The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-04 00:00:00

LAW.INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH; Juwz 2.
THE RING v. JOHN RADISDEN AND OTHERS.

This 'was an indictment against John Ramoden, John
Clark, William Smallwood, Robert Wilson, and. William
Cook, an Attorney of this Court, for an alleged conspiracy
to sue out a false and fraudulent joint commission of bank-
rupt against the defendants Hamden and Clark, in order to
cheat and defraud the true and lawftil -creditors of the de-
fendant Ramsden.

The prosecution was conducted at the instance of Mr.
Joseph Hudson, a tobacconist, of Oxford-street, by the
ATTORNEY-GENERAL, • Mr. GURNEY, Mr. Monrann,
and Mr. BUSBY. The defence of Mr. Cook was conducted
by Mr. DENMAN, Mr. BROUGHAM, and Mr. HUTPHIKSON
and that of Ramsden by Mr. F. POLL OCR, and Mr. D. F.
JoNes. The defendant Smallwood was acquitted before
the case was opened, in order to make him a witness for
the Crown.. The defendants Clark and Wilson did not ap-
pear by Counsel.
The following is an outline of the case :—The defendant,
Mr. John Ramsden, was a young man related to a highly
respectable family in Yorkshire, his uncles being Sir C.
Monk, Bart. and Sir W. B. Cooke, Bart. He had been
in the army, and on coming of age was possessed of a con-
siderable sum, and after running a career of extravagance,
became embarrassed in hia circumstances, and was thrown
into gaol, where he remained from 1816 till 1826.
Amongst other persons to whom he became indebted, was
Mr. Hudson, the tobacconist, of Oxford-street, of whom
he had purchased snuff-boxes, hookers, and snuff to the
amount of about 7001. The uncles of Mr. Ramsden dis-
charged this debt by paying Mr. H. money to the amount
of about 5001., and inducing him to take back some of the
'snuff boxes, Shortly after this, Mr. Itarnsden became
again' indebted to Mr. Hudson, to the amount of about
9001., *for money lent, and snuff-boxes sold, and at the suit
of the latter was detained in the Fleet Prison. In order to
relieve himself from his difficulties, he formed a conuection
with the defendant Clark, in the coal business, in Webber-
street, Blackfriars-road. The concern became insolvent,
and the commission of bankruptcy in question was sued out
under the following circumstances :—Mr. ihusisden being
indebted, to the amount of about 150/., to Mr. Smallwood,
an auctioneer, of King-street, Covent-Garden (Who had pur-
chased the debt at a sale), he applied to the latter in :April,
1826, to sue out a commission against him. Accordingly,
Smallwood applied to :Mr. Cook, of 'Woodbridge-house,
Clerkenwell, to sue out the Commission,. stating the'eir-
icumstances under which the debt due to him from Rams-
den was contracted, and representing the importance of
relieving the young man by such means from his difficul-
ties. Mr. Cook, acting upon these instructions, and.hav-
ing in hand about 150/. belonging to Ramsden, undertook
to work the commission. Mr. Smallwood swore, that: in
this interview with Mr. Cook, the latter told him that he
(Smallwood) would not be at any expence, as he had in his
hands 1501. belonging to Mr. Ramsden, and that it would
be a very good thing for the young man to extricate him
from his hopeless difficulties; that as soon as he was libe-
rated, they (Mr. Smallwood and Mr. Cook) would go
doWn into Yorkshire, receive the thanks of the young man's
friends, and probably be very handsomely rewarded for
their trouble. In suing out the Commission, it was not
proved that Mr. Cook took any personal part in the trans-
action. The necessary steps were taken by his managing
clerk, and, accordingly, the Commission was sued out on
the petition of 'Smallwood jointly against Ramsden and
Clark, upon a trading as,coal-dealers, and upon an Act of
Bankruptcy by lying in prison. In the proceedings under
the Commision, and in the advertisements in the London
Gazette, Ramsden and Clark were described as coal-dealers
and co-partners, late of Webber-street, Blackfriars, Hun-
gerford Wharf, and Bridgewater-square. The defendants
Smallwood and Wilson were chosen assignees under the
Commission. _ .

The principal witnesses in support of the prosecution
were, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Smalhvood (who had been ad-
mitted as an approver), and a man named Miles, who had
formerly been in the service of Mr. Ramsden, and since
been employed to collect evidence in support of this pro-
secution.
It appeared on the cross-examination of Mr. Hudson,
that Mr. Cook had brought an action against him in the
Common Pleas for a libel, and upon making a public apo-
logy by his Counsel, Mm. Cook had consented to take a
nominal verdict for one shilling damages. The costs of
both sides amounted to 200/., which Mr. Hudson had to
pay.
Evidence was given to shew that the firm of Ramaden
and Clark, coal-merchants and dealers, had never been
known or heard of in Webber-street, Hungerford Wharf,
or Bridgewater-square. Evidence was also given to.shew
' that a great number of the debts proved under the Com-
mission were purely fictitious. It was proved that Wilson,
the assignee, was living in an obscure lodging at six shillings
a week, including breakfast, and that he was a person in
the most indigent circumstances. Real and bona fide
debts—one from Ramsden to some of his relations, and
others—were, however, proved under the Commission.
From this circumstance, a guilty conspiracy to defraud the
true and lawful creditors of Ramsden by a false and fraudu-
lent commission, was charged against the defendants.
Mr. DENatals made a powerful defence for Mr. Cook.
Mr. F. POLLOCK addressed the Jury at great length for
Ramsden.
A great number of most respectable witnesses gave Mr.
Cook the highest possible character for honour and inte-
grity, during a period of fifty years. Among these wit-
nesses were the HON. Mr. Justice Holroyd, Mr. Espinasse,
jun. Mr. Kaye, the late Solicitor to the. Bank of England,
and many other most respectable persons.
The Jury interposed, and said they were satisfied, before
the Learned Judge summed up, when
Lord TENTERDEN observed, that in such a case it would
be more satisfactory that the verdict of the Jury should be
the result of deliberation upon the whole case. Accordingly
his Lordship summed up the case, and pointed the atten-
tion of the Jury to the charge as stated on the record, and
the evidence produced against each defendant.
The Jury retired, for about half an' hour, and at seven
o'clock found ItarrAderiund Clark Guilty ; and Wilson and
Conk Not Guilty.,