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

. PROPOSED PAUPER LUNATIC ASYLUM FOR THE

CITY.
Upon the motion of Sir J. MUSGROVE, seconded
by Alderman WILSON, the following letter, which
was read by the Deputy Town-Clerk, was ordered
to be laid before the Committee of Justices, and a
copy of it to be transmitted to the Committee of
Common Council recently appointed to consider
this subject :

" Whitehall, Dec. 6.
"Sir,—l am directed by Mr. Secretary Walpole to refer
you to the correspondence which has taken place between
successive Secretaries of State and the authorities of the
City of London on the subject of providing a proper lunatic
asylum for the pauper lunatics of the city, and to request
that you will inform Mr. Walpole, at your earliest conve-
nience, what has been done in the matter.—l. am, Sir, your
obedient servant, "H. WADDINGTON.
"To the. Town Clerk of London.".
• ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF A LATE BROKER.
EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

The Court proceeded to the adjourned considera-
tion of the petition of Mr. Isaac Solomon, complain-
ing of the conduct of Francis Worrell Stevens, late
a' broker.
Mr. Lo Breton appeared as counsel for the peti-
tioner, and Mr. Hancock for the respondent.
The Deputy Town-Clerk read the petition of
Solomons, which was listened to' with much atten-
tion by a crowded court. It stated that the peti-
tioner did, on the 30th* day of November last,
employ the said Francis W. Stevens to purchase
for him £1,200 Three per Cent. Consols, and on the
14th of January last past your petitioner called on
the said F. W. Stevens, and asked him whether he
could get the Consols your petitioner then held
transferred into the New Three per Cent. Bank
Annuities P—to which question the said F. W.
Stevens replied No,' • and said to your peti-
tioner, You must sell out the Consols before
you can buy the New Three per Cents.' Your peti-
tioner then desired the said F. W. Stevens to sell
out his said stock, which he, the said F. W. Stevens
did, but did not give the money for which the said
stock was sold to your petitioner, but kept the
same. That the petitioner was also induced by the
said F. W. Stevens to purchase certain other shares
in the Worthing Mining Company, for which he
charged your petitioner 7s. per share, but, on in-
quiry made soon after your petitioner purchased
the last-mentioned shares, he found that he had
been defrauded by thesaid F. W. Stevens, and your
petitioner and his wife went to the said F. W.
Stevens and threatened to give him into custody of
a policeman for fraud; and when your petitioner
informed the said F. W. Stevens of his determina-
tion, he said, Don't injure me; I will, return
you £3OO of your money to say no more about the
Worthing shares,' which yourpetitioner accepted of
the said F. W. Stevens on account of the said shares.
That on the said occasion the said F. W. Stevens
promised your petitioner to satisfy him as to the
money he had overcharged your petitioner upon
the other abovementioned shares. That your peti-
tioner has repeatedly applied to the said F. W.
Stevens for the restoration of the money which the
said F. W. Stevens has so retained as aforesaid, but
without success.

The Deputy Town-clerk then read the answer of
Francis Worrell Stec ens. He stated that the state-
ment in the said petition that the said Isaac Solo-
mon 'believes I have defrauded him of £9l, or
thereabouts,' is totally unfounded. That the
statement of the said Isaac Solomon in his said
petition that I induced him to dispose of his Tele-
graph shares and purchase Dale Mining shares is
untrue, as he bought the Dale Mining shares and
also Worthing Mining shares of me in March last,
and did not sell his Submarine shares until the 7th,
Bth, and 14th of April following. That I sold
the Dale shares fairly and bona fide, and
did not act as the broker of the said Solomon, nor
did I charge commission or brokerage, as my books
willshow, anent is not true that I charged him £45.
That the said Isaac Solomon did purchase 2,400 shares
in the Worthing Mining Company. That such
shares were my own property, and I had bought
them as an investment from information I had
received, believing the said shares in time must
become valuable. That a few weeks after the pur-
chase ef.thrraleid Worthing Mining shares, and T.
believe in consequence of the anticipated good news
not arriving from Australia as was expected by the
mail, the shares became flat and receded in value ;
and the said Isaac Solomon and his wife called on
me and wanted me to take back the shares, which
I-declined doing. That the said Isaac Solomon
then said he would go to the Lord Mayor and do
for my character, and afterwards do for me. That
I had killed one man (alluding to a transaction in
which I had summoned a party before the Lord
Mayor in respect of conduct towards me, but this
party, it afterwards turned out, was insane, and
committed suicide soon after my making the com-
plaint against him) ; that the Lord Mayor would
believe what they said, because they knew he had
a prejudice against me, and that they would stick
to me till they took my life. Solomon then said
he had come to have my life or £3OO, neither
more nor less, and added, By the Almighty God
I will do and say ; if you don't instantly give
me £3OO I will blow out your brains,' and
his wife said, If he does not finish you I have two
razors in my pocket (which she produced) to finish
you with; All this was said in the presence of
my two sons. They continued their threats to such
an extent that, being very unwell from my recent
affair alluded to before the Lord Mayor, I lost my
presence of mind; and, under the threat of an
ex parte statement which might appear in the
newspapers, and the injury it might occasion me
before I could refute it, and being under bodily
fear, I agreed to give the said Isaac Solomon the
sum of
.1300 to satisfy all claims, andthe said Isaac
Solomon said he would return me the £3OO if the
Worthing shares should go for the price he gave
me, that is 7s. a share, which he promised to do,
and thereupon I requested my son to give me a
bank note for £3OO, which I handed the said Isaac
Solomon, who gave me a receipt, of which the fol•
lowing is a copy Received April, 1853, of Mr.
Stevens, three hundred pounds, being a considera-
tion for all matters in dispute between us to this
day inclusive.—£3oo.—l. SOLOMON.' That, there
being a balance on the general account of £39 lls 2d.
this 'I
also paid the said Isaac Solomon, and re-
ceived the following receipt Received, April
14, 1858, of Mr. Stevens, £39 lls. 2d., balance of
accounts, and to settle all disputes between us.—
I. SOLOMON.' I also altered the accounts in my
books, making it appear to account for the £3OO
that the 'Worthings were charged at 4s. 6d., but I
also made a memorandum in pencil that the amount
was obtained from me under *eats. I have faithfully
stated the facts of the circum§,tances under which
I was induced to part with the said sum of £3OO,

and the statements in the said Isaac Solomon's
petition are untrue, as I say I never said Don't
injure me, I will return your money to say no
more about the Worthing shares;' that I never pro-
mised the said Isaac Solomon to satisfy him as to
the money I had overcharged him upon the other
mentioned shares as alleged, or anything to the
effect, as I never did overcharge him in respect of the
said shares. That a day Of,CWO after obtaining from
me the said sum of £3OO, tie said Isaac Solomon's
wife and daughter again caLed on me, and again used
threats to do for me if I did rot give them £lOO more,
whereupon I consulted Messrs. Hancock and Sharp,
solicitors. of 20, Tokenhouse-yard, who advised me
to bring an action to recover the sum of £3OO so
obtained from me, and who informed the solicitor of
the said Isaac Solomon fiey would defend any
proceedings that might be taken, and requested me
to give their name to any person who applied to
me, and if I was molested again, to give the
parties in charge of a. policeman, and on an appli-
cation being subsequently made to see my books
by the said Isaac. Solomon's solicitor, I consulted
my solicitors as to showing the same, who advised
me to do so, but to refer the-said solicitor to them,
which I did, but the said solicitor never applied to
my said solicitors. That I hate stated shortly the
facts, which I can prove by my books and witnesses,
in reply to the allegations contained in the said
Isaac Solomon's petition, and I humbly submit that
the object of the said Isaac Solomon is extortion,
and the petition has been presented under the idea
that, as he had obtained £3OO from me before under
threats, he would succeed, by pl'esent ing the said peti-
tion, in inducing'me to offer him money to aban dou it.
That the said sum of £3OO was obtained from it e
in settlement of all claims, tad under a promise to
return it me if the Worthing shares rose to 7s. a
share, and, inamticli as the shares have risen to
that value, and the £3OO was obtained as a settle-
ment of the transactions which the said Isaac Solo-
mon now brings forward, I submit that the said
Isaac Solomon ought to be ordered to return me
£3OO before I am called on to rebut the statement
made in his petition."
The two receipts for the respective suths of £3OO
and £39 1 ls. 2d. were produced by Mr. Hancock,
and handed to the Recorder. The first was :

"Received, the nth, April, ISSB, of Me. Stevens, £3OO,

PRICE 4D• STAMPED, SD.

being a consideration for all matters in dispute between us
to this day inclusive."
The second :
"Received of Mr. Stevens £39.115. al., balance .of ac-
count, and in settlement of all disputes between us."
The document was signed, " Isaac Solomon."
The petitioner was then sworn and examined as
follows
The Recorder—ls the signature to the receipt for
£39 I ls. 2d. your handwriting.?
Petitioner (looking at the document)—Well, I
should say it was not.
The Recorder—Do you swear that is not your
handwriting
Petitioner—Well, I can swear that it is not my
handwriting.
The Recorder—ls the signature to the receipt for
£3OO your writing ?
Petitioner (after inspecting the document)—I
believe that not to bo my handwriting.
The Recorder—But you must kriacsi whether it is
or not. You must know whether You ever signed
it or not.
Petitioner—That is not my handwriting.
The Recorder—Did yOu ever see either of these
papers before ?
ebeistti
no
ef
rm—yyes: belief.at
thesame Petitioner—l never Saw' those papers before to
the
time that I received
The Recorder—Did yon receive the £39 Us. 2d ?
Pt
the £3OO.

Alderman Copeland—Are the Court distinctly to
understand that you received from Mr. Stevens
£3OO and £39.118. 2d. ?

Petitioner—Yes. -
Alderman Rose--Iniai WnS*- the £3OO for?
Petitioner—For an overcharge upon the: Worth-
ing, mining shares.
Air. Hancock—ls that your signature (calling
the attention of the petitioner to an entry in a book
belonging to the respondent) ?
Petitioner—Yes.
The Recorder and Aldermen compared this sig-
nature with those to the receipts.
Mr. Stevens, jun., was then examined on behalf
of the respondent.
Mr. Hancock—Were you present on the 14th of
April, when sums of £3OO and £39 11s. 2d. were
paid to Mr. Solomon ?
Witness—Yes.
Mr. Hancock—Did he, in your presence,lsign the
receipts produced.
Witness—Yes, both of them.
Cross-examined by Mr. Le Breton—The receipts
were read over to the petitioner more than once.
Alderman Copeland—The question is, after the
admission of the petitioner himself that he received
the £3OO and the £39 1 ls. 2d., whether the Court
will proceed any further in the matter. The case
as assumed art aspect such as I have never before
witnessed in the course of my 30 years' experience
here. On the one hand we have the positive evi-
dence of the petitioner that these receipts did not
bear his signature, and on the other there is the
positive evidence of a man who saw him sign them.
In addition-to this there is the admission of the
petitioner himself that he received the money. I
cannot conceive that anything more frightful ever
came before the Court, and I, for one, think we
ought to impound these receipts. I move that the
petition be dismissed.

Alderman Sidney seconded the motion, which
was put and carried unanimously.
The Court after the removal of strangers, re-
mained in deliberation nearly an hour, when the
public were re-admitted, it being understood that
the City Solicitor had been ordered to indict the
petitioner for perjury.