The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-27 00:00:00

THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK (This Day

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, GUILDHALL.
(Sitting at Nici Prin., before Lord Campbell and a
Special Jnry.)
THE QUEEN V. BROWN AND OTHERS.

TEIRTERNTE DAY.
The trial of the information against the directors and
manager of the It)yal British Bank for c 'aspiring by
false pretences to defraud the shareholders and cus-
tomers and the public, was this day resumed.
The same counsel appeared as before.
The Court met at 12 o'clock.
The interest in these proceedings was greatly increased
this morning from the fact that they would be this day
brought to a close; and long before the time for openieg
the oiurt the avenues mere densely crowded, and by 12
o'clock every available space was occupied by an ai xious
auditory ; amongst whom were many respectably dressed
females. On the bench Were the Hon. Misses Campbell,
his Lordship's daughters, Lord Overstone, the Hon.
Miss Jones Lloyd, and several of the ladies of the
families of the jury.

Punctually at 12 o'clock his lordship took his seat on
the bench and commenced summing up. He said the
anxious task now devolved upon him of summing up the
evidence in this remarkable a]d very important case ;
and he said it most unaffec'edly that his anxiety was
greatly diminished by considering the character and
qualifications of the gentlemen whom he now ad-
dressed. If it bad been his duty to have tried this

case at the Andras in the country More country gen-

tlensen and farmers, he should have been much more
embarrassed, for he probably would have known more
than the jury, and it would have been his difficult and
irksome task to have tried to communic tte informa-
tion to them which they stood in need of • but the
jury now trying this case knew more of the subject
under investigation than be did, and it was most eatis-
factory to him to think that they were so well qualified
to decide and do that justice he wai sure would ne done
to the country and the defendants by their verdict.
After the long and laborious trial he thought
they were now at the thirteenth day, during
which time they had devotedly attended to
the evidence as it proceeded, and they seemed to him
to thoroughly understand it as it proceeded step by step
and tie ree)re his task was now comparatively easy, sted
he should only feel it his duty ti state to them the qaes-
tions of law ae they arose, and to direct their atterr,ion
to what be considered the priccfp.l points for them to
determine. It bad been his fate on the trial of a cause
as judge to occupy two days in ',miming up the
evidence, and if he thought that he could do
any good, or at all aesdet them by going through the
whole of his notes, page by page, he would not hesitate
a moment to do so, but he thought that in this case were
tie to do so he should be perplexing them rather than
aesieting there, and he thought be should be beet dis-
charging his duty by bringing tLe few plain points of
the case before the , and upon wlich their verdict was
to pass between the Crown and tie defendants. They
were aware this was a criminal .nformation filed by
her Majesty's late Attorney•Geeeral, a gentleman
of great learning and high honour, and who bad filled
the office of her Majesty's Attornej-General with great
distinction and benefit to the country, but whatever
might be the result of the prosecution, no one could for
a moment impute the slightest particle of blame to him
for the course he had adopted. After the disaster of the
failure of the bank, the ruin it bad brought upon
hundreds, and the scandal it had caused, it was essen-
tially necessary a judicial investigation should take
place, and he had only put the defendants on their
trial or what was termed An ex officio information,
which was a course of proceeding of an eminent character
and perfectly constitutional. The irCorination charged
the defendants with having conspired together to repro
sent falsely and fraudulently that the Boyel British B nk
and its affairs had been durin the year, ending Dec. 31,
1855, in a sound and prosperous condition, producing
prefite divinible among
m
the shareholders. Ta was the
alleged conspiracy, and there were several overt acts
alleged, the principal of which were the report of the
directors to the shareholders of the state of the bank
up to 31st Deo., 1855, the issuiog
of new shares ; the
balance sheet of which they had heard so much which
professed to give a true account of the condition of the
bank at that time ; the payment of dividenes of 6 per
cent. out of supposed profits, and the buying of shares
to keep up the price. It bad already teen stated to
them by the learned counsel f r the prosecution that by
the law of England the crime
com-
plete without ail, overt act being committed, but at the
same time overt acts were
material
e)ricaolntspiorbaecylmooaky be
edatb
juries, because from them they
might draw inferences whe-
ther the allegedconspiracy ever took pace. It had also been
truly stated that it was not necessary to prove conspiracy,
, that evidence Should be given of the formal coueulta
time of the parties accused, or their baying deliberately
resolved that they w•.uld commit some illegal act, or
resort to illegal means to gain any object,
but if, as reasonable men, a jury could say
there was a common design or acting in con-
cert to do what was wrong, it would be a ground
upon which a jury might suppose and reasonably draw
the inference that such a conspiracy was actually formed.
The manner in which the prosecution proposed to prove
the charge of conspiracy, was first to show that the bank
was in a state of insolvency at the end of 1855 and the
b eda gn intnB tihneg of l
yentered
natuod
athat s
ibeing o knownrep
res
etnot theth
adte ftehne-
i,ank was then in a flourishing
those who were
condition, for the pur-
pose of deceiving and defrauding
shareholders, or the public 4bo might wish to become
shareholders or have dt alinge with the Royal British Bank.
prosecution, they had established their case. He must,
It would be for them to
however, caution them say whether, on the part of the
against supposing that,
although one or several of the defendants might
have done what was improper, it would not
be sufficient to establish the charge against
then for example, if any of this wanton after the reserve
laianlitt ai
establish without
thteh eeihraknow-
f
one-fourth of the paid-up they had lust more than
misrepresent for the purpose of deceiving
and defrauding the publicfl uedtigelehoal
, fur there must be
a joint act with a guilty knowledge. He
conspiracythb the
teon factexoht a it, u
twe nd u,
should first call their attention to whether there had
been generally such a conspiracy as was alleged on the
part of the Crown, and then he would draw their atten-
tion to the case as it practically affected the defendants.
He bed already had occasion to observe there was a
oonsiderable difference with regard to evidence against
them, leaving the jury to discharge their duty in
distinguishing between them, and pronounce their guilt
or innocence. The great point for their consideration
was the real state of the bank at the end of 1855 and
beginning of 1856, or, more strictly speaking, the 31st
Dec., 1855, the date of the balance-eleeet which was
on let Fee., 1856, by
published which the bank was
represented to be in a fluurishl
nee Condition. The pre-
secution had undertaken to prove it was false and frau-
dulent, and the noble lord recapitulated the
evidence that had been given
on that point with
reference to the debts owing to the bank.
The erect amount of the debts, nor the manner in which
they were contracted, were material, because they were
not tneleg them for imprudently granting advances to
those who had
see the actual state of the hank in a pecuniary point of
view at the time to which he had drawn their attention.
He should therefore spare them from entering into them-
Toe directors may be blamed for it, but that would not
support the c barge against them, unless as a leading
. .
ddie titer contributingto bring about that state of insolvecncay.
whico they wished 10 conceol. having referred to the b
..
the peat sae bills, , and the c.elL,
_ ta.ter of the debts, p k—,

taken for 100,000/. of bad debts, with only a reserved
fund of 3091. la. 7d. for bad debts, his lordship said it
seemed to him it was strong evidence for thou cousidei a-
tion that there was credit taken in that balance sheet for
sums of money for which credit ought not to have been
taken, and had a certain tendency to deceive tt ose who
read it. The learned judge then read the evidence of
Mr. Barnard and Mr. Crawford, which he said went to
prove that although Mr. Cameron was not a director,
he was answerable for the balance sheet as made up and
printed. It was for them to say, from the general view
of the case he had laid before them, whether the dire°.
tore must have known of the bank's insolvency, and
knowing it, they entered into a design to deceive the
public and the shareholders by misrepresenting the state
of the affairs of the bank, and were guilty under the
information. The information contained the names of
eight defendants, but only seven had surrendered, Mr.
Cochrane having been outlawed. He should go through
the case as the evidence affected them, but in
a different order from that adopted by the pro-
secution. He should begin with Mr. Stapleton's
case, and the others in the following order :—Mr.
McLeod, Mr. Owen, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. E dade, Mr.
Brown, and Mr. Cameron. No blame appeared to be
imputed against Mr. Stapleton, though it was right hie
conduct should he inquired into, and he had hoped that
at the close of the case for the Crown, an intimation
would have been given that there was not sufficient evi•
deuce to be submitted to the jury against that gentle.
men ; but it was not for him (the learned judge) to
interfere. He thought that Mr. Stapleton was
more of a victim than a victimiser of others, and if ,
the jury should agree with him, Mr. Stapleton would
leave the Court without a stain upon his character, and
he (the learned judge) should be glad to see him back
again practising in that Court over which be presided.
In Mr. McLeod's case the evidence was stronger against
him than it was against Mr. Stapleton. He found no
positive proof against Mr. McLeod, and he thought a
rather slight case bad been made out against him. He
was no speculator, nor had he had any advances to do
so, and, what was more, he invested the money
si ttled on hie wife on her marriage in the bank.
Against, Mr. Owen 'there was a more serious
case from his having been longer connected with it ;
still it appeared to him there was a want of positive and
direct evidence of his knowledge of the exact state of
the bank, though from his having been an original
ircefor it might have been presumed so. No corrupt
motive had been attributed to Mr. Oaten, who when the
bank failed was a creditor. He next came to two pa a.
ful cases—those of Mr. Esdaile and Mr. Alderman
Kennedy, and tke evidence in reference to them was of
a most serious character, and required the most attentive
consideration. The evidence against Mr. Alderman
Kennedy went to show that he was aware of the i sol-
vent state of the bank, and contributed to the false
representations of its state, but the question for their
consideration was his guilty knowledge. Mr. Alderman
Kennedy, like the others, had reosived an exc llent
character, and had introduced many of his friends to
become shareholders and depositors, who, with himself,
had been losers by the bank. The conversations he had
had with persons to join the bank he (the learned j :die)
did not p'ace much reliance on, and the question for their
censideration was, Mr. Alderman Kennedy's intention
when he consented to the publication of the balance-
sheet. The case against Mr. Esdaile assumed a different
character. Independent of the general evidence rga.nst
him he was convicted, out of his own month, by the
production of the affidavit on a winding up order that
he knew the actual state of the bank in every particular.
In addition to that there was Mr. Esdaile's; letter, dated
Jan., 1858, a fortnight before the meetine at which the
balance-sheet was published, addressed to Mr. Owen, the
then deputy-governor, contai n ieg the remark aide passage,
"Our highest p. licy is to present a solid front to the
public; our greate-t weakness to dangle a rope of sand
before them ;" and be put it to the jury to say whether
they considered the first part of the sentence meant a
"solid balance sheet." After reading the other corres-
pondence, and the evidence in connection with it, the
learned judge said it was for the jury to say that he
consented to the false publication of the state of the hank
with a gulty knowledge, and an iutention to defraud the
public.. Mr. Esdaile was shown to be a respectable
man and a man of substance, and had had no accom-
modation from the bank—circnmstancee which, he had
no doubt, the jury would well weigh in °ens dering
his case. The learned judge next referred to the case
of Humphery Brown, and in doing so he asked the jury
to dismiss any prejudice that might have been created
in their minds against him, and consider him seiinnocent
man till he had been found guilty. Acomplete explanation
had been given of hie having been supposed to have opened
his account with 18/., but he was sorry to say a very
serious case had been made out against him. He had
borrowed largely from the bank, which it was his desire
to keep afloat as I)ng as he possibly could, without
which he had the fear of destruction before him. He

was well acquainted with the state of the i;;;;;i, and

the many debts due to them, and more Chanell he

knew of-the exact state of his large debt to the bank,
and the security he had given for it. The learned judge
in conclusion said the legal case they bad to consider was
that of Mr. Cameron, who it had been proved had the
sole management of the Bank. There c mil I be no
doubt Mr. Cameron prepared the balance-sheet of Dec.
1855, and the coesti,n for the jury to consider was,
whrther it was false or correct. If it was false he
thought there could be no doubt it was done to deceive
the public. Then arose the question did Mr.
Cameron conspire with others to defraud the
public, and, if so, it was necessary to prove that he con-
spired with one or more persons. The evidsnce was
before them, and it was for them to say whether itproved
a conspiracy against two or more or the whole of the
defendants. He had no doubt that it would give
them pleasure to acquit all the defendants if the
evidence warranted it, but, at the same time, if they
thought the evidence would not permit they would
dieobarge their duty to their conscience and their
country by finding part or the whole of the defendants
guilty. _

The jury retired at a few minutes before 4 o'clock.
THE VERDICT.
At five mutes to FIX o'clock the jury returned into
court, when the Foreman m,il the jury were
unanimous in opinion of the guilt of three of the de
fendants ; but that with regard to the others, eleven

of the jury were of an adverse opinion to him, and con-
sidered them all guilty.
Lord Campbell said the jury must be unanimous.
A juryman said he thought that was bopen,...
Lord Campbell asked the representatives of the

Crown if they would consent to take the verdict of

guilty on the three, Atli enter a verdict of nolli prosepi

on the others.

This was objectei to by the counsel and the jury
again retired to consider their verdict.

THE CHARGE AGAINST MR. ISAAC
BUTT, M.P.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE.—THIS DAY.
The commase for investigating the charges in Olio
petition of Mr. Coif's, against Mr. Isaac Dutt re.assem-
bled this morning at 12 o'clock in No. 11, Committee-
room.

Sir W. Codrington said previous to the re-commence-
ment of the inquiry, he begged to state that he bad re-
ceived a v4it from Mrs. Parr. She seemed very
anxious that means should be afforded her of rebutting
that part of the evidence aspersing her character. fie
told her he would mention the subject to the committee,
and inform her what was their decision upon the subject.
Sir James Graham said it had better be done at the
end of the inquiry.
Mr. Vernon Smith, examined by Mr. Roebuck,
said, during the whole of Lord Palmereton's Ministry
he was President of the Board of Control. He
frequently saw Mr. Butt on the subject of the claims of
Ali Moorad. In 1856 he remembered a memorial being
pre,ented to the Queen from the Ameer. In March,
1857, he remembered papers being moved for. He
recollected a conversation ha had with Mr. Batt pre-
vious to that motion. The substance of the conversation
was that Mr. Butt urged the justice of the claims of Ali
Moorad. He did net recollect that Mr. Butt said any
" compromise" was entered into. Mr. Butt wished that
the tarban lands should be restored to Ali Moored.
During one of the conferences Mr. Butt stated that the
matter would be brought before the douse, but he did
rotremembrr Mr. Butt saying "he would bring the subject
forward.'' He (witness) considered that such a course
would be inadvisable, and he agreed with Mr. Butt
that at that particular time it would have had a bad
effect to proclaim to the public that there
was disaffection among the native princes. He recol-
lected a draft letter being sent to the Beard of Control
by the Court of Directors ; it was altered and returned
to the Court. When he came into office he looked upon
the cue of Ali Moorad as settled, lie believed that
the Almosr bad been guilty of the offence of which he had
been charged—that of forgery in the treaty ; but he
considered that the punishment inflicted upon him
was excessive, and ae the Ameer bad behaved
well for seven or eight years some mitigation
should be made in his sentence. He had an interview
with Mr. Batt, and told him such was his opinion. He
also had an interview with Ali Moorad, and he believed
that he went out to India under the idea that the
authorities them would listen to his case.
By Mr.Deasy—Herecoilected Mr. Butt telling him be
should move for certain papers at the time of the Indian
budget. He told Mr. Butt ke thought the standing
orders would prevent his taking such a course. This
conversation took place in the House of Commons. This ,
took place in 1856.
Mr. Roebuck—Did you ever give Mr. Butt authority
te say to the Ameer that he must dismiss Mr. Coffey
Mr. V. 121 liqrl rp-thinff, to do with the
subject. At a subsequent time Mr. C.irey wrote
to
him to ask him to vindicate his character from certain
aspersions. He merely acknowledged the letter and
declined to interfere. The assertion that he gave autho-
rity to discharge Mr. Coffey was untrue. He had no
authority to give such a direction.
Cross-examined by Mr. Deasy—He thought for a long
time that the case of Ali Moorad was in the hands of
Sir F. Kelly. He certainly suggested to Ali Moorad,
when he set out for India, that he should go as quickly
as pessible ; and, moreover, told him to exert himself in
suppressing any disturbance he might find on his arrival
there, and do all he could for the stpport of the authority
of the English Government.
By Sir J. grOaul.:—))7_hen he g 04 °facial intery law