The Sun.
London, England, 1857-11-26 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT—Nov. 25.

OLD COI7RT.
(Before Mr. Justice Coleridge and Mr. Baron
Watson.)
Jobn Marks, 36, Samuel Marks, 24, and Abra-
-144314
SimnAonsindicted
40, were for felony, for
baying, after the first-named prisoner had been de-
clared and adjudged a bankrupt, unlawfully con-
cealed and embezzled a certain portion of his effects
above-the value of 10/., with intent to defraud his
creditors.
There were several other similar indictments for
felony against the
t hey were charged
with a conspiracy to deefrra°
ng
and
eracb the creditors of the
bankrupt by secreti
log a large quan-
tity of his effects after his banlecr
was urx[PattearTnaldi
ffsp e cially
Mr. Edwin James, Q.O ,
to conduct the prosecution, with
13;ori nJMtoi
Poland, and Mr. Wilkinson ; Sergenasunt,
ne
appeared specially, with Mr. Rub,
hn
Marks ; Sergeant Parry was specially retained for
Samuel Marks ; and Mr. Huddleston, Q.c., was
also specially retained, with Mr. Sleigh, for the
prisoner Simmons.
The ease that was proceeded with charged ilia
Pri*dr John Marks with having unlawfully se-
emb.-yzzled six pianofortes and a (Juan-
tit og Backing, with intent to cheat and defratd
his creditors • and the other prisoners, Samrl
.Marks and kb
jowly rahm Simons, werei...ch.argt4
with principals,ailing in the first an I se,:ona da4r4e,
assisting him to commit that.: If-
fence.
;aria 1
Mr. James, in opening the case to the jury, said

that the-faets to- which he should have to bespeak
their .attelitioif on the present cccasion were of the
most astounding character, and would develop a
fraud of a most enormous description, in which
fraud, in the result, he believed they would
entertain no doubt that the whole of the prisoners
had deliberately engaged themselves. The indict-
ment was preferred under a statute of the 12th and
13th of Victoria, which declared it to be a felony
• for any person, after he bad been made a bankrupt,
• to embezzle or conceal any of his effects with a
view to defraud his creditors, and he believed that
no case had ever been brought forward under this
statute in which so grass and enormous a fraud had
been committed as in the present instance. The
prisoner John Marks appeared to have carried ou
the business of a coachmaker for a good many years
in Long-acre, and also in Bell-street, Paddington,
and he seemed to have enjoyed some considerable
amount of credit among the persons with whom he
did business, and holed a brother at Melbourne
who also carried on the business of a coachmaker,
and with whom he bad a sort of corresponding
agency. The prisoner Samuel Marks likewise
carried on the business of a coachmaker in
Long-acre, in partnership with the other pri-
soner Simmons, whose daughter he had mar-
ried, and he believed there could be very little
doubt that the bankruptcy, and the aubsequent
proceedings that were taken to defraud the credi-
tors, were concocted originally by Simmons, and
that he was the principal agent in the matter. The
learned counsel then proceeded to state that John
Marks was declared a bankrupt in May, 1857, and
he said he should prove that for several months
before this period be bad obtained an enormous
quantity of goods from different tradesmen, giving
bills at four and five months' date, which, of course,
he had no intention ever to pay, and those goods
were dealt with by all the prisoners, and concealed
at different places under very extraordinary cir-
cumstances, and a greater portion of them were
eventually consigned to Sydney. The whole of
the prisoners would be distinctly proved to have
taken a share in thus disposing of the property,
and the proceedings would leave no doubt that de-
liberate perjury was resorted to in order to carry
out the fraud, the prisoner John Marks having,
in the course of his examination before the Court
of Bankruptcy distinctly denied, upon his oath, that
he was in possession of any property except that
which was given up at the time of the bank-
ruptcy, although he must have known that pro-
perty to the amount of many thousand pounds had
been removed and secreted after the bankruptcy,
evidently with the intention that when that had
blown over - the property should be disposed of
and the proceeds divided among them. The
result of the examination into the affairs of John
Marks showed that he was deficient several thou-
sand.pounds in his cash accounts, and that goods of
the value of nearly 15,0001. were entirely unao-
counted fon 'A considerable portion of these goods
was subsequently recovered through the informa-
tion that was given-by a man named Molloy, who
had been in th service of the prisoner John Marks,
and this property had been sold and divided among
the general body of creditors, but they had still
been defrauded to a very large amount through
the proceedings of the prisoners. He should call
this man Molloy before them as a witness, and he
would detail the course that was taken with the
goods that were obtained by the prisoners ; and,
although he undoubtedly stood in the position of
an accomplice, yet, when the jury found that
he was corroborated in many essential particu-
lars, he believed they would entertain no doubt
that he was speaking the truth, and his evidence
would be almost conclusive against the prisoners.
Evidence confirmatory of the learned counsel's
statement having been addduced,
Sergeant Parry then urged that his client could
not be convicted as a principal under the present
indictment. He called the attention of the Court
to the section of the statute under which the charge
was preferred, and he contended that the offence
could only be committed by a person in the position
of a bankrupt, and that any other person who
might assist in the removal of property did not
stand in. the position of an accessory before the fact,
and could not under the recent statute be convicted
as a principal. •
Mr. Justice Coleridge 'asked if he was to under-
stand that the learned sergeant contended that any
person who so acted could not be convicted of any
offence ?

Sergeant Parry said that his objection certainly
went to that extent, but if there was any omission
on the part of the Legislature the prisoner was en-
titled to the benefit of it.

Mr. Huddleston took the same objection in be-
half of his client. He also urged that under the
bankrupt law a 'ocus penitentice was allowed to the
bankrupt until he had passed his last examination,
and as John Marks had not passed that examine-
tion, for all that appeared to the contrary, he
might have made a full disclosure of the whole of
this property, and then there would have been an
end to the present inquiry.
The Court having intimated that the learned
counsel for the prosecution need only direct his at-
tention to the point whether the prisoner Samuel
Marks and Simmons could be convicted as principals,
Mr. James said it appeared to him that this ob-
jection was entirely unfounded, and that it was
quite disposed of by the section of the 7th and Bth
of George IV., which enacted that any person wile)
incited or aided another in the commission of any
felony, whether at common law or created by sta-
tute, should be considered as an accessory before
the fact, and in that capacity might be convicted as
a principal.
Mr. Justice Coleridge, after a short consultation
with his learned brother, said the Court was at
present of opinion that the objection was not a
valid one ; but, as it was a question of consider-
able importance, they would give the point further
consideration, and they would reserve the question
if it should become necessary.
Serjeaut Ballantine then proceeded to address
:he jury on behalf of the prisoner John Marks, and
he contended that the evidence did not support
the specific charge brought against him under the
present indictment. He said he would not deny
that he had acted recklessly and imprudently, but
it appeared to him that the evidence failed altogether
to show that he hal committed the very serious
off )ric con` enirlated by the statute, and he said he
felt a-sur,d th d but for the prejudice introduced
in' o the cIS9 by the evidence as to the disposal of
large quantities of other property which had no-
thing to do with Vie present charge, the jury
would rot for a moment think a convicting him.
Setjeant Parry and Mr. Huddleston next ad-
tlresed the jury fur the other prisoners. They did
so very briefly, and the principal point they ap-
peared to rely upon was the fact that Samuel
Marks and Simmons appeared to have made a claim
to a considerable amoluit upon the es'ato of the
other prisoner after his bankruptcy, and they con-
tended that all that they had do:-,e was to endeavour
to get a preference in the payment of their claim ;
and ihey said that, although this was undoubtedly
very wrong and improper in a commercial point of
view, yet that such a proceeding did not come
within the scope and intention of the Act of Par-
liament, and. that if the jury believed this to be the
real state of the case they ought not to convict the
prisoners.
..
Several witnesses were called to speak to the
character of John and Samuel Marks, and they
sated that they had known them a great many
years, and they had always conducted themselves
in an honourable and respec!ahle manner.

Mr, Justice Coleridge then summed up the whole
of the evidence with great care and impartiality,
and the jury after deliberating a short time in the
box, expressed a wish to retire. They left the
court at ten minutes past 5, and at a quarter to 6
o'clock they returned into court and gave a verdict
of guilty against all the prisoners.
Mr. James said that as he understood their lord-
ships only reserved for further consideration the'
point raised by Sergeant Parry, whether the pri-
soners S. Marks and Simmons could be convicted
as principals, he proposed to let the other indict-
ments stand over until this point had been decided.
The prisoners were then called up for judgment.
Mr. Justice Coleridge, in passing sentence, said
that they had been found guilty, upon evidence
which was perfectly satisfactory, of the commission
of a crime which no one could. doubt in a great
commercial country was a crime of the highest
gravity, and required to be visited by very severe
punishment. By the bankrupt law, so soon as a
man became bankrupt the whole of the property he
posseused became the property of his creditors, and
was to be equally divided among them, and it
was quite clear that this law was a perfectly
just one. Fro:n whatever cause the bankruptcy
arose, the creditors were entitled to have
all the prope.ty that remained divided be-
tween them, and the least the bankrupt
could do was to give up such property honestly
in return for the immunities that he afterwards
received, and any one who endeavoured to em-
bezzle such property embezzled the property of his
creditors, and was properly held to be guilty of
felony. A question of law had been raised which
would undergo further oansideration, but he should
sill proceed to pass sentence, for if that point
slicnbi- be decided in their favour' the sent-nce
would not be carried
at the facts to see
out, and they would suffer no
hardship by the course he was taking. It was per-
attempted' by the great
fectly cloar that a gross fraud had been
a and he and his learned
brother hail looke4 carefullyalln
whether they ;ere •
ustitied
in
makinc, any distinc-
tion re their cares, but they had. been unable
to
cover any grounds for making such distinction
If they had been, imelined to speculate upotll.
matter, they might perhaps have considered -11"" e
pro-

bable that Simmons, on account of his position, and
who was undoubtedly the oldest of them, had taken
the most criminal part in the transaction, but they
would no-, act upon any speculative opinion, and
the sentence would therefore be, the same upon
them all. His lordship then concluded by ordering
each of the prisoners to be kept in penal servitude
for eight years.

The prisoners, and particularly Simmons, who
appeared quite astounded at the sentence, were
then removed from the bar.

NEW COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)

Henry Zachariah Jervis, 52, clerk, was indicted
for obtaining by false pretences from Sarah Parker,
the sum of 505., with intent to cheat and defraud.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recom-
mended him to mercy.
Prisoner—l am innocent, but God's will be done.
The Recorder said, but for the recommendation
he should have passed a severer sentence than he
was about to do, and that was 18 months' impri-
sonment and hard labour.
The case lasted until past 8 at night.