The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-27 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Non. 26.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, after Term, before Mr. Justice EEL
and a Middlesex Common Jury.)
WOODNUT V. HOAD AND OTHERS.

The defendants in this case were members of a certain
benefit society, in connexion with which a baking society
had been established, to which latter a sum of 501. had
been lent by the plaintiff. It appears that the bakery was
established by the managing committee of the benefit
society as a safe investment for their superfluous funds, the
original Society having been, up to the time of their engaging
in this unhappy speculation, a very flourishing concern.
Being obliged to borrow a sum from Mr. Woodnut, in order
to enable them to carry on the bakery, the members
of the managing committee signed a contract, agreeing to
give to Mr. Woodnut all the proceeds of the business until
his debt should be paid. The names of these persons were all
put down, either by themselves or by their consent, being pre-
sent with one exception. One Kent, who was not a member of
the managing committee, but was a member of the society, the
secretary of a branch society, and one of the persons engaged
in the baking concern, was thought so important a person,
that it was considered necessary to have his name
too, though he was absent, and had not authorised
the putting down of his name. A person named
Lighthouse took upon himself to settle this matter by
putting down Kent's name himself, and afterwards obtain-
ing his consent. It was for a portion of the 501. lent on
this occasion that the present action was brought,
but, unfortunately, the action was against all the per-
sons whose names were attached to the contract, including
Kent. It was attempted to prove that Kent had afterwards
ratified the contract and accepted the debt, but the witness
who was to show this only said, " He did not know that Kent
made any objection " when he heard of it. It was also repre-
sented that as Kent was engaged in the bakery, paid certain
sums of money towards it, and was entitled to a certain
share of the profits (if any), he was a partner in the con-
cern, and liable for the debts of the society.
The defence was that Kent was net liable for the debt,
not having signed the paper, not having given his sanction
to the use of his name, and not being a partner in the
bakery; and that Kent not being liable, the plaintiff could
not recover against the defendants, of whom he was one.
Mr. Justice ERLE, in summing up, observed that there
were two points for the jury to consider—first, whether Kent
sanctioned the putting of his name to the paper, and
so accepted the debt ; secondly, whether he was a
partner in the concern, and liable for the debts
of the committee. He (Mr. Justice Erle) thought there was
no evidence at all to show that he acknowledged the debt,
persons join such societies
be held that a person being a
leyhfor the committee's debts.
ibanneedme
oi
bnf
est
rihdee
orofebdj cti tt
wascou withld
aNavbrllidei
This was a society in which persons give certain
sums towards a fund to assist them in distress, and not one
in joining which they intend to accept any liability. It was,
therefore, his, (Mr. Justice Erle's) opinion, that the jury
must find a verdict for the defendants.
The jury having consulted for some time,
The foreman said, " We find for the plaintiff, with the
exception of Kent."—(A laugh.)
Mr. Justice ERLE explained that if the plaintiff had not
brought his action against Kent, the verdict would be for the
plaintiff; but if the jury thought Kent liable, they must, as
he had been included, find for the defendants, as otherwise,
the plaintiff could recover the whole debt from him.
The jury accordingly found for the defendant.

BANKRUPTCY COURT, Nov. 26.
Before Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.
IN RE KEAY AND BEM(' BANKRUPT&
The bankrupts in this case had carried on business most
extensively as wine merchants in Mark-lane, City. Their
debts and liabilities together amounted to 219,0001., and their
assets to between 38,0001. and 39,000/. The estate is ex-
pected to pay a dividend of between three and four shillings
in the pound. The case has been some time before the Court,
and lengthened examinations have taken place, which have
been duly reported as they occurred. The bankrupts came
up to-day for their certificates. The firm consisted of John
Reay, sen., and John Robert Reay, his nephew. In the case
of the latter no opposition was offered, and consequently his
certificate was granted at once. The certificate of John Reay,
the principal in the concern, was opposed by Mr. Bovill, for
the assignees; the bankrupt was defended by Mr. Edwin
James.
Mr. Bovit.t stated that the assignees opposed the granting
of the certificate, on the grounds of an improper system of
balancing the books, which had been pursued by the bank-
rupt, a reckless system of giving credit, and extensive
dealing in accommodation bills. It appeared from the
books that between January, 1839, and February, 1845.
upwards of 148,000/. in bad debts had accumulated, while the
bankrupt set down his profits during that period at 5,000/. a-
year. Another complaint against the bankrupt was, that lie
had practised a system of pledging the property of his cred-
tors by raising money on dock warrants to the amount of
70,000/, thus placing such property beyond the reach of the
assignees. His stock of wines in dock had been sold under
the fiat for 8,000/., out of which the claims of the dock com-
pany amounted to 7,800/. He (Mr. Bovill) was surprised
that the clock company should trust a man who had so traded
to such an amount. The bankrupt had even at the last mo-
ment, in February, 1845, purchased wines to the amount of
30,000/., a fact of which the foreign creditors heavily cm_
plained , and they were anxiously awaiting the judgment of
the Court. With respect to the bad debts, it appeared that
the bankrupt had credited a person named Wright, formerly
dealing in Mark-lane, but latterly the proprietor of the
Turk's Head Hotel, in the Strand, at one time to the enor-
mous amount of 34,000/. In 1839 Wright owed the bank-
rupt 7,800/. ; 1841, 8,300/. • and in 1842, 31,0001. This
amount was subsequently reduced to 11,0001. by Reay's
taking a mortgage on the Turk's Head for 21,000/.
This mortgage, however, had turned out value •
less, the property having been previously encumbered ; and
although the mortgage was effected in a registered county,
the bankrupt had neglected to make any previous inquiries
of the registrar of Middlesex. The next case of reckless
credit occurred in the case of a person named Blumenthal,
formerly trading in Birmingham, and who had been bankrupt
there. -Reay had trusted this man to the amount of 47,000/.
for wines, for which the only security he had received was
the acceptances of the Baron de Bode to the amount of
37,000/. The Court would judge whether such acceptances
could be looked upon as good and sufficient security.—(A
laugh.) The next man whom the bankrupt had taken
largely into his confidence was Jarvis, whose case had been
so recently before that Court. This man had originally been
clerk to Messrs. Allnutt and Arbouin, and in less than eleven
months the bankrupt had trusted him to the amount of
19,000/. It might be as well here to mention that there
was not a chance of a shilling in the pound for the ere-
ditors to Jarvis's estate. These were the three principal
cases which the assignees wished to bring under the no-
tice of the Court, to mark bold reckless had been the
bankrupt's conduct as a trader. It appeared that ill 1841
the bankrupt had married a lady of large fortune, and,
although it did not appear clear that he was solvent at the
time, had made a settlement on her to the amount of 17,000/.
He was now living in luxury, on the produce of that settle-
ment, at Wanstead. It appeared, further, that for a series
of years the bankrupt had drawn accommodation bills on
the parties with whom he had dealings, and as long as he could
get them discounted hii trade ywnt on flourishingly, put the
moment bankers and brokers became cautious, the liubble
burst, and he was obliged to come to that Court, He (Mr,

Bovill) was in a condition to show that in the thirteen months
previous to his bankruptcy Reay had paid no less than
12,0001. for discounts alone.

Mr. E. JAMES—OnIy 9,0001.
Mr. Bovm,—Well, admitting that, he had still greatly
overdrawn his customers. The bankrupt had in one exami-
nation denied that he had ever overdrawn a customer, but
in another he was obliged to admit overdraughts to the
bZestfra
amount of 13,0001., and on the issuing of the fiat 8,000/. worth
of bills were found in his drawer. The assignees also ob-
jected to the mode in which the bankrupt had kept his books,
never having regularly balanced them. He had made what
he called a trial balance every year, but they had never been
regularlybalanced. He had at a late period taken his nephew
a }',"etter
ostensibly into partnership for the purpose of giving
appearance to the firm, but in reality retained hi.TA as a clerk
17-as that from 1839 to
struck, and since the fiat it
had taken the assignees seven months to balance the books.
COMMISSIONER—Is their any means of' ascertaining what
was the state of the bankrupt's affairs in 1841, when he made
the settlement on bis wifb?
1.1841155nt pryrPopfelr,bsWalal,ntleeyhe:dr.

Mr. QUEEN (official assignee)—As farm I can ascertain, he
was then solvent. He was, I believe, worth 11,000/.
Mr. Bovit.L—That only proved that in four or five years
he had lost 180,0001. by his mode of trading, against which
there was now not MOM than 39,000/. ; this, too, without any
nnffireseen er peculiar misfbrtune, but merely by a reckless
system of giving credit without judgment or without pre-
vious inquiries, and there was less excuse for the bankrupt
than other men, he having been previously bankrupt in 1815,
and should, therefore, have known by experience what was
the proper and safe mode of parrying en an extensive trade.
On all these grnunds, then, an improper system of balanci,-
his books, a reckless system of giving credit, and an -
sive dealing in accommodation bills, he OIL ;
upon the Court either to refuse the pertine., called
at least to suspend it for a Annabel, of -
ng against Mr. Keay, b altogether, or
were actuated by no angry feet' years. The assignees.ut
.
mer.ely by a sense of what "-
his ffnduet slitet thP as due to public justice ; and of
whatever to m• tee. oankruptcy they had no complaint
Mr. F JAMES, for the bankrupt, complained that the
bar'Aruptcy of 1815 should have been brought against his
client, seeing that he then paid 6s. 3d. in the pound, and
tot his certificate with the unanimous consent of his creditors.
Since then his conduct must have been honest and industrious,
seeing that in 1841 he was admitted to have been worth 11,000/.
It also should have been mentioned that his first bankruptcy,
had arisen from his having become security to the Govern-
ment of this country, in the amount of 50,000/. for a person
in the Azores. It was true that in 1841 he had made a set-
tlement on his wife, but he was proved to have been then
solvent; in fact, he considered himself then to be worth
92,000/., exclusive of his funded property : 68,0001. of that
had since turned out loss, but the bankrupt could not have
been aware of that in 1841. Since then he bad not taken
200/. out of the trade; on the contrary, he had appropriated
to it large sums out of his wife's jointure. That jointure
amounted to 1,2001. a year, while his personal expenses had
never exceeded 1,0001. He had been accused of recklessly,
crediting persons to large amounts, but his whole transac-
actions must be taken into consideratien, and they had aver-
aged not less than 300,000/. a year. The bankrupt had paid
in duties alone from 80,000/. to 100,000/. a year. When it
was considered that his transactions during the five years
previous to his bankruptcy had amounted to a million and
a half, the amount to which he had given credit would not
appear so enormous. Take, for instance, the case of Jarvis,
for giving credit to whom the bankrupt was so much blamed.
Jarvis was at the time in great and general credit. His late
employers had trusted him to the amount of 4,000/., Mr.
Hart, 8,024/., Mr. Black, 19,000/., and others to large
amounts.

Mr. Bovir.t.—All those gentlemen held large securities ;
the complaint against Mr. Reay is, that he gave credit with-
out security.

Mr. JAMES had only mentioned those cases to show that
Jarvis was in good and general credit. He c".dne next to
Blumenthal's case. He admitted that his client had acted
imprudently in trusting that person on no better security
than the Baron de Bode's bills. But ware those bills to be
looked on as wholly valueless? Tb Baron had recently got
a verdict, and his bills were no,:*i held by Messrs. Hoare,
the bankers, and Mr. Sander'on, the broker, as securities.
Surely then there was at ',east two sides to Blumenthal's
case. Then as to Wrigb•,,, the debt was certainly large, and
had involved Mr. Reav in ruin ; but then Wright had dealt
with him for upwaru,s" of 20 years, and had paid him large
sums of money. He had gradually become embarrassed, but,
as was a corn
-f !non case in trade, Mr. Reav was afraid to stop
giving cred,',, hoping every day for retrieval. Wright had
constant]
deluded him as to the state of his affairs ; and as
to the carelessness in taking the mortgage. that was the
fan'', of Mr. Reay's attorney, not his own. He (Mr. James)
Vial not quite clear that an action would not lie against that
attorney for negligence. With respect to the accommoda-
tion bills, the paper which Mr. Reay had put into circulation
did not come under that denomination at all. He had duly
followed the general custom of the wine trade in cases where
customers were not able to return their bills, by taking a new
bill some days previous to the maturity of the old one, and
thus enabling himself to return the latter when due.
The COMMISSIONER—It appeared from the bankrupt's exa-
mination that he had in several cases overdrawn his cus-
tomers. If that is the general custom of the wine trade, all I
can say is, that it is a custom " more honoured in the breach
than in the observance."
Mr. R. JAMES—The mode in which Mr. Reay had drawn
on his customers was quite usual in the wine trade. He had
also been accused of pledging dock warrants, but that was a
custom so general, that a special Act of Parliament had been
passed to regulate the practice. The last point which had
been urged against Mr. Reay was taking his nephew into part-
nership. He had taken that young man into partnership
without a shilling, as was generally known, but his reason
was obvious. He was advanced in years, nearly seventy, and
his trade being so extensive, it was absolutely necessary to
have a young hand, in whom he had confidence, to assist him
in the management.
Mr. Bovn..L—The fact is, that the bankrupt has been
losing at the rate of 40,000/. a-year—how, my Learned Friend
has not explained; neither has he given any explanation
as to the balancing of the books.
Mr. E. JAMES—That was merely a recapitulation of the
cases of Wright and Blumenthal and Jarvis, merely a second
count in the same indictment. The bankrupt had certainly
not balanced his accounts as they had been balanced since
the bankruptcy, but he had struck a balance every year, and
in 1843 had commenced writing off the bad debts. On the
whole, it must be admitted that the conduct of the bankrupt
had not been free from censure, but his transactions had
been immense, and during a long series of years his conduct
had been most honourable aad straightforward, and the
question for his! Honour then to decide was, not whether
the bankrupt was to be sent into retirement to live in luxury,
but whether, at the end of a long life, he was to be sent in
degradation to his grave, under the stigma of a hostile deci-
sion from that Court.

His HONOUR said that, as the case was one of great im-
portance to the mercantile community, and as there were
several documents he wished to look over, he should postpone
giving a judgment till to-morrow (this day).

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

(Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and the LORD MAYOR.)
John Good, a Post-office letter-carrier, was indicted for
stealing a letter containing a half-sovereign and some shares
in the Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth Railway Company,
which were laid, formally, to be the property of her Majesty's
Postmaster-General.

Mr. Clarkson, with whom was Mr. Bodkin, conducted the
prosecution. Mr. Ballantine defended the prisoner.
The facts of this case lay in a very small compass. The
prisoner was a letter-carrier attached to the Charing-cross
branch of the General Post-office, and on the evening of the
17th November he was engaged in sorting the letters at the
desk, and while so engaged Abbott, another letter-carrier,
saw the prisoner take a letter and crumble it up in his right
hand, and then put it in his trowsers pocket. He shortly
afterwards left his desk, and upon information being given
by Abbott of what had occurred, the inspector of the letter.
carriers proceeded to the water-closet where the prisoner was
found with the, letter in question, which turned out to be one
addressed by a stockbroker in the City, named Bohn, to the
secretary of the Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth Rail-
way Company, 449, West Strand, and which con-
tained a half-sovereign and the transfer of ten
shares in the above Company. The letter had not been
opened, but it was stated that West Strand was not within
the prisoner's delivery, and that he had no business what-
ever with the letter in question. When the prisoner was
taken into custody he declared that he had no intention to do
anything wrong with the letter, but that, finding it acci-
dentally among his own parcel of letters, he had picked it
out intending to put it in the proper delivery, and being sud-
denly required to go to the water-closet, he was followed and
taken into custody before he had the opportunity of restoring
the letter. When the prisoner was before the magistrate at
Bow-street, he made a statement to the effect, that he had
picked up a piece of paper under his desk, and that was what
the witness Abbott saw him crumple up in his hand.
Mr. BALLANTDIE made a very ingenious address to the
jury on behalf of the prisoner, and contended that the story
told by him was by no means an unreasonable or an impro •
bable one ; and that, at all events, there was so much doubt in
the matter as would justify the jury in acquitting the pri-
soner, particularly when they considered the very serious
consequences that would result to him from a conviction.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE having summed up the evi-
dence, the jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict
of Not Guilty.
The prisoner was then arraigned upon a second indict-
ment, charging him with stealing another letter, containing
a sixpence and a fourpenny-piece, the property of the Post-
master-General.

In other counts, the prisoner was charged with embezzling,
secreting, and also with destroying the letter in question.
In this case it appeared that, on the 3d of November, the
prisoner was engaged, as usual, in sorting his letters at the
Charing-cross branch, when he was observed by Abbott, the
witness in the former trial, to handle a letter in a suspicious
manner, and immediately afterwards proceed to the water-
closet. lie followed him,: and found the door fastened ; but
it appeared that the prisoner was enabled to leave the closet
without observation, and Abbott shortly afterwards saw him
in the street, in the act of tearing up paper. He picked up
the fragments, and found they had formed part of a letter, but
it appeared that he made no mention of the circumstance to
the Post-office authorities until the transaction referred to in
the former indictment occurred. The fragments of paper,
upon being carefully put together, turned out to be part of a
letter addressed by a young lady named Puckle to a silk-
mercer named Wilks, in Regent-street, and in which were
inclosed a pattern of silk that Miss Puckle required, and also
a sixpence and a fourpenny piece, as the price of the article.
A police-constable also proved, in corroboration of the
statement of Abbott, that about the time he referred to he
saw him picking up some pieces of paper near the Charing-
cross Post-office.

Mr. BALLANTLNE, on behalf of the prisoner, commented
in severe terms upon the conduct of the witness Abbott in
not making any mention of an occurrence which, if true,
amounted to felony, for so long a time afterwards, and he
urged the jury to disbelieve evidence that was given under
such extraordinary circumstances.

The jury found--
-the prisoners Guilty, and upon the verdict
being returned, he declared he was quite innocent of the
offence. He said he had been nineyears in the service of the
Post-office, and for nine years before was on board a man
of-war, and no charge of any kind had ever been made
against him. _ _

—The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said there could be no doubt in
the mind of any person who had heard the evidence, of his
guilt, and the offence was one of suck great magnitude that
it was the duty of the Court to pass a severe sentence. lie
then sentenced the prisoner to be transported for ten years.
In the course of the day the grand jury came into Court,
and returned the bill referred to on Tuesday by the Recorder
again "not found." The foreman, addressing the Lord Chief
Justice, said that the grand jury, after examining all the
witnesses, were of opinion that the intent to murder had not
been made out, and that the case was merely one of an
aggravated assault. It was understood that a bill charging
this offence would be sent before the grand jury.

FATAL CONFLICT WITH POACHBRO.—Last Sunlay
night a desperate affray took place between some metiers
and the keepers on the Bankfold estate; near Petworth, the
property of Mr. Hasler, during whiph the head keeper, Den-
yer, Oa one of the men, named Remnant, a desperate alt.:
ratter, who is since dead.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Yesterday Sir Peter Laurie came to the justice-room
for the purpose of stating to the Lord Mayor that the
notorious Joseph Ady had resumed all his former acti-
vity, and had lately written a host of letters offering his
" advantageous intelligence " upon the receipt of twenty
shillings, and in the most audacious manner not only
claiming personal acquaintance with each of the Alder-
men, but actually referring to him (Sir Peter Laurie) in
the following manAar--" Voluntary referee, the Right
Mom Si. Peter tatreie, Deputy Lord Mayor, at the Man-
sion house, ever*y day before eleven o'clock, who will
see justice done you free of expense, except postages,
which Zort must pay both ways."
The LORD MAYOR said he had scarcely been seated in
the chair of the chief magistrate, when he received letters
from gentlemen inclosing Ady's offers of intelligence
which they had inclosed in the belief that the writer was
imposing in a very extensive manner upon the
and that, of course, it was necessary to give hiLi fl check
similar to that which he had received
from the Court of Aldermen. ".,erne years ago
The check alluded to by tb Lord Mayor was the fol-
lowing advertisement., which was published in all the
morning_i and 'e'vening newspapers for a considerable,
Per Caution—Whereas, it bath been represented
lipthis 'Court that a person calling himself Joseph Ady
"
..n for some time past been in the practice of sending
letters to various persons in all parts of the kingdom,
stating himself to be in possession of information for
their pecuniary advantage, and offering to afford the
same on payment to him of twenty shillings, and, in
some instances, of five shillings; and referring falsely in
such letters for his character, integrity, and respectabi-
lity to Sir William Heygate, Bart., William Taylor
Copeland, Esq., and other members of the Court of
Aldermen ; and to Mr. T. Hobler, the chief clerk, at the
Mansion-house, without having any authority for such
references ; and also falsely adding to some of the said
letters that the said William Taylor Copeland, Esq.,
would be security for him to the amount of 1,0001. ; this
Court do hereby caution the public against paying any
attention to such references, either to the character, in-
tegrity, or respectability of the said Joseph Ady.
(Signed) WOODTAORPE."

His LORDSHIP said he was ready to adopt any means,
in addition to the re-publication of the advertisement
with the necessary alterations, which Sir Peter Laurie
would suggest.
Sir P. LAURIE said he felt anxious that an adequate
exposure should take place, as the new attempt might
induce unwary persons to part with their money, which
the knowledge that his name was fraudulently used
would probably prevent. He knew nothing of Ady but
what arose from the frequent appearance of that person
before him as a magistrate, to answer complaints made
by people who were defrauded, and his appearance once
at the Old Bailey, in 1835, when he was tried and con
vieted for obtaining 20s. under false pretences. He
begged to add, that if any person had paid Ady under
the belief that Ady was authorised to refer to Sir Peter
Laurie as a voluntary referee, it was only necessary to
prefer an indictment at the next Old Bailey Session for
obtaining money under false pretences, and full justice
would be done ; and any one might recover back the
money paid without trouble or expense, by applying to
the Whitechapel Court of Requests. Sir Peter Laurie
then produced about fifty letters from different parts of
the Continent, Ireland, England, and Scotland.
The LORD MAYOR bad no doubt that the law could
reach Mr. Ady, and the parties best able to advise upon
the occasion should be at once consulted. In the mean-
time, he had great:reliance upon the power and inclina-
tion of the press.