funds, with an intimate knowledge c,f English
and transatlantic affairs. We hope to be of essential use to
consignors, and to justify their confidence by our punctua-
lity and strictness. We will wait on you with our refer-
ences, as soon as you will let us know that you are disposed
to enter into correspondence and treat with us, and remain
in the meanwhile—Obediently,
" TRUMAN, PARKER, & CO.
" We beg you will send us your sample of velvet with
fixed and cut border."
He (continued Mr. Bayley) traded as Truman, Parker, and
Co., because, if he had been known as Benjamin Parker, so
well were his antecedents known from his appearance at
law courts and other places, he would not have got credit
for 6d. in the commercial world. He had been insolvent,
twice bankrupt, his certificate being suspended for 12
months, and at that very time he was sending out circulars
boasting of his unlimited funds. He had also accepted two
bills without having funds to meet them.
The bankrupt was then examined—His real name was
Benjamin Parker. He never denied that, although he had
gone by other names. He bad written letters in the names
of " James Parker" and "Truman, Parker and Co." He
had:never been in business as " Hadlow, Parker, and C 0.," or
" Neal Parker." Had gone by the name of " James Phil-
lips." He gave an order for goods to Messrs. Lingenbrick,
and did not return them. Sold them to Messrs. Nicholson
and Co., of Cannon-street. Sold them at 30 or 40 per cent.
under cost price, because there was no market for the goods
in this coantry, and it was the best price he could get for
-them. Messrs. Lingenbrick were informed by letter of that
fact. He had been a colonial merchant, a builder, a sur-
veyor and architect, but not a wine merchant or a bill dis-
counter.
Mr. Bagley produced the schedule from the Insolvent
Court, which had been sworn to by the bankrupt, in which
be described himself as a bill discounter.
The bankrupt said that probably arose from his having
got two or three bills done through agency.
The Commissioner—Never mind, sir, you have sworn
to it.
Mr. Bagley asked the bankrupt whether he bad ever been
in a criminal court ?
Mr. Sturgeon objected to the question.
The Commissioner thought it of the first importance to
the commercial world to know what this man's antecedents
were.
The bankrupt, on being pressed, said he had been in-
dicted two or three times but never convicted. lie was
once advised to plead guilty, and was then discharged. Did
not remember how he was discharged.
Mr. Bagley—How long after you pleaded ?
The bankrupt, with evident reluctance, replied two
months; he had been charged and out on bail; he absconded
from his bail ; he was caught, convicted, and sentenced to
six months' imprisonment at Maidstone, in 1851 ; Ise was
convicted iu the name of James Parker; he had been con-
victed for conspiracy 15 years ago.
Mr. Bagley then read the following correspondence :
" Gentlemen,—We are in reesipt of yoar favour of the
9th inst., and we have only at this moment occasion to give
you an order for velvet ribbons with fixed borders; send us
on the conditions stipulated. (Here follow particulars of
goods ordered.) We trast that the quality of the goods will
be satisfactory to us, and that a relationship may spring up
between us.—Yours obediently,
" TRUMAN, PARKER, AND CO.
" Messrs. Lingenbrick and Co."
"1, Adelaide-place, London-bridge, March 25,1857.
" Gentlemen,—We are in possession of your let er dated
the 20th inst., and see with much astonishment that you
have sent us an invoice for the £357 18s., and sending us
boxes of unusual large size. We expected to receive boxes
of the usual size, of 25 to 30 pieces, No. 2. Under these
circumstances we must refuse the surplus of the goods,
seeing that we had not a larger order than we gave you.
However, in order not to give you any inconvenience, and
so as Lot to delay the execution of the order of our employer
any further, we will accept the case as it is, provided the
conformity of the contents. We will also accept your bill
for £BO at eight days' sight. The remainder will be honoured
at three months' date. We are obliged to ask this, as we
keep the greater part of the goods in stock.—Obediently
yours, " TRUMAN, PARKER, AND CO.
"Messrs. Lingenbrick and Co."
The bankrupt was then questioned by Mr. Sturgeon. He
bad premises at Millbank, which were very valuable, having
been valued by one surveyor at £14,000, and by another at
.E 12,500. Part of the manufactures was for ladies' dresses ;
it was a new fashioned whalebone to supersede crinoline. He
had been offered a mortgage of £3,500 upon the premises.
His object in seeking his discharge was to realise his estate
for the benefit of his creditors. He had had them altogether
and made that statement to them. He had offered 20s. in
the pound, with a charge upon two patents he possessed as
security, with Interest at the rate of 5 per cent. until all
was paid. Could have had an advance on the patent of
I £l,OOO.
Mr. Bagley apprehended that he had entirely established
a case that the debt had been contracted by fraud. The
bankrupt began by avowing himself as having sufficient
funds to enable him to take other persons' goods on consign-
ment while an uucertificated bankrupt. In February, 18.51,
he ordered these goods, giving these gentlemen to under-
stand that he had an employer in one place, saying "we re-
gret the relationship has begun so badly; our employer com-
plains bitterly of the quality of the goods," and main "we
are obliged to rebate 5 per cent. to our employer," making
out that he obtained the goods for somebody else. The
learned counsel then read as follows :
" Adelaide-place, London-bridge, London.
April 11, 1857.

"Messrs. Lingeubrick.

" Gientlemen,—We regret exceedingly that the relation
between us should have begun so badly; our employer com-
plains bitterly of the quality of the goods, and with justice,
for it is mixed with cotton, and is not pure silk. Besides,
the pieces are so forced and compressed in the boxes that
the quality and exterior of the goods have been much preju-
diced. We were obliged to rebate 5 per cent. to our em-
ployer; however, not to keep your bills any longer, we have
accepted the odd £257 14s. 3d., while we will only accept
£B9los. more, and that even only at three months, from
the 20th of March, which will be the amount, in reckoning
the 51 per cent. loss of the 5 per cent. before mentioned.—
Obediently yours, '•
" TRIIMA.N, PARSER, AND CO."
The bankrupt had assumed the false name of Truman,
Parker, and Co., because he knew that as Benjamin Parker
be would not be trusted. His whole deeds during his life-
time were tainted with fraud, whether it were as a colonial
merchant, a tea dealer, builder, architect, or surveyor. He
now took his real name and came to the Court with this
assumed story about the patents. lle called on the Court
to refuse the application.

Mr. Sturgeon remarked that he felt a difficulty In meeting
tke case, from the extraordinary way in which it had been
shaped. Here was an attempt to keep this unfortunate man
in prison by raking up his whole conduct for the last 15 or
20 years. Mr. Bagley had chosen to give the go-by to all
legal requisites, and began by opening a case with what
might be called libel and slander, and goieg into the history
of the life of the bankrupt. Who would venture to come
to that court for protectien if they were to rake up 20 years
of the life of a merchant of the City of London ? The ques-
tion was, if these parties were aggrieved, had they a legal
judgment, showing he was in custody for fraud, upon which
the Court could withhold the bankrupt's release. This had
not been shown. If such matters as those gone into to-day
were allowed to be discussed, any question might be asked;
even if there had been a marriage with a deceased wife's
sister, as suited the fertile brain ot the counsel. If the judge
allowed his mind to be poisoned by such matter, who could
get relief? The Legislature, in passing the Act of Parliament,
never intended such matter to be gone into. As the bank-
rupt'sdesire was to assist his creditors, he asked the
togrant an order for his release.
Court only
His Honour said it appeared to him that the learned
counsel had altogether forgotten one part of the object of
the sra'ute, which was to give the Court a discretion—the
Court might discharge the bankrupt if it thought fit.
Having regard to that discretion, nothing could be so im-
portant for the Court to consider as the antecedents of the
man imprisoned, and the probability from those antecedents
of whether he wished for his discharge for the purpose of
assisting his creditors,
mittohres,orfrofmor
bthaevinpg a full disclosure
urposeofdoinghis
utmost to prevent of
his estate and effects. It was ,necessary to consider
whether he was in prison under circumstances of fair
conduct, ot whether he was a man whose life had shown,
as Mr. Bagley hail very properly remarked (and his
honour did not think it too strong an assertion), that he
had been from first to last living by imposing on others,
and obtaining credit without the smallest intention
to defray his debts. It appeared the bankrupt hail under
various names, assumed generally for the purpose of dse2p-
tion, been bankrupt three times; his certificate had been
suspsuded and refused; and he had sent the circular which
had been read, full of untruth, at the time when he was an
uncertificated bankrupt sslieiting credit in the name of
Truman and Co., while the bankruptcy under which the
certificate was refused had been under another name. Was
I', therefore, not necessary for the Court to know the ante-
cedents of such a man? Discretion was given to the Court
that it might deal with such cases. It was therefore a
mistaken view of the Act of Parliament to put it as simply
question whether the debt was contracted by fraud or not.
The question was would the man's antecedents justify the
Court in believing for one rootnen t that which he then
swore, that he desired to assist his creditors? His Honour
believed that oath to be wholly untrue—quite as untrue as
the gross falsehoods with which his conduct seemed to have
been marked for several years, and his discharge would,
therefore, be refused. As to the argument that the man
was not in prison for any debt centracted by fraud ; he ad-
mitted that it should be shown that that appeared either in
the record, the judgment, the pleadings, or in some equally
unequivocal shape, on the precee4ings under which the bank-
rupt was in custody; but it was unnecevary to consider that.
The defendant only desired his release for the purpose of
evading his creditors; and therefore it would be quite idle
to order his di.chlrge, for it would be doing irjustice to
all the creditors if he were allowed to escape from custody
upon any such pretence as that advanced. It was impsrtant
the public should know the kind of characters by whom they
wEeorgnesro
imposedba,
buispoinio.noinfrtlwmondetainingbare creditormade somhae dbeenan
observa-
tions upon his giving credit so heedlessly to the bankrupt;
foreigner,eans who was unacquainted with our
lihistaus s ,nt h
who
thtovbaal isda datrbeel iemd
on t
ho
ef
in statementsvest ga t inign thee cr, i rrcrunitab a
r , asn da
' na'ive would have done; his intended observations would
.
not, therefore, apply. It was not to he tolerated that
I foreigners should be victimised, and that such persons as
the bankrupt should be permitted to escape, to go and dos
iik wise. The application for discharge would therefore be
ref used.
..)ischarge refused accordingly.
IN RE LAIDLAW.

This bankrupt, Alexander Wentworth Laidlaw' was a
dealer in cigars, of No. 3, Bury-court, St. Mary-axe, and
he now applied to pass his examinatiosnhowonaccountos
prepared by Messrs. Hart Brothers, showing : To
creditors, £1,587; do. holding security, £t2s ; profits on
trad ng, £1,812; liabilities, £212; de., being amount of
debts of t ie firm of Broad and Co., of which I was a mem-
ber, which were compromised for Gs. in the pound, which

I have since received, owing to the composition not
being ful:y paid, £1,553. Debtors, good, £9; cilubtful
£34; property, £l5 ; do., held by creditors, £36 ; trade
expenses, &c., £.546 ; house, £537 ; losses, £834 ; deficiency
March 1, 18.54, £1,316.
Mr. Doria, for the assignees, in reply to the commissioner,
stated that no trade assignees had been appointed, but
the accounts had been approved of by the official assignee,
and were vouched by the books, which were well kept.
The official assignee (Mr. Graham) confirmed the state-
ment of the learned connsel, and
The bankrupt passed, the certificate meeting being fixed
for the 19th October next.