The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-28 00:00:00

tit 4 StIN% 1,40 N DOlkii tasi

FRAUDULENT TRUSTET,S.

We have just received Sir Richard Bethell's Bill
for the Punishment of Fraud committed by Trus-
tees, Bankers, and. other persons intrusted with
property. The bill is, happily, short and intelli-
gible, qualities which do not always distinguish this
class of literature. We find in it seven short sec-
tions, in which the offences to be henceforth
brought under the cognizance of the Criminal
Courts are pointed out and defined. The first is
aimed at the class of " trustees ;"—how many
among us in decent positions in life have the good
fortune to be neither trustees nor executors ? Now,
trustees are, for the most part, at the mercy of the
solicitors to the trust funds, unless they be very
careful men indeeA, and do not shrink from caus-
ing trouble and expense. Some of this class will
upon the slightest provocation throw the affair
into Chancery, and thus relieve themselves from
responsibility at the expense of the estate. With
the terror of the Attorney-General's penal clause
before their eyes we suspect that this class of
over-careful trustees—and executors too—will re-
ceive a large addition. For the futare, trustees who
" in violation of good faith, and with intent to de-
fraud," appropriate trust money or any part of it to
their own use are to be held guilty of a misdemean-
our, punishable by penal servitude for any term
not exceeding seven years. The only check upon this
Draconic clause, which would otherwise render men
as unwilling to meddle with the office of trustee, as
with red-bot iron, is a provision in the 12th section.
No such prosecution is to be commenced without
the sanction of some Judge or of the Attorney-
General, and it is supposed that in this way vexa-
tious and unjustifiable indictments may be avoided.
" Good faith" and " fraudulent intent" are very
plastic terms ; so it is to be hoped the security im-
plted by the necessity of obtaining this previous
sanction may avail. It is, no doubt, highly expedi-
ent to frame some such clause as this for the benefit
of persons interested in trust funds, for few persons
if they be not members of the legal profession, can
nave the faintest idea of the amount of iniquity an-
nually perpetrated by trustees. Any lawyer who
has sten much business will invariably advise his
client not upon any con-iderat ion to leave his affairs
in the hands of a sole trustee. Trustees must be
posted, like sen.iries in the presence of an enemy, in
pairs, the one to be sentry or trustee over the other.
Were it your own brother, were it a man you have
saved from drowning, were it the clergyman of your
parish, never make him " sole" trustee. At the
same time, the office is one which must be filled.
Were the law made so stringent that private indi-
viduals were al together frightened away from the
office of trustee, the only alternative would be an
indefinite extension of the powers of the Court of
Chancery. Trusts must be. A cestui-que trust
would be made a ward of Chancery, as minors are

now, under certain conditions. Noss this would be
a great evil, and therefore the honest trustee must
be protected in the discharge of his duties, and
even cases of dubious malversation must not be

scanned with too severe an eye. We will not say
the security is inadequate. A Judge or the Attor-
ney-General will surely be slow to allow a prosecu-
tion save upon very clear evidence indeed. It would
be difficult to imagine any case for legislation,
wherein the interference of the Legislature is im-
peratively called for, more surrounded with diffi-
culties than the one before us. On the one hand
we have rascality and malversation in office, on the
other the danger that the most honourable men
will shrink from the discharge of duties which may
involve them in such terrible consequences. Some-
thing must be tried, and here is a definite proposi-
tion. Time only will show whether it will work
all the good we desire, and not the evil which we
apprehend.
The second, third, and fourth sections re-enact in
more general terms the provisions of the 7th and
Bth George IV., cap. 29, sec. 49. Under this Act
it was provided that bankers, merchants, brokers,
or other agents intrusted with money, or securities
for the payment of money, with "directions in
writing" as to the application of the same, and who
should convert them to their own use, should be
held guilty of a misdemeanour. Furiher, where
any valuable security or power of attorney for the
sale or transfer of any shares in the public funds,
Asc., was intrusted to any banker, broker, mer-
chant, attorney, or other agent, and such person,
in violation of the purpose for which the security or
power of attorney was transferred to him, sold, ne-
gotiated, transferred, or pledged the security or the
proceeds for his own benefit, he was also guilty of
a misdemeanour. Such is a general outline of the
enactment which will be now virtually superseded
by the more general terms of Sir Richard Bethell's
new Bill. The second section provides—" That
any banker, menhant, broker, attorney, or agent,
being intrusted as such with the property of any
other person, and who shall, in violation of
good faith, and with intent to defraud, sell,
negotiate, transfer, pledge, or in any manner
convert or employ to or for his own use such
property, or any part thereof, shall be guilty of
a misdemeanour." It would be difficult to have
an enactment more sweeping, or one, we
,believe,
more imperatively called for by the circumstances ,
of the time. The form of crime charged is simply
a theft of the most barefaced kind, with breach of
trust superadded. It is a crime perpetrated not
by ignorant' men, but by persons of unusual pro-
fessional skill. They have sought the employment
under which their iniquities are perpetrated—it
has not been thrust upon them. In fact, there is
not the shadow of an excuse, tot the faintest pal-
liation, to he urged in their behalf. In the third
section the same penalty is fulmina, ed against any
person "who, intrusted with any power of attor-
ney for the sale or transfer of any property, shall
fraudulently sell, transfer, and convert such pro-
perty, or any part thereof, to his own use." The
general tenour of the remarks which we have offered
upon the preceding section will apply to this one
also. By the fourth the security to society is ren-
dered more complete. Thereby "bailees" of any
property who fraudulently convert it to their own
use are equally guilty of a misdemeanour. It may
he unnecessary to add that this last provision has a
far wider scope than the case of the mere banker or
broker, and is intended to cure a defect in the cri-
minal law, by which the practitioner was constantly
headed back, and the guilty escaped punishment.
No one who has read the unhappy and disgraceful
chronicles of commercial misconduct during the last
few years will hesitate for a moment to acknowledge
that without such provisions as these the business
of this country could no longer be carried on with
credit and security. So vast is the extension of our
commerce, so great the temptation to unprincipled
men to embark in wild speculations at the expense
of their clients, so numerous the instances of trium-
phant fraud of this description, as to inspire dismay
among fair traders and the honest portion of the
community. Where we consider, moreover, how
frequently persons in every way deserving of
commiseration are the dupes of these reckless
sharpers, there will be nothing wanting to complete
the iudignaticn of any man of ordinary probity and
good faith. Let us think for a moment on the
class of persons who are ruined by such a failure
as that of Strahan and Paul. The customers
of tile house were not persons engaged profes-
sionally in mercantile pursuits,: and therefore pre-
sumably upon their guard, but private gentlemen
who had a full right to rely, upon the integrity of
their bankers, ladies naturally ignorant of business,
aye, and the poor governess, who in one moment
of time found herself despoiled of the hard-won
earnings of her life.
The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth sections of
Sir Richard Betbell's Act are pointed expressly at
the directors or public officers of bodies corporate
or public companies. The notorious defects of the
criminal law with reference to such persons have at
last compelled an enactment which does not appear
to err on the side of over-leniency. Henceforth it
will be a misdemeanour in any such person to take
" fraudulently" for his own use any of the property
of the company. This, we presume, provides for
the case of the deposit of sham securities. It will
be a misdemeanour in a direceer, &c., to possess
himself of any of the money belonging to the com-
pany—otherwise than in payment of a just debt—
if he wilfully omit to make an entry of the transac-
tion in the books of the company. It will be a mis-
demeanour in any such person to destroy, alter, or
falsify any of the company's books ; to be privy to
the making of any fraudulent entry, or to any
fraudulent omission. it will be a misdemeanour
in any director, &c., to circulate, or to join in cir-
culating, any false statement as to the circumstances
or the company with the intention of deceiving any
member, shareholder, or creditor of the company,
or with the intention of inducing any person to
become a shareholder or partner in the concern, or
to trust his money to the custody of the company,
or to enter into any security for the company's
benefit. Sir Richard Bethell seems to have studied
the pathology of the Royal British Bank with
sound effect, for the provisions of his Act just ap-
pear calculated to meet the evils brought to light'
when the transactions of that impure concern were
under judicial consideration. Such, then, is the
beginning of a new era in our criminal legislation.
Henceforward we may take it as a principle that
commercial fraud is no longer to escape unpunished.
Year after year the net will be drawntighter around
the limbs of our commercial swindlers. We do not
il aetegetser despair of teeing our commercial code in
,uch a state as will really terrify the rogues out of
their malpractices, and drive them upon honesty,
as the more promising speculation.—Times.

THE BURR ELL MURDER, MYSTEN I

The New York papers to m with the details of
the trial of Mrs. Cunningham, on the charge of
being a principal in the extraordinary murder of
Dr. Burden, the particulars of which have already
been published in our columns, and have excited
world-wide interest.
The standing of the murdered man in the commu-
nity, and tbat of the accused parties ; the quiet but
public character of the street in which the murder
was committed ; the my-tery attending the crime ;
the circumstances which, from the testimony elicited
before the coroner's jury, seemed to them a well-
founded suspicion against the inmates of the house
as the perpetrators of the crime ; and, following
that verdict and the indictment, the fact that some
of the most important witnesses were found to be
of a character far beyond reproach, together with a
re-action in public opinion, to a certain extent, as
regards the guilt of the accused, have all tended to
increase the mystery that surroun 'ed the crime.
The trial, which took place in New York, lasted
six days, and terminated on Saturday, May 9.
On the last day of the trial the excitement arose
to the high, st pitch of intensity. After the clos-
ing speeches of counsel on both sides, the judge de-
livered his charge, and preserved throughout this
remarkable effort he utmost impartiality. After lay-
ing down the law with remarkable clearness of lan-
guage and logical force the judge analysed the evi-
dence in the following manner would seem to
be indisputable that it was arranged in the early
part of the 3d of January, that Helen Cunning-
ham, the daughter of the prisoner, should go with
Dr. Beecher the next day, at 11 o'clock, to Sara-
toga Springs, to school. As soon as this arrange-
ment was made the family commenced preparations
for that event. Taking the testimony of the in-
mates of the house, except that of Hannah Contan,
it would appear that all the members of the family,
the prisoner, Eckel, the two daughters, and Snod-
grass, were engaged till 11 o'clock in these prepara-
tions, when they severally retired to rest, the pri-
soner and her two daughters occupying the same
bed, according to their statement, in the third
story front room ; that they so occupied it until
morning, the prisoner sleeping in the middle be-
tween the two daughters ; that they arose
the next morning, and all took breakfast together
as usual, except Mr. Eckel, who was called away
by a note from Mr. Ely, as he proved ; that after
breakfast they all returned to the ap ertment to-
gether, this third story front room, where they were
when lannah, the cook, announced to them the
death of the doctor. In this connection it it pro-
per to consider the theory of the case announced
on the part of the prosecution. They rely upon
the threatilby the prisoner towards the deceased,
and the bitter feeling of ill-will which she so fre-
quently manifested toward him ; that having been
married to him she was desirous of getter).-b speedy
possession of a pat t of his property, which was the
inducement to the commission of this crime ; that
these motives which are alleged actuated her to per-
petrate this crime, are adequate motives therefore.
They also allege that she did it ; and that on the day
the deed was committed she ascertained that the
only boarder in the house, except Mr. Eckel, Mr.
Ullman, was not to be at home until a late I our
that evening ; that she had prepared in the attic
room a fireto be lighted at any moment for the pur-
pose of destroying the evidence of her guilt ; that
the deed must have been committed by some one in
the house, and that she was the only person in the
house that day who had any adequate motive for
committing the crime, and that necessarily it must
have been done by her. That at about midnight an
offensive smelt was perceived in Bond-s reet by se-
veral persons, and teat the same was caused by the
burning of clothes, rte , in a grate of the front attic
room, and that such burning took place, they say is
evident from the testimony of Dr. Parmly. In this
connection you will bear iu mind the statement of
Dr. Smith and his son—the fact that Dr. Smith
had that very afternoon been burning in his
stove pieces of woollen and pieces of le tther. Whe-
ther or not this offensive odour may not have been
created from that source it is for you to say. ou
will remember the testimony of Dr. Main that he
experienced the same offensive odour about one
o'clock that morning, and also the testimony of Mr.
Baldwin, who, with his friends, noticed the same
smell about the same hour. Then you have the tes-
timeny of Mr. Ullmann, who came into the house
about 12 o'clock, and who experienced no smell, and
the testitnot y of all the inmates of the house, who
concur in stating that they experienced nothing of
that kind. Then, gentlemen, there is a theory which
has been laid before you that it was inapo,.sible,
from experiments which have been tried, that this
matter could have been burned in that room with-
out its fermenting the whole house, and creating
an odour which must have existed for some hours—
from 12 to 2 o'clock. Then, gentlemen, anott.er evi-
dence, which would have been a very striking one
in this case, particularly where a strong, st !ut, ac-
tive, hea!thy man, as this deceased was testified to
be by Dr. Francis, in the prime of life, was mur-
dered under circumstances that this man was, by a
female, whether such a ren con titer corld have taken
place, and such a result have been produced by the
prisoner at the bar without leaving on her person
Some marks" or evidence of such rencouuter. You
remember the testimony of the physician in refe-
rence to indentations or marks remaining mach
longer upon the female than on the male, and the
reasons that were given for est eblishing that fact. As
no marks were proven—the one alluded to under
the shawl I believe was not made out by testimony
at all. Now, upon the theory of the prosecution,
they not having proved that any clothes in the house
were defiled or sotinel, is must be apparent, front
the testirnorry of the physician and the evidences in
the room which we have ourselves seen, that the
persons who did inflict these injuries must neces-
sarily have been, to a considerable extent, covered
with blood. I say that the prosecution, not having
ha f it in their power to show any evidences of gar-
ments iu or about the house thus defiled or stained,
unless you shall find the theory that this fire in tie
room iu the attic was prepared, having it ready for
burning these clothes, and that this room was used
for a purpose like that on that night, is sustained,
it follows that, there being no appearance of any
stains or of any blood upon any of the garments of
the prisoner, or of any iu her house- at the time,
you are bound to consider that there were none.
Now, gentlemen, another evidence—and a striking,
if not controlling one, of the guilt of the person
rthe deed was perpetrated,
olcvhreaaterPgiotehndewwwhiitichtewiltulirimedieligre—lirtthise'finding upon theiaccused
have been perpetrated, or
in any places, if not upon the person of the accused,
over which the accuse d had exclusive control or
possession—as, for instance, the case put by one
of the counsel, of a person shot by a pistol-bail.
A pistol was found in the possession of the ac-
cused with which it was possible the ball had been
shot from ; and when the dissection took place, the
ball found in the body of th© deceased would not fit
the pistol ; therefore, that presumptionwhich, in an
ordinary case, if the ballhad fitted the pistol, would
have been regarded as conclusive, failed entirely
did not
the agree.natur judge proceeded
eTohfethe wounds, and
tboe caarugsuee tthheatw of
from
the position in which Dr. Burdell sat when the
fatal attack was made upon him, it was unlikely
that a female like the prisoner would possess the
amount of strength necessary to accomplish the
murder. Then, he continued, there is another
th ory in the case—that those wounds were, for the
number of them, of a peculiarly mortal character ;
that they were nearly every one of them fatal or
inortabblows, and that they must have been in-
flicted by a person having au anatomical knowledge
of the human system. There is no proof on the
subject that the prisoner has or has not such ana-
tomical knowledge ; and if you are satisfied that
these blows were inflicted by a person having ana-
tomical knowledge, to have brought it home to the
prisoner it would have been necessary for the pro-
secution to show that she had such anatomical
knowledge. I have not felt it necessary to discuss
the various theories in reference to whether persons
might have got in from the back part of the house
or the front, or to call attention to the various sug-
gestions made in reference to this subject. Gentlemen
—you must look at this case with reference to the
prisoner at the bar, whether the hypothesis is sus-
tained so as to exclude the idea that his death could
have been caused by any other person than herself.
My duty is now ended, and you have to retire to
your room, calmly to decide on the fate of this
unhappy woman at the bar. Meet your duty like
men feeling your deep responsibilities and he
solemnities of your oaths. To your decision 1 now
commit the fate of t is unfortunate women, and the
future of herself and her family. While you deal
justly by her, it is your privilege also to deal mer-
cifully ; for, as I have before remarked, if you have
any reasonable doubt of her guilt, that doubt is to
be cast into the scale in her favour, and entitles
her to your verdict of acquittal. If, on the con-
trary, on a review of the whole case, you deem the
charge contained in the indictment proven, it is
your duty to your country and your God to say so,
though it be with anguish of heart, and may cause
deep shame and sorrow to others. But if in this
final reviewing you are not satisfied of her guilt,
pronounce a verdict of acquittal, and let the accused
go free.
During the delivery of the charge the most pro-
found silence was observed throughout tle vast as-
sembly ; at its close there was ari at, erupted mani-
testAtion of approval, which,' however, was quickly
repressed by the officers.
Mr. Bartolf, an officer of the court, was then
sworn and put in charge of the jury, who at seven
o'clock retired. At this time Mrs. Cunningham
was resting her head upon a chair in front of her,
her daughters were still seated at her aide, fanning

th-mselves beneath Viet thick brown veils to par-
tially esclpe the effects of the be sted and unhealthy
atmosphere wi,ich pervaded the roiqn.
In half an hour 0-.0 jury retutid to their seats.
In a moment the audience became involuntarily
silent, and Mr. VBndtrvoort (the clerk)
Gentlemen of the jury, have you considered your
vet diet ?
Foreman—We have.

Mr. Bartolf approached Mrs. Cunningham and
directed her to arisa. She did so, evincing in the
act a seeming unconsciousnes- of whit was transpir-
ing abort,. her ; she stood still and motionless until
her eyes, without expression, turned towards the
jury.
Mr. Vandervoort—Jurors, look upon the pri-
soner; prisoner, look upon the jurors. How say
you, gentlemen, do you find Emma Augusta Cun-
ningham, otherwise called Burdell, guilty or not
guilty ?
The Foreman (in a suvtdu-d tone)—Not guilty.
The words had hardly hero announced before
there was an attempt to applaud the Verdict, but
the prompt action of the officers checked the in-
appropriate expression of feeling.
Mrs. Cunningham stood for a moment entirely
unconscious, but the buzz of satisfaction that broke
the silence artled her, and she sank into her chair
in a state of partial swoon. Judge Dean and Mr.
Clinton supported her, and gave her the assurance
that it was all right" which was the fist con-
sciousness of her acquittal. A few brief moments
passed, when she had sufficiently recovered to be
conducted with ber daughters from the court-room
to the Marine Court chamber, when she received
the congratulations of her friends and the jury.
An hour later, she and her daughters, accompanied
by Isaac J. Oliver, were rolling in a carriage
towards the house, No. 31, Bond-street, where
they will remain fur the present.

CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD.

John Hind May, of Huggin-lane, City, and Stanley-
street, Pimlico, agent ; Wm. Tiylor, 1, Church-passage,
Gresbam-street, agent ; and Geo. David Myers, 4, Mal-
vern-terrace, Isliugton, also described as an agent, but,
who is reported to be a wealthy man, appeared befora
Alderman Humphrey at Guldhall, yesterday, for final
examination relative to the charge of con piracy to de-
fraud Mr. Gorman, of Lurgan, in the county of Armagh,
Irfland, of a quantity of cambric handkerchiefs, to the
value of about 5001., and Mr. Lawson, a ma-mfacturei,
of the same part, of similar goods to the value of about
6001.

Mr. Morgan, of the firm of Humphreys, Son, and
M,:rgan, appeared as before for the prosecution ; Mr.
Hudd:eston, instructed by Messrs. Sole, Turner, and
Co., appeared on behalf of Taylor ; Mr. Hawkins, in-
structe& by Messrs Overbury and Peak, attended for
Myers; and Mr. Wontner defended May ; Mr. Bodkin,
instructed by Messrs. Pontifex and Moginie, attended
to watch the case for Mr. Chas. sleeking, of Holborn.
'She depositions taken en the last occasion having
been read,

E. H. Davis„ the clerk from the Union Bank, re-
called, said—Myers and May bad step .rate accounts at
the -Union Bank. On the 12 hof Marco last, a cheque
for 1241 was presented by Myers, and it was returned
on the following day. Ido not know whose cheque that
was, but it was dishonoured There wa, a bill to which
May was a party, for 231. 168. 63., which was returned
to Myers on the 16th of March. That bill was origi-
nally for 231. 155., and it was paid in to Myers' account
on the 14th of March, and the cost of notsng made it
231. 16s. 63. A cheque for 301.. drawn by Myers on
the 3d of April, and made payable to May, was paid by
our bank, and debited to Myers' account on the 4ch of
April. It was a crossed cheque, and was credited to
May's account. There was also on the 4th of April a
cheque for 811. 10s., drawn by Myers, and payable to
May, but I do not find it credited to May's account.
The cheque for 1341. on the 12th of March was debited
to Myers' acc,,unt, but it does not appear in May's ac-
count. It would not, if dishonoured.
Mr. Morgan said—ln a case of general conspiracy,
it is competent for me to go into as many cases as I think
proper ; I, therefore, propose to go into Mr. Lawson's
case as an accumulative instance in support of the
general charge. It is not necessary for me to prove that
these parties met together for the purpose of conspiracy,
but if I show by their acts that they are pursuing one
common object to defraud a number of persons, as I
shall do in the case, then I apprehend I shall proved
sufficient to substantiate the charge of conspiracy to
warrant your committing them for trial.
Mr. Huddleston—•You have no objection to the legal
part of that argument. In a charge of general conspir-
acy you may give evidence of different acts which may
ts:,d to prove the general charge, and it was therefore
very convenient for the prosecutors, when they found
the specific charge crumbling beneath them, to deal in
gen rale ; and finding that Gorrnae'a case was fail
lug, they try to mend it by a prosecution on
a general charge. Mr. Morgan now charges these
parties, not with defrauding Mr. Gorm4n, hut
the whole Irish trade of linen manufacturers in
general; and, if this is to be the charge, undoubtedly be
Can go into as many accumulative instances as he ca❑
scrape together to support, this charge, and I cannot
legally rifler any opposition to that course ; but that is
nut the charge ; for, on the last occa,ion it was for

conspiring to defraud Thomas Gorman, acid I now find
by the remand commitment that it has been made out
for defrauding Thomas German and (steer person.. I
insist, as an act of common jn-tice to Mr. Taylor, to
call upon Mr. Lawson to state boldly if he is the pro-
secutor in this matter er not, so teat Hr. Taylor may
know who are the responsible parties. I will withdraw
my objection at once, if Mr. Lawson will s and on an'l
say " I have pro,ecuted in this matter." (Great
cheery g.)
Mr. Morgan—l call Mr. Lawson merely as a wit-
ness in Gerinan's case ; and it is not, thereflre, neces-
sary that he should prosecute.
Alexander Lawson examined—l reside at Lurgan,
in the county of Armagh, Ireland. I am a manufacturer
of cambric handkerchiefs. I received a letter from
Taylor, dated the 6th of December, 1856, in which
he informed me that Mr. Swallow, from C niestake
and Co.'s, would be at Lurgan, and would look at
the goods in bulk, as he was not content with
sample dozens, and recommended me to try all I
could, as they had a large trade and paid cash. He also
said that if he had bad the bulk he could have got offers
for the goods from two parties. At Taylor's suggestion
that he should have the stock, I sent up four cases con-
taining about 2,600 dozen of cambric bandkerchiefe ;
and I afterwards received a letter from him, dated the
27th of December, 1856, in which he stated that his col-
lector bad called for the amount of 21. or 31. for the car-
riage of the goods, and asking for directions as t) pay-
ing it and sending back the empty cases. Upon the
receipt of that letter, I sent up Henderson's (the ship-
ping agent) receipt for the carriage to London ; and on
the 15th of January Taylor wrote again that he bad in-
troduced my goods into two houses, and hoped to have
a final answer that day. He expressed a wish that the
jobbing was over, and said my Lurgan neighbours were
keeping it up with a vengeance; and with regard to
another case of goods, he advised me to send it forward
at once. In ct nsequence of that letter, I cent up two
cases, containing 916 or 926 dozen, I forget which, of
handkerchiefs, and I afterwards received a letter from
him, dated the 24th of January, acknowledging the ar-
rival of the two cases of goods, and stating that he would
not send me a bad bill, but that, if I was afraid, he would
guarantee the accounts, including
his commission, for
four per cent. Tailor wrote me again On the 14,1 of
February, to say that Morley and Nephew would take
my goods at 171 off, and 2 and 60 days from the 20th
of the month ; but that be thought, if pushed, they
would take them at 15 off, and 21 and 90 days. In that
letter he enclosed me the account sales of the goods to
May, consisting of 1,701 dozen at 4501. 8.. 2d.,
which, after deducting 12 and 10/. 2s 21. for
discount, &c., left a balance of 3841. The
terms were one bill for 1841. at a month and
another bill for 2001. at three months. I received a let-
ter, dated the 21st of March, from Taylor, stating he bad
cleared the whole of n y g oods, and that I should have
the cash for the large lot, amounting to 3001., on the
28th of March, but that he could not get the cash for the
four small entries until the middle of April. He said
the other 1,000 were in and opened, and that he would
try and sell them the following week. On the 31st of.
March I rec-ived a letter from Taylor, dated the 28th,
enclosing sales, and statement of account balanced for
all sold, by which it appeared that the sales on the 12th
Feb. amounted to 8841., and on the 7th, 18th, and 28th
of March they amounted to 3931. 3s. 6d„ making a
total of 7771. 3s. 6d., from which had to be deducted
20/. 9s. 2d. fur Taylor's charges for commi sion, &c.,
and this account was balanced by bills sent for 384/.,
76/. 123. 6d., and a cheque for 296/. 2s. Thinking I
might be depending on•the amount for these goods, be
enclosed me his acceptance at 90 day s, to use until I got
the cash for them. The cheque for 296/. 2s. referred to
in that account was enclosed in the letter. It was
drawn by May on the Union Bank, and payable to nse.
The amount of the cheque was less the commission some
201. odd. The bill for 2001. was drawn by me, and ac-
cepted by May. It was sent to me already drawn out,
and I signed it, It was drawn at three months, and
.ltted the 14th of February. There was another bill for
1841. of the same date, and drawn at one month, ae d ac-
rep- ed by May. Both bills were enclosed t me in the
letter I received from Taylor on the 16, h February. These
hills were for the first lot of goods. I paid the 1841. bill
away. I heard no mote of it ; but the 2001. bid was
d:shonouree. The cheque for 296/. was also dishonoured.
I paid it into the Northern Bee!: of Ireland on the same
day that I got it, and it was teturued, there being no
funds to meet it when presented. I also had a bill of
Taylor's acceptance for 76/. 12s. 6d., which was paid
before it was due. I did not ask him for his acceptence,
and he had no right to send it to me. On the 9th April
I received the following letter from Taylor :
" 1, Church-passage, Gresham-street, London,
Tuesday night, April 7, 1857.
" Mr. A. Lawson.—Dear sir,—On receipt of yours
yesterday, I went to May's some eight or ten times—he
was not to be found. I sent my young man to his pri-
vate house, and he said he was too ill to attend, but had
made it all right for your cheque to be paid as this day .
and I am sure he Las not, for I hear to-day he is off out
of the country, and has robbed every one. He mue,
have got about 3,0001. I am distracted. I know ne
what steps to take for you or the others. I learn tha
he has intercepted Gorman's goods sold to Myers ano
Co., has sold them, and got the cash which was to Li
paid this dait ; but don't repeat this until I fled it is
true. I will write to you again tomorrow (Wednesday).

. • I
e
I hope to. find out something better. if it proves tru I
am ruim-d entirely. Let me know if I have put your bill
down correct—date in coy cash-bo k, 60days from, March.
10, due June 13. I feel beside myself. It your bill and
corgi). are I shall indeed be thankful. Say per re-
turn. I will devote all my time to the affair if moving. I
hear Patrick Kerwan and Co., of Belfast, had a 14rge
bill due last week (Saturday) and not met. This
has brought every one down on May, and be cannot
meet it. I will write you by early post to-morrow.—
Believe me, very truly yours, " W. TAYLOR.°

On the following day Taylor wyote again to the follow-
ing effect :
" 1, Church-passare,,Grasham-street, London,
Wednesday, April 8, 1857.
" Mr. A. Lawson —Sir, —I much regret to find this
day that that infernal rogue May has not honouredyour
cheque. Pray write me what I can do to assist you.
Draw on me, if you like, for two-thirds of the amount
of the 1,000 dont., I now bold. Anything and every-
thing I can do shall be done. I feel comPlet-ly done
up, because I know the rni-ery he has caused. Any
transaction I have ever had with the man, up to last
week, was met honourably, and to the very letter of the
word. He has promised me (through a friend) an inter-
view with my attorney to-morrow, at 10. Whatever
transpires I will either write to you or telegraph. I feel
confident it will be one of the worst cases ever made
public —Yours truly, "War. TAYLOR."

I accompanied Gorman to London on the 10th of April,
and saw Taylor at his warehouse on the lltb. Some
short time after, Mr. Turner, the solicitor, and Mr.
Drew, an accountant, came in—the former represented
Taylor, and the latter May ; and the result of our inter-
view was that Mr. Gorman was to bring an action
against Myers. I did not receive the same advice in
my case, as I did not take counsel's opinion upon it. I
received this letter from Taylor, dated April 25 :
" Church-passage, London, April 25, 1857.
" Mr. A. Lawsoa—Sir,—May has had, through Mr.
Giles (118. London-wail), counsel's opinion, given in
writing this day, as to his position with Myers, and the
opinion is decidedly favourable to Myers' liability all
through the affair ; and he (Gile-) advises all the cre-
ditors to club together and try the case, and if all pay
down enough for costs out of pocket for counsel, and the
case is lest, Giles will charge nothing. Then you can fall
bock upon May and recover the sr. offered, but the Sc.
will be paid down, at once if accepted by all parties. I
w ll be glad t s hear from you, and all I can I will do t
serve you."—Very truly yours, " W. TAYLOR."
I know Mr. M'Cullagh. About the later end of March
last he showed me the two letters produced, addressed
to burn by Taylor. In the le ter of the 18th of May
March Taylor says, " I referred your friend Gorman to.
Mr. May as a man who wanted his handkerchiefs
You're mistaken ; I did eot want his goods. You must
stick to me with goods and I will to yea. We shall have
a hart fight,' but we will work a trade yet. I bave
cleared Lawson's little lot a I save the case to this day,
and I shall hope remit him cash and particulars on Ss-
turday first." Iu the letter of the 25 hof March, tr nn
Taylor to Mr. M'Cullagh, he says-1' May has not got
r he other partner he sp'.ke to you about, oor is he likely
to make any change. Gorman's goods are going out to
him, but Myers and Co. buy them, and find the cash
when due " Mr. M'Cullagh told me in January that
May owed him about 5001. or 6091. for goods. I never
saw Taylor until I came up in April.
Mr. Hawkins—What charge have you against Myers?
Mr. Morgan—l have put Mr. Lawson in the box as
a witness, and I advise him not to answer that question,
for no man is bound to answer a question which may
tend to prejudice himself.
Alderman, Humphery—l see no harm in his answer-
ing the question. Mr. Lawson has lost his goods,
and no doubt wishes to get them back, or t) punish
the parties who have got them from him.
Mr. Morgan—l object to it, because these gentle-
Men have now been in London three weeks upon this
Matter, and they cannot walk through the streets, or
stir a step, without having threats held out to them
for taking these proceedings.
Mr. Lawson—That is quite true, sir. When I was
at the Crystal Palace the other day, a lady who keeps
a stall for the sale of needles held out threats to me
it I prosecuted these proceedings any further ; but I am
not afraid of them, nor of any action they may bring
against me. I have signed the charge sheet against
all the prisoners.
Alderman Humphery—l see by this invoice that
Meeking bought these goods at 42)1 per cent. discount,
which is an important circumstance. It appears that
goods to the amount of 4701 are sold by May, and
Meeking's buyer deducts 2001., making the discount
424 per cent. It will be necessary for you to prove
this invoice, as it shows that the goods were sold to
Meeking on the 12th of Feb., when, in Taylor's
letter of advice about the sale he states they were
not sold to May until the 14th of February—two
days after.
'Mr...Lawson cross-examined by Mr. Wontner—Taylor
has been my agent since September last The first par-
cel of goods I sent him amounted to 285/ , after deduct-
ing 15 percent. Those goods were, I believe, sold to
May, and were paid for. He did not first tell nee they
were sold to May ; and the goods were paid for by
a crossed cheque of Taylor's for 2001. or more. I never
saw the cheque produced, dated Oct. 11. for 2171., until
now. Idi r receive a cheque for 611 164. 11d. and 12s.
in cash. I was paid fur the goods on the lOch of Dec
The n.-art transaction was on the 14th of Feb., and was
tor .384/., for which I received the two bah,' .tor 2001. at
three months, and 1841. at one month. The 1841, was
paid, but I never received a fraction upon the last parcel
of goods, There is a balance of about 5001. now due
from May to me. I have not received 20/., nor 20 far-
things in cash; but raylor received 201. 98. 2d. for his
commission.
Chas. Laing was next exaroinPd. He said—l am a
carman in the employ of Thos. Far-fell, carman, of 40,
Gresham-street. On the .12th of Feb. last I went to
No. 1, Church-passage, to fetch some goods from Tay
lor's warehouse, and on that day I took from there 131
boxes to Mr. Meeking'e, en Holborn-hill. Oe the 13th
of March I took 54 boxes, and on the 16th, 55 boxes.
I took them all from Tayl is warehouse to Mr. Meek-
ing's. Taylor was present when I took the first lot
away, and a young man from May's went with me to
deliver at Meeking's ; but I took a delivery-book,
which I got signed for the goods I took on the other
two occasions. When I got the goods into my cart I
went to May's warehouse, in Huggin-lane, for instruc-
tions where to take them. No one .vent with me from
Taylor's, and no one at Taylor's told me where I was
to go with the goods. I went to May on all three occa-
sions for instructions as to where the goods were to be
delivered.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wontner—l have carried
goods for May about four times. Once from Huggin-
lane, and three times from Taylor's warehouse. I believe
May has an account with Fardell, and I believe this j ,13
was booked to May, and that be paid the account which
was taken into him for it.
Cross examined by Mr. Huddleston—When I took
the goods from Taylor's warehouse we were ernpleyed by
May, and before gang to Meeking's I had no instruc-
tions from Taylor whatever about therm goods. I took
them from Taylor's warehouse in the day-time.
S. L. Whittingham said—l am a buyer of cambric
handkerchief!, in Mr. Meeking's employ. I bought the
goods contained io the invoice-of the 12th of February,
amounting to 4701 15s ld. They consisted of 131
boxes, containing 1,701 dozen of cambric handkerchiefs.
The price I bought them at was 42i per ceutAiscount
upon the invoice price, Ido not know who the goods
bel tnged to, but we bought of them May, supposing him
to be a respectable agent.
Ald. Humpliery—This invoice is for 4701. Yon must
therefore know of whom you bought such a large quan-
tity of goods.
Witness—On a previous occasion I had a dispute with
Jary, and he therefore on this occasion went to Wood-
ward, who brought the samples to me, and I fixed the
price ; but Woodward bought them, so that I might not
have seen either May or Jary.
Alderman Humphrey— What are these private marks
on the invoice ?
Witness—They are the retail prices, and represent the
profit we sell the goods at. Our profit upon this lot of
goods is nearly 281.
Alderman Humphrey—What ! only 281. upon 470/. ?
Witnes'—No, sir ; we bought these goods for 2701.,
and the 281. is thoprofit upon that amount. I marked
upon the invoice the retail prices. and it was then passed
into the counting house. We sold a great many of these
handkerchiefs, but we had not our window full of them.
TheThoxes contained 600 dozen handkerchiefs, and the
invoice amounted to. 1081. .7s. 6d., for which a cheque
was given. The two cheques produced—for 1501. and
1231.—are both signed in Mr. Meeki' g's handwriting.
I bought the 55 boxes, containing 725 dozen handker-
chiefs, in the invoice of the 16th of March, and the gross
amount of the'invoice was 1071 15s. 3d. I cannot say
if the 131 boxes delivered on the 12th of February are
the same that Laing has spoken of, but I passed Vast
quantity into our stock. The goods were brought down
into the marking-room by Meredith, our warehouseman,
and I saw them there on that day.
Cross-examined by Mr. Woutner—l have known May
about tour or five months. I do not know Myers. I
never saw him that I know of until I saw him in come-
Never bought goods of him throligh an agent. I
travel in the City to buy good,. We have bought
goods of a great many houses of long standing very
frequently at a tery cheap rate, and of houses, too,
the respectability of which, no one would think of epee-
tioning. We have bought goods of such houses at so
great a discount as in this instance, and grew er.
Some of them come and offer their goods to UR. I have
bought this class of goods of other houses at as low a
rate, and they are houses that have stood the storm, and
are still going on. •
Mr. Wontner then addressed the magistrate on behalf
of May, contending that May was placed in a critical
position by Myers leaving him in the larch ; and what-
ever his conduct may have been, the eta ement he had
to lay before his creditors was a bona fide one, and not
made with the view of defrauding teem He therefore
submitted that, as far as May is concerned, this transac-
tion cannot be tortured into one of a criminal nature.
Mr. Huddleston made an able address in defence of his
'client, contending that be was entirely innocent of the
charge brought 'against him, and the sympathy of the
audience was shown in his behalf by frequent applause.
Mr. Hawkins then addressed the magistrate on behalf
of Myers, contending that there was no evidence to show
that he had seen the goods, or knew of their misappro-
priation.
Alderman Humphrey, after some observations on the
principal features of the case, said that under all the cir-
cumstances he he felt it his duty to send the case for
srial when Taylor and Myers would have an opportunity
justifying themselves. .
The prisoners were then committed for trial ; Taylor
end Myers being bailed in the same amount as before,
and May, in default, was conveyed to Newgate.
It was 'rumoured that Taylor's friends intend to move
Jr a certiorari to remove the trial into the Court of
Queen's Bench.