The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-28 00:00:00

Before I saw him I had discounted largely for Mr.
Edgeley, and those bills were always, I presumed,
duly honoured. I had reason to believe Edgeley
and Co. were doing a large and flourishing business,
and had the greatest confidence in them. I cannot
recollect the amount of Edgeley and Co.'s bills dis-
counted by the bank in any one year. how is it
possible for a man at my age, and speaking without
books, to say, having regard to a business of
£18,000,000 a year transacted by the bank ? It
might be £lOO,OOO, speaking at a guess. It was
more like £lOO,OOO than £20,000. I saw Van
Cleef twice or thrice at Leeds. After he was intro-
duced by Mr. Edgeley I had little or no occasion to
see'him. The interviews I had with him after he had
been introduced by Edgeley would be very few. I
had very little to do with him personally. For any
business transaction it would not be necessary for
me to see him with Edgeley after the introduction.
I Dever did a business transaction with Van Cleeff
except through his personal attendance at the bank.
I do not think at any of those interviews Van Cleeff
spoke of the Maydampeck Forest Company. He
may have done so, but there would be no necessity
for it. I had thought I first heard of Van Cleeff's
bankruptcy from you in this court—(a laugh)—but
I think I must have heard it in Leeds from Teale.
Before the form of the bills was changed I had a
communication from Edgeley on the subject. I be-
lieve he suggested that they should be drawn in
favour of the Maydampeck Forest Company, and I
assented to it. The " position" had rendered it ne-
cessary, Van Cleef being in difficulties likely to lead
to bankruptcy. Whatever I knew about the
bankruptcy must have been through Edgeley or
Teale. At that time a large amount of the bills
of the Forest Company were running. The Forest
Company's bills were discounted, I understood,
to retire old bills; but I don't recollect, nor would
I undertake to say, that was not so arranged be-
tween Edgeley and me. There are letters, over
which I have now no control, which would show
whether that was so or not. I think it very likely
that in February, 1864, I sent Edgeley two draughts
for £l,OOO each to enable him to take up some of
Van Cleeff's old bills. I won't undertake to say
that I did not on various occasions discount May-
dampeck Forest Company bills to enable Edgeley
to take up Van Cleeff's acceptances. A legal in-
strument, I believe, was drawn up by Mr. Yewdall,
of Leeds, solicitor to Mr. Edgeley. 1 had a conver-
sation with Edgeley on that subject, in which he
told me Van Cleeff had executed to him an assign-
ment of the concession of the Maydampeck Forest
and of all his interest in it, and that that was to
secure him against loss by Van Cleeff. After that
conversation a document was placed in my hands
for a few days by Mr. Edgeley or Mr. Ye wdall,
and was afterwards returned to Mr. Edgeley. It
is very likely I said on that occasion that it would
be a goad thing if Teale and Co. could be protected
in the same way, for it would have protected me
also. I believe it was returned to Mr. Edgeley. If
it had been a security of the bank I should have
kept it in the safe of the bank. 1 should not take
it home with me. I won't say positively, but I
think I returned it to Mr. Edgeley, or it might have
been to Teale. I know at least it went out of my
custody.
By Mr. Poland, in re-examination—Whatever
the document was, it was returned to Edgeley or
Teale, and that was the paper that Edgeley wanted
to get back, as he said, to be registered. When the
form of the bills was changed I certainly believed
the Forest Company had been formed, and that the
company took Van Cleeff's interest. I knew nothing
about the company except what I heard from Edge-
ley or Teale, and I had every confidence in them.
Mr. Edward Henry Watts, formerly a partner in
the firm of Edgeley and Co., was recalled, and re-
peated the evidence he gave on the examination of
Devillers, and that was taken as part of the case
for the prosecution.
The further hearing was at this stage adjourned
until to-day, and in the meantime the defendant
was again admitted to bail—himself in £2,000, and
,wo sureties in £l,OOO each.

Sheffield Trades' Union Commission.

NINETEENTH DAY (TnunsDAY).

At the sitting of the Examiners to-day, William
Stanley, secretary to the Brickmakers' Society, was
examined—He had only been secretary since May.
He produced the books of the society, and said he
was not aware that any had been destroyed. Leaves
had been torn out from some of the books previous
to his being secretary, but he could not tell by whom
they had been torn out. The cash-book, which had
originally been a thick book, now only contained
four leaves. Witness said he had not brought a
minute-book, for during the time he had been sec-

retary one had not been used, and he had never seen
one. It turned out, however, that among the books
he had brought there was a minute-book which
contained entries going back as far as 1855. Wit-
ness explained his possession of that book with what
he had previously said by stating that it belonged to
the Amalgamated Societies of Brickmakers and
Bricklayers. His society never made entries of their
proceedings. The fact of some of the society's books
having been mutilated was never mentioned in his
presence till he was secretary—that was less than
two months ago. When there was a talk about the
Commissioners coming down some of the committee
said it was a pity that the books had been mutilated.

He swore that he could not tell who made that re-
mark, and it was only after repeated cautions from
Mr. Overend that he was able to recollect a few of
the committee who were present at the meeting,
when the subject of the mutilation of the books was
talked about. He said it was customary for leaves
to be cut out of the books about every six months;
but when they were cut out before the last occasion
he could not say. The books were produced, and
witness would not swear that the leaves had not
been all cut out at the same time.
Mr. Overend told the witness the Court had not
gone into the affairs of his Union, but his conduct
placed them in a very suspicious light indeed. Ile
was told to stand down, but not to leave the court.
William Henry Owen, formerly secretary to the
Brickmakers' Union, said they had no minute-
book in their Union, and he believed never had.
The Bricklayers' Union kept such a book, as they had
scholars among them. The books produced were
mutilated when they came into the hands of Stanley.
He (witness) mutilated the books himself on his
own responsibility after he had heard the Commis-
sion was to be appointed. He afterwards acquainted

the committee with what he had done. Stanley and
several other persons were present when he cut the
books. In mutilating the books he was following
the practice of his predecessors. The books that
came into his hands had been cut, as well as those
that came into the hands of his predecessor—one
Palmer. Another book was placed in his hands,
from which the leaves at the end had been cut, and
he admitted that it was " his handiwork."
Mr. Overend—l see the leaf at the end has been
pasted down ; why was that done ?
Witness—l thought it would look more work-
manlike.

Mr. Overend —And to conceal the fact that the
book had been mutilated?
Witness—That was my idea.
Mr. Overend—You mutilated the books to pre-
vent us seeing what were the entries?
Witness—That is so, and that one mutilated book

might correspond with another.
Examination continued—There was no entry in
the book, with the exception of " committee's ex-
penses," of which he was ashamed. Under the head
of " committee's expenses" was entered moneys
paid for refreshments and for the time lost. Each
member had a book in which his contributions are
entered, and that served as a check upon the cash-
book and a guarantee to him that his money has
been paid, even though our book has been destroyed?
Mr. 0 \reread—What did the committee say when
you told them you had mutilated your books?
Witness—They said the Commissioners would
make a great handle of it, and that I had done very
wrong. In fact, they lectured me.
Mr. Overend—flow long did the lecture last ?
Witness—Oh, only a minute.
Mr. Overend—They then were not very sorry?
Witness—They did not appear to be.
Mr. 0 verend—When the committee said the mm-
uiissioners would find fault what did you say?
Witness--I said I was perfectly ia,tisfied with