The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-13 00:00:00

IN RE GOLDSMITH-ALLEGED FRAUD.

This bankrupt was described as of Finsbury Pavement,
and St. Swithin's-lane, and a general merchant. This wag
a meeting for choice of assignees. The bankrupt is in
Newgate on a charge of fraud. The debts are considerable,
and are being investigated by Messrs. Hart Brothers on
behalf of the assignee, as it is thought many are fraudu-
lent or fictitious.

Mr. Reed appeared for the assignees, and Mr. Treherne
and Mr. Metcalfe, from Messrs. Yenning and Co., for the

creditors.

An application was made on Saturday for an examination
of the bankrupt, with a view of getting evidence in support
of the prosecution, but his honour refused it on that
ground, but said the bankrupt could be examined generallY
after the trial.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Secondary Potter and a Jury )

GANDLE V. THOMPSON-SINGULAR MERCANTILE CASE.

Plaintiff is a ship and insurance broker, of 68, Mark-lane,
and was represented by counsel, and defendant is a mer-
chant of the City of London.

This was a writ of inquiry under the following peculiar
circumstances :

According to plaintiff's statement, it appeared that in
the year '5B, being desirous of extending his business, he
was called upon by defendant, who informed plaintiff that
he was going upon business to the continent of Europe,
and might be able to recommend plaintiff a considerable
amount of business. An agreement was drawn up, and
plaintiff handed over the sum of £l5O, to be applied sa
travelling expenses, besides at various times lending
defendant small sums amounting to £l6 10s. BY
the terms of the agreement defendant was to have
50 per cent. upon the net profit of all business
introduced by him. No business had been. introduced by
defendant, and plaintiff might as well have thrown his
money into the Thames. Defendant had only expended
£l4B, and plaintiff's moiety being £74 the jury would have
to determine what sum plaintiff was entitled to.
Defendant then rose and read from a thick brief sore
personal statements and, though repeatedly called to order,
persisted that it was for his case.
The learned Secondary pointed out that defendant had
suffered judgment to go by default, Sand was making state'
ments that would take plaintiff by surprise.
The defence appeared to be that plaintiff had by his WI:,
act lost business introduced by defendant; that he was unao
to carry on the business of a shipbroker, and that defend-
ant had been induced to expend £75 of his own money'
which had been lost.

Defendant said he had been attracted by an advertise'
ment in the Times, and that was his first introduction to
plaintiff, who had such a miserable office that no captain ei
a vessel would go to it. He was quite ignorant of all
ters connected with a shipbroker's business, and advised
the captain of an eighty ton vessel to load for Calcutta*
(Laughter.) Defendant said he should avoid all person
ality, but he must show that plaintiff had heen unable to
carry on business, having no funds and no knowledge i
the business.
The learned Secondary said it was his duty to direct ata
jury to find for plaintiff for £94 14s. Bd, Defendant 130
allowed judgment to go by default, and if he had suffered
.
through any breach in the agreement committed by plate'
tiff, he had his remedy.