The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-26 00:00:00

ROYAL 3.7.,11,75H BANK (This Day-:3-

COURT(st
ing a
tO OF
Nisi
QUEEN'Sprjt
before
BENCH,Lord Campbell GUILDHALL.auda
Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN V. BROWN AND OTHERS.
TWELFTH DAT.
The trial of the information against the directors and
manager of the Royal British Bauk
for cenepiring by
,nice pretences to d.t:fraft the rl;v.reheldern and cue-
temere and tun putnie, was this 'day resumed,
'rise same counsel appeared as before.
Lord Campbell, on taking his seat on the bench this
morning, stated that as soon as Mr. Atherton had con-
cluded his address to the jury on behalf of the Crown in
reply to the defendants' cases, he should adjourn the Court
till to-morrow morning,lhat he might be able to carefully
read over the evidence before he commenced summing up
the case to the jury.
Col. Bailie was called by Mr. D. Seymour on the part of
Mr. Cameron. He deponed that ho was Lord-Lieutenant
offthe county of Ross, and Mr. Cameron was his Deputy
Lieutenant. He believed him to be a man of integrity and
honour,
hlr. Atherton then proceeded to address the jury
for the Crown, in reply to the defendants' cases.
He said the time had now arrived for the discharge
of his part in this important case, of an arduous duty
which until the case had very far proceeded he had no
reason to suppose would have been cast upon him. It
was owing to the elevation of his learned friend
Sir F. Thesiger to the highest position in the law of the
country that he (llr. Atherton) stood before them as the
leading counsel—an elevation in which the profession and
the community without exception rejoiced, and in which
no man more rejoiced than he did, but he regretted the
moment at which it had occurred, because from that
moment was to be attributed the circumstance that the
interests of justice, which he believed were bound up and
involved in this case, had been committed to feebler hands
than those to whom they were first entrusted, and lie
could not but feel the apprehension that thereby there was
some chance or probability of a miscarriage of justice,
which but for that would never have occurred. At the
same time he admitted he felt great encouragement in the
discharge of the duty that had been unexpectedly cast
upon him, from the fact that before the jury wero called
upon to pronounce a verdict they would have the assistance
of the luminous judgment, the profound learning, and the
joint experience of the noble and learned judge who presided
over the trial. It was also a matter of satisfaction to know
that for eleven weary days the jury had exhibited a watch-
ful, vigilant, careful, and patient attention to the case
which had been admired on both sides, which was credit.
able alike to the individuals by whom it had been exhi-
bited, and to the country, who should be proud of such
men, and the administration of justice, in which they took
so prominent a part, In addressing himself to the case,
which was now fully before them, he would endeavour to
explain to them what he considered to be the law of the
case, and the measure of proof that was required on the
part of the Crown, and in doing so he would submit such
general remarks and observations as it appeared to him the
merits of the case required, and the proofs, as they succes-
sively arose, that tended to bring home to the defendants
one after the other the crime with which they were charged,
particularly a knowledge that what they were vouching as
true they knew to be an untruth for the purposeof defrauding
the public. He had been asked by the learned counsel who
appeared for the respective defendants, to point out tho
moment and the place of the conspiracy charged against
them so as satisfactorily to establish the case, and in order
to obtain from the jury a verdict of guilty against them.
No such proof was required from the Crown, and could not
be demanded nor ought to be expected. If it was to be
expected that where several persons acted together for the
attainment of a given end, proof should be shown of the
meeting of the guilty conclave and the mode by which they
succeeded, they would be deceived, because it could only
be rarely, if ever, shown. All that English law required in
a proof of conspiracy was the consent of two or more per-
sons uniting for a single or common object for the whole to
commit any illegal act.
Lord Campbell said that the crime of conspiracy was
complete without acts having been done, but here acts
were laid against the defendants.
Mr. Atherton said the evidence laid before the jury on
the part of the Crown proved that the defendants had con-
spired to accomplish an illegal object, viz., misrepresenting
to the public the actual state of the hank, so as to induce
the public to join it either as shareholders or depositors, or
both. The learned gentleman remarked that a knowledge
of the state of the bank when the false balance sheets and
reports were put forward was essen ial to the case, for
without that was shown to be known to the defendants,
they could not be convicted, and he proceeded to quote
from the charter, showing the duties of the directors and
the power given to them in conducting the business of
the bank, and afterwards entered at great length and
minuteness into the details of the evidence, as showing
that knowledge on the part of the defendants. He re-
minded the jury the charge against the defendants was not
that of having made a wasteful investment of the money of
the bank, or of havingdeparted from the line of conduct that
should guide prudent and careful bankers in the discharge of
their business; but that they, having a knowledge of the
hopeless state of the bank, put forth false representations
to the public with a view to deceive them. He then
referred to the securities which the bank had taken for
their advances ; and in reference to the 'Welsh works, the
learned counsel said that in June, 1854, the bank offered
them for sale, fixing the reserve price at 60,0001., which
showed they were then prepared to meet with a direct
loss of 15,0001. ; yet finding they were unable to dis-
pose of them at that loss, they went on, after their better
experience, to sink other and large sums, which they after-
wards endeavoured to regain by making false representa-
tion to the public. At the meeting in February, 1556, of
the shareholders the directors held out that they could pay
a dividend of 6 per cent., and a report of that meeting was
industriously distributed all over the country to induce the
public to join them. The learned gentleman having
analysed the balance-sheet containing the false representa-
tions alleged to have been known to the defendants, con-
cluded his address by referring to the points of 6vidence
which he contended connected the defendants with the
commission of the illegal acts with which they stood
charged.
The court shortly after adjourned.

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

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE.—THIS DAY.
The Committee reamsembled thi■ morning at 12 o'clock.
Sir J. Graham in the chair.

Sir J. Hogg, vice-chairman of the East India Company,
examined by Mr. Roebuck—The hon. gentleman said, to-
wards the end of July, 1857, he recollected a conversation
with Mr. Butt. He urged the propriety of a compromise
of the affairs of Ali Moored, as an act of justice, pointing
out that the evidence was insufficient. He also urged it
on the grounds of expediency, and said further, that if his
suggestions were not adopted, ho intended to bring the sub-
ject before the House of Commons, and that he thought
the directors would hardly wish to have their acts ques-
tioned by the house. Mr. Butt brought with him the
memorial of Ali Moored. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) told Mr.
Butt that it was his duty to read the documents, but that
he would rather not discuss the subject in private. Mr.
Butt said he did not wish the directors to rescind their
orders, but he wished them to give directions to the
commission in Scinde, to consider the Ameer's
He looked upon Mr. Butt as coming before him as a mem-
ber of the House of Commons, who was desirous of not
bringing a certain matter under Parliamentary considera-
tion if he could avoid it, he (Mr. B.) believing that the de-
cision of the Government and the Board of Directors was
not just. In consequence of this circumstance the Court
took the case of Ali Moored into consideration, and the
result was that they adhered to their former decision, but
any decision of the directors was subject to the President
°tithe Board of Control, who seemed be in favour of giving
directions to the commissioner in Scinde, which Mr. Butt
required. Mr. Butt said if the directors did not make the
compromise he would bring the matter before the House of
Commons, the session being still sitting. In consequence
of that statement the claims were considered.

Soma documentary evidence was then submitted by the
witness; but an objection to its reception having been
taken, the room was cleared, and after an absence of a
quarter of an hour the public were admitted, when the
chairman announced that the committee had decided not
to receive the documents at the present stage of the in-
quiry.
The examination of the witness was then continued in
connection with the communications between the Board
of Control and Mr. Butt. It would not be proper to call
the communication from the Court of Directors a despatch
—it was, in fact, a letter to Ali Moorad. The decision of
the Court of Directors was partially equivalent to the sug-
gestion of Mr. Butt, but not to the same extent.
The letter stated that if on his arrival at Bombay he con-
ducted himself in a favourable manner his case would most
likely meet with the most favourable consider-
tion. It frequently happened that members of Par-
liament interested themselves and consulted the Court
of Directors on matters relating to India. He considerea
the Government of India was the proper tribund
for the subject. He was not aware that members of Par-
liament ever addressed the Board of Directors collectively
on such matters, but there was no doubt they bad fre-
quently spoken to some of the directors. The late Mr.
Hume had spoken to himself and other members of the
court on the subject of the claims of the Raja of Sattara and
other matter relative to India. He was positive that Mr.
Butt adverted to the expediency of such a discussion in
Parliament on the then state of India, but he confined
himself to generalities. He did sot recollect that Mr. Butt
said it woud be expedient to leave as little irritation on
the minds of the people of India who might hear of the
rejection of the Ameer's claim, and it was on that ground
that he urged commission. It was after tie news of the
revolt reached England.
[To be oontinied is our last edities.l