The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-28 00:00:00

TIII4I SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 28, 1842

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 26.
THE QUEEN V. JOHN PARKER, BENJAMIN PARKER, AND
PHILLIP MAY.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of Saturday.)
Mr. PLATT then called as the first witness
Jacopi Arenfeld, who was examined by Mr. CLARKSON-
He stated that he was engaged in the service of Benjamin
Parker in the month of May last. He knew him by the name
of John Parker, and he was engaged by him as buyer at a salary
of 300/. a year. Heunderstood that Parker wasengaged in the
foreign business and was a man of ample means. The counting-
house was in Thames-street, under the name of John Parker and
Co., describing themselves as shippers for the Sydney and
Texas trade. They were also importers of wine. Benjamin
Parker stated to him that his stock of wines was worth
two thousand pounds, that his capital in cash was four thousand
pounds, and that he had a eery good connexion abroad.
principally in the wine-trade. Benjamin Parker had a brother
in his service to whom he was introduced by the name of
Joseph Parker. He received directions as to the course he
was to pursue as a buyer, that was, he was to buy such ar-
ticles as were fit for the markets of Sydney and Texas. They
were bought partly for cash and partly on credit, and he
had no reason to believe but that they were respectable men.
The counting-house was fitted up as for the shipping trade,
with bills of lading, placards, notices of ships sailing for the colo-
nies, &c. Among other houseshe appliedto Tarn and Law, with
whom he opened an account for Parker and Co., about the latter
end of May last. Some of the goods that were supplied were
paid for within the fortnight. The articles he had purchased
included merinos, black lutestring, pieces of Orleans, cotton,
sheets, damask cloths, printed furniture, pieces of Irish linen,
and calico. On serveral occasions these were delivered at the
warehouse of John Parker and Co. They remained for a day or
two, and sometimes went oat of the place the same day. Ile
understood that they went to the packers to get ready for shipping.
It was usual for parties engaged in the shipping trade to keep a
shipping book, but he never saw one at Parker's. Sometimes
the goods were removed in his presence. His hours of attend-
ance were from nine till five o'clock, and sometimes goods that
he had left there in the evening, were gone in the morning, or
being then carried away. On the 10th of July, Benjamin
Parker said that Mrs. Parker was ill at Brighton,
and went away, and he never saw him again. He was not dis-
charged from their service. Shortly before that, Mr. Parker
had taken an additional warehouse, that he might have more
reom, and a press for packing his own goods. Witness here exa-
mined the invoices of goods supplied to the firm, and stated
that they were the invoices of goods he had purchased.
He also spoke to an interview between Benjamin Parker and
May before Parker went away, from which it appeared to wit-
ness that there was an understanding between them.
Examined by Mr. PLATT-Knows the handwriting of Mr.
Benjamin Parker. The letter handed to him was like his
writing.
Examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Went into the
service of John Parker in July of last year. Bought goods for
him till the beginning of June and July. Had no doubt but
that the business of J. Parker was perfectly correct at that
time. He had two warehouses and two counting houses. Mr.
B. Parker told him they kept a shipping book. He was not
aware of it from his own knowledge.
Cross-examined by Mr. HUMPHREY-Knew Tarn and Law
before the present transaction. Law joined Tarn about three
or 'four years before the present business. He referred people
from whom he made purchases to them. Recollects the first
purchase that Parker made of Tarn and Law. It was on
the 4th of November. The payments for that purchase
were made in cash. Never heard Tarn complain that the
very first cheque was dishonoured. Sapposed all the goods
given to the Parkers were intended to be shipped for Sydney.
Did not advise the Parkers to ask a house in Hamburgh to
send them goods. Is a native of Mecklenburg; lived for some
time in Hamburgh ; has been out of it fer 20 years.
Examined by Mr. VALENTINE-Is still a commission-mere
chant. Has acted for many years in that capacity. Was act-
ing in that capacity for Parker. Was fourteen years in this
country. Did not tell the Parkers immediately that he knew
Tarn and Law. Is 45 years of age. John Parker is about
24 years.
Examined by Mr. Bonicrer-Benjamin and John Parker
were in Court. (The witness here identified the prisoners.)
He did business for Messrs. White and Greenwell. He re-
ferred persons by the direction of Benjamin Parker, to Messrs.
Tarn and Law. Several persons called on Parker to settle
their accounts. Mr. Fennell was one of those persons.
Mr. James Tarn was then called and examined by Mr.
SWAN-Is one of the parties from whom goods were ob-
tained by the prisoners. They received the goods through
the representations of Arenfeld. The invoices handed to him
are his. The goods they received amounted to 2,7601.
There is a balance of 1,600/. due. The witness was here
handed some cheques on the London and Westminster Bank,
which he identified. Some were paid. They were signed by
John Parker and Co. Other goods, besides those which were
paid for, were sold and delivered to J Parker between the 4th
and 12th of June. One cheque was for 361. Is., and
another was for 2001. Both were paid. He also sold goods
on the 11th of June. That was before he got the cheque
on the 12th of June. When he called at their counting-house
in Thames-street he saw there Arenthi, and J. Parker. He
(Arenfeld) introduced John Parker to him as Joseph Parker.
Benjamin Parker was not there at that time. He ( Benjamin)
was afterwards introduced to him by his brother John,
under the name of John Parker. Arenfeld also called
Benjamin Parker by the name of John. He now knew
him as Benjamin, and not as John. He spoke to Benjamin
Parker with regard to the goods he delivered them. They
asked him about some calicoes, and with how many pieces he
could supply them. He stated that ho could not supply them
at that time with more than 200 pieces, arid that in the course;
of six weeks lie might supply them with 300 pieces. They an-
swered they did net wish to
-ship 200 piece,, as it only lowered
them in the estimation of that- Sydney correspondent. With
regard to the merinos, B. Parker said they were very cheap, and
asked if they could be supplied with more. He said that what they
received had been shipped. He (witness) had heard that Ben-
jamin Parker had been married to a Miss Bamfield, of Hamp-
stead, and had received 4,000/. fortune. With regard to the
calicoes, he told Berjamin Parker that he did not conceive that
a shipment of 200 pieces would lower them in the estimation of
their correspondents. On the 26th of June Benjamin
Parker came to him and informed him that he had, closed
his account with the London and Westminster . Bank,
aral had opened an account with the London County Bank. He
asked him (witness) what he bad done with the cheque. On
the •2i th of June lie again saw Benjamin Parker. He was
paying him a sum of money to the amount of 1801. That was
not the entire amount of what was due to him, but he stated
that Ali-s Banitield was out of town, and that when she re-
turned to town slc^ would sell out 5,000/. worth of stock,
and he would then pay the remai,der. He said he would have
the 5,0001. on the 10th of July ; lie also said that h', did rot
wish to draw on the London County Bank, a 3 he had only re-
cently opened' his account there. On the Ist of July they
received goods to the amount of 4651. 17s. Bd. 'lie would not
have supplied these goods were it not for the representations
that had been made upon the 28th, and if he had not been
led to believe that the goods were intended to be shipped.
'By Sir F. POI. LOCK-He never knew Mr. May before that
time. I am one of the prosecutors in the indictment. Mr. Law,
my partner, is another. -There are about five others. We make
common cause and divide:the expense& Mr. Holnies and Mr.
King are also prosecutors. I first saw Mr. May at the Bank-
ruptcy Court in September, when lie was examined by Mr.
Keane. The examination concerned this case in a cer-
tain way, and I thought it r'ght to be present ; but I
did not suggest the examination. Parker was not to my
knowledge made a bankrupt after that affair. If there
had been any proceedings in bankruptcy, I, as a principal
creditor, must have known it. I was not then fishing up evi-
dence for the present case. Parker was indicted at the Cen-
tral Criminal Court, but May was not known. It was after
this 1 indicted Mr. May. I only know that May was before
the Commissioners of Bankruptcy once ; but I have
heard !hat he was there oftener. Messrs. Dixon
and Overbury, my solicitors, conducted that proceeding.
By Mr. II uatrii REY-1 here was a meeting of creditors in July,
which Mr. Law, my partner; attended, but not 1.. The first
cheque for 200/ , was net re. urcod, but was Paid by my b!ok-'
era; if it were returned, I know nothing of it. Sometimes we
write the it tons on the invoices, sometimes we do not. The
fist 'account rtith the Parkers, dated the 4th June, was paid
ready money, 2} per cent discount.x The next transac-
tion, on June th 7th, due the second Monday of
July, was not paid. The next was June the Bth,
for 481., des same day. The next, June 9th, 89/. ; MC bill
paid, June 11th; 1501. was the next to be paid by a till at
three months; next, Inne 15th, 359/. 19s. 11d., teas to be
paid by 1004 on the 18th June, balance, a three months' bill.
The 1001. was paid. The next was June 17th, 100/. 3s. 71d.,
and paid in ca,h., But some of the words in the invoice are
not in my writing. The next was June 18th, 631. 16s. 7t1., to
be on the same terms as that of the 15th, by a three months'
bill. The next, 23d, 5961. Bs., and he paid 2001. cash
on the 2d of July, the balance on the second Monday
in August. I find some words in the terms not in my
writing, but I believe the words were written by my clerk. The
next is dated 25th June, 154/. 4s. sd. which was paid. The
next for 7:31. ISs. 6d. paid. The next July I, 861. Os. 2d. pay-
able the second Monday in August. The last was 22/ ss. 6d.
of sometime after. Of all those sums about 1.0001. would not
be due till the month of August. Between the 28th June
and the 3d July, I received not 727/. in cash, but I received
several sums as already stated. I find, however, that my
memoranda have been, altered by some other person.
On the 26th June, there was a dishonoured cheque for
DU., but Mr. Parker afterwards paid it into the bank.
John, alias Benjamin Parker, told me that he married Sirs.
Bamfield's daughter, and that she was a lady of property. I
have since found that he did marry that lady. I made in-
quiries of Mr. Silvestcr, to whom Arenfeld referred me, and
learned that such was the case. He told me that Mrs. Bamfield
was a person of large fortune. I made the inquiry on the 4tl
of June at Silvester's counting-house, in Lower Thames-street.
. Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES-I am a warehouseman.
My usual terms were two-and•a-half cash, or three months'
bill. I had been in business eighteen months. The goods had
.bean bought principally. from Hind and Co. I stopped pay-
ment in 1841 for 7,000/. The balance due of 780/. caused the
stoppage. Some of the goods hail been paid for, and some not
at the time of m 3 stoppage. I might have answered ten refe-
rences for the Parkers. I might have answered a reference as
late as July Ist. I did not know of any dishonoured cheque.
Symonds never complained to me on the subject. He said he had
a cheque marked which had been subsequently paid. I had
known Arenfeld at Manchester. I knew that he. had failed,
and had been found guilty of conspiracy. I never pressed
upon Arenfeld goods for the Parkers more than tradesmen
usually do. The greater part of the goods we bought for
the home trade.

Tr return
JuryC,
ura en i
eor
lae dv e
enrfgso
aar
gt
dns
tooarost
tt
placeoim the
h efobrpetorwessfeeirbenislhi
tryaerondft.
troheßenemcfasoarnee
lasting over two days.
His LORDSIIIP said that he would, if possible, finish the
case in the eourse of the day.
RU-examined by Mr. PLATT--It was first determined to in-
dict May after the two Parkers had been indicted at the Old
Bailey. I heard that after they were indicted May had sold
the goods. I stopped payment in August, 1841, about the time
of Parker's bills becoming due. When Symonds asked a refer-
at hnedrtel,r eetu
ence I showed him my ledger and told him all I knew of them.
David Law-1 was in partnership with the last witness in
June and July last year. I went to the premises, 7i, Lower
Thames-street, on 13th July. I saw a person there represent-
ing himself as Joseph Parker. He turns out to be John
Parker. I asked if Mr. Parker was in, and he said "No; he
expeeted him shortly." Mr. Dixon, the solicitor, was with
me, and he asked Joseph Parker if his brother's , name was
Benjaman Parker or John Parker, and he said his brother's
name was Benjamin although he passed as John. Mr. Dixon
asked if his name was Joseph Parker, he said Yes, and that he
was not one of the firm. Dixon asked if all the goods were
shipped and gone out of the country. He said yes, every
piece of them. On the 14th of July I attended a I
meeting of creditors at -Messrs. Dixon and Overbury's.
May was there. I asked him how much money he had ad-
vanced on my goods. He said, 3,7001. on the goods be had
had from John Parker. He thought the goods worth from
7,0001. to 8,000/. He said he thought the wine would produce
enough to cover his advances. Some one asked if he would
be at liberty to inspect the goods in May's possession. May
said yes, he would do anything in his power to forward the
views of the creditors, and that at all events the creditors
should be at liberty to take back their own goods
on payment of the advances upon them. Nothing was
said on the subject of selling any of the goods except the wine.
I called on May in August respecting bringing the affair to a
conclusion. May said I am as anxious as ,ever to have-it
brought to a conclusion, but you have put it into the hands of a
solicitor. The arrangoolont was that the wines should be sold.'

Sum,

I understood from May on that occasion that the wines had
not been sold.
Cross-examined by the ATTORN s- GEN zRA L. —The
arrangement was that May should sell the wines, and when
we knew the produce, we should see how much more would be
wanted to pay him his advances. May said he wanted nothing
more than the money he had paid on the goods. This was
after May had been examined before the Commissioner. I
was at a meeting of the creditors at the office of Dixon and
Overbury afterwards. An opinion of counsel was read. Ido
not recollect that that opinion was that there was no case
against May. The propriety of prosecuting May was discussed.
It was mentioned that if May were acquitted 'he would bring
an action for malicious prosecution, but I do not recollect that
it was said that in that case he would only get nominal
damages. Dixon submitted to the creditors whether
they would include May in the indictment or not. I did
not hear it said that Ma should be included, because if
the bill were found he would most 'probably come forward and
settle it. I did not hear Mr. Silvester's name mentioned. I
do not recollect that any thing was said about the benefit of
creditors as a ground for the prosecution. Mr. Fairlie was
there ; he stated he would go no further with the prosecution,
but I did not hear him state the grounds, and Mr. Boxer his
attorney withdrew his name. Mr. May produced a book at
the bankrupt's examination. No complaint was made while
I was there that May had withheld any information.
I ,Cross-examined by Mr. CHAMBERS—I saw Joseph Parker
for about five minutes on the 2d July; that was the first time
I saw him. It was the same person I saw afterwards on the
13th July. On that occasion he expressed his surprise at his
brother's conduct in assuming the name of John, while his
name was Benjamin, and said, if his brother did not return
that night, he (Joseph) would leave the premises. Benjamin
did not come back while I was there. I never asked for
Parker's accounts, and do not know of their ever having been
asked for. I never interfered in the accounts with the Parkers
my,elf. I left it all to Mr. Tarn.
Re-examined by Mr. PLATT--I attended but two meetings
of creditors. Neither of those meetings had been convened by
the Parkers, nor were they present at either of them. I have
heard that Mr. Boxer is related to Mr. May. I have seen Mr.
Boxer here to-day.

Richard Fennell—l am one of the firm of Fennell and Sons,
, manufacturers of cotton yarn in Alderminbury4 Arenfeld
called on us in June for samples of cotton yarn for
India for the house of John Parker and Co., Lower
, Thames-street. He said that John Parker was a man
of large property, that he had married a lady of large pro-
perty, and that he was a great shipper to India ; and that if my
i goods suited, he would purchase some to send out by every
ship. I was referred to Tarn and Law. I was to be paid
cash by a cheque on the London and Westminster Bank. I
went to Lower Thames-street, and asked to see Mr. John
Parker ; and Benjamin Parker, now in Court, came forward.
I asked if his name was John Parker, and he acquiesced by
bowing. I told him my name_he said " I hope the goods will
turn out well. You are to consider Arenfeld as my buyer, he
will call to-morrow and give yon an order." He said they were
for the India market. Arenfeld ordered nearly 4001. worth
of goods, of which we supplied 316/. Tha last lot was sent in
on the 3d July. I called about the 101. I was to have cash for
my cheque the day after the place was shut up. I saw a gentleman
there but couldget no satisfactory answer from him. The inv Ace
was not sent to the Parkers for two or three days after the
goods. On the 12th of July I went to May's warehouse. May
is a woollen factor in Ca•eaton-street. It was after I hail been
to Thames-street. I told May I had called for some cotton
goods of mine. I told him my name, and he said an attach-
ment had just come in. He admitted they were in his posses-
sion, but would not let me see them. He said he
had a claim of forty or fifty pounds on them. He
said ho ha 4 received them from John Parker, that he had no
invoice, and understood that Parker had received them for
wine. He said the attachment did not signify much—that he
should not give up the goods, for all the creditors should share
and share alike. 1 offered to lodge a cheque in any batik for the
amount May bad advanced on my goods, and to idemtufy
him if he wouldrestore my goods. He said he could not think of
doing so, but that he would let me know before they were sold.
He said I need not make myself uneayy ; there would be
plenty of money for all. He said he had about 10,0001., and
lie had advanced 3,0001. on them. He said he had wine war-
rants to a large amount—from 3,0001. to 4,0001.
Cross-examined by Mr. KELLY—This was about the 12th
of July. It was the same day as the attachment. I had net
any communication with other creditors at that time. I at-
tended at the meeting of creditors at Dixons and Overbury's.
Mr. Boxer, the solicitor, Mr. May's brother in-law, said that
if we prosecuted May he would file bills in Chancery against
all of us. I said I believed May was a guilty party,
and that I would have nothing to do with the prosecution un-
less May were included. I think Mr. Dixon said that it was
Counsel's opinion that May was just as guilty as the others.
I did not want Counsel's opinion to convince me of May's
guilt.—( A laugh.)
Cross.examined by Mr. HUMPHREY.—The amount of the
goods obtained we understood to be from 6,000/. to 11,0001. I
heard nothing at all about any goods being paid for at auyone
of the meetings.—(A laugh.)
Mr. HUMPHREY—Was it not stated that the amount of the
debts of the Parkers was about 2,800/. ?
Witness--I never heard the word debts mentioned. The
goods the Parkers had swindled the creditors out of was, I un-
derstand from 6,0001. to 11,000/ —(A laugh.) There was one
person there whose gods were worth more than 5,0001.
Re-examined—l never got my goods again.
Joseph Scott—l am the agent for Holmes and Co.,
of King-street. I first heard of John Parker and
Co. in July 1841. Holmes and Co. are general ware-
hooiemen. On 3d July I took samples to 71, Lower
Thames-street; I had to wait some time, and then
1 saw a person calling htmselt Joseph Parker. He sal:,
wait a few minutes, I expect my brother John in
directly. Mr. John Parker soon after came in. He
is now in Court. ( Witness identified Benjamin Parker as the
person,) I showed him samples of reticules. Ile said he had
a gentleman from Port Plii.ip that would be very likely to
take them, and then he bought them. He said he would pay for
them on the second Monday of the follewing month. He
slid he was a ge.neral merchant, shipping different
kind of goods to Port Philip, to Texas, and all
round.—(A laugh)—and also t America. I sold his
goods to the amount of 771. Bs. 4d. They were never paid
for. I called at the warehouse again on the Gth of July. I
again saw, the one who called himself John Parker. I again
sold him 1911. 4s. 104. worth of goods to be paid for on the
10th July. 1 saw Joseph on that oeca-ion before 1 saw John.
Mr. II uatrir aEy here interfered and a=ked what paper it was
the witness had in his hand. It turned out to be a copy of hi;
deposition, which he sal lie had given the attorney
on the 10th of January, when payment was refused. He was
desired to put the paper i i his pocket, and the examination
was resumed. Joseph l'atker told me his brother was
worth 20,0001. If I had been aware that the man
passing a' John Parker was an uncertificated bankrupt
1 would not have parted with the goods.-- Ott the 10th of July
Mr. Holmes and I went to Thames-street, and saw Jo cpb.
Holmes asked for his account, and Joseph said his brother al-
ways paid the accounts, and that he was at Brighton, and
would be back the next morning, when the account would be
paid. _ _

Cross-examined by Mr. BA LLANT'NE—I receiv-d that paper
I have put in my pocket from Mr. Holmes's attorney, about
six or ecvcn months ago, and have kept it ever since. I was
told to examine it well. I have done so. 1 have read it fre-
qnently since. Mr. Holmes was very angry with me about
parting with the goods.
Mr. BALLANTiNE—Are you sure that the younger Mr.
Joseph spoke of his brother as John? Witness—Yes, he did.
7 never asked cno of the Markers to lend me 101., or any other

The ATTOKNEY-GENERAL addressed the Jury for the
-dcfewlants.
Lord DENMAN summed up, and the Jury, after a short con-
sultation, found a verdiA against the two Parkers of Guilty,
May having been previously acquitted by direction of the Judge.

COURT OF COMMON PLEA S, Feb. 26.
• (Sittings at Guildhall )
nuNcArl V. DROADWOOD AND liIILLER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff ler the recovery
of a sum of 1,0.171., claimed lay him' as compensation fer his
services in' superintending the Prince's Theatre, in Oxford-
street. It appeared that in the autumn of the year 1836, the
late Mr. Ward, the well-known actor, had determined
on
Bazaar, in Oxford-street, into
a
;leery' a lease of the premises from
Mr. convertinghHamlet,
rm t,the rietor, for that purpose. Mr. Dun-
teta theatre,
an d the
propQ
can, the present plaintiff, who was the nephew of Mr. Ward.
was employed by him to superintend the erection of the new
building. The plaintiff was to be paid according to the usi;al
charge of architects, b Pe
with r cent.- upon the builder's outlay ;
e had
and this per centage, other charges, amounted to
tho
sum which he now claimed In the month of February, '
1837, Mr. Broadwood, M.P. for Bridgwater, Mr. .Miller,
the present defendants, and other gentlemen formed a Com-
mittee of Management, and interfered to some extent in the
direction of the undertaking. They had also become sub-
scribers.to the theatre by purchasing debentures.
The case having been thus stated for the plaintiff by Mr.
Sergeant WILDE, evidence was produced to show that the
Committee of Management had given a guarantee to the
builder of the theatre, Mr. Barron, for the purpose of ensuring
to him the payment of a portion of his expenses.
Mr. KELLY stated for the defence that the Committee of
Management were in no way responsible for the expenses 'of
the undertaking ; they had filtered into no contract with the
plaintiff; and they had ever, been assured by the plaintiff him-
self that they should be liable for no expenses save the price of
their own debentures. It was also proved in evidence that they
had guaranteed his expenses to the builder to the amount only
of the subscriptions they might receive.
Before the evidence for the defence had been gone through,
Air. Sergeant WILDE stated he did not think he could keep up
the ease with any prospect of advantage to his clients. The
case for the plaintiffs was therefore abandoned, and a verdict
returned for the defendants. .

Mr. MAvow—How many laid upon it ? Mike—There was
one tenant, Dennis, and his wife and two children, and Mike and
his wife, me tenant's lodgers.—(Bursts of laughter.)
Mr. Max-ow (b Tim)—You have had many lucky escapes
in this Court, but this time you have outdone yourself. Have
you any more witnesses? Connor—Only to karacter (cha-
racter), Mr. Mayow.
Mr. MAYow—Then call me first. Connor—Och, be the
powers, that won't do at all.
Mr. Mavow—l think not. (To the Court). 1 hope the
Bench, after what has been heard, will impose the highest
penalty.
The Couit consulted for a few moments, and then responded
to the call of Mr. Mayow, by fining the defendant 1001.