The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-07 00:00:00

SHERIFF'S COURT, Murch 5.

THE FAILURE OF THE BRIGHTON BANK.
On Saturday an inquiry was directed to Mr. Under-Sheriff
Burchell, Mr. Commissioner Hobbs, and a special Jury, for
the purpose of ascertaining in what sum the defendants were
indebted to her Majesty.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF having explained to the
Jury the nature of the duties they were called upon to perform,
an affidavit was put in evidence on the part of the Crown,
which was sworn before Lord Denman by Mr. John William
Ferguson.
The defendant stated that he was postmaster of Bright-
helmstone, in the county of Sussex, and that he had paid
various sums, at different times,.to Isaac Newton Wigney and
Clement Wigney, of Brighthelmstone, bankers and co-part-
ners, for safe custody. That the monies so deposited by him
in their hands had been received by him as postmaster for
Brighton, on account of her Majesty's Post office revenue, for
her Majesty's use, and had been unaccounted for by the said
Isaac Newton Wigney and Clement Wigney; and that it was
in danger of being lost in consequence of the bank having
stopped payment, unless some speedy measures were adopted
to recover the same. The balance due by Messrs. Wigney to
the Post-office was stated to be 7071. 4s.

The UNDER-SHERIFF summed up, and the Jury, without
hesitation, found that Messrs. Wigney were justly and truly
indebted to her Majesty in the full amount claimed.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, March 5

IN RE JOHN OSBORN.

The insolvent was described as a horse-dealer, livery-stable-
keeper, and horse-agent on commission, carrying on business
in Montague-place, Montague-square. His petition to be dis-
charged was supported by Mr. Nicholls and opposed by Mr.
Cooke.

In the year 18.37 he was a bankrupt, when the sum of
4,6001. appeared due by him, and the amount of the di% idend
amongst his creditors was only 10d. in the pound; in two years
afterwards he passed through this Court, owing the sum of
2,7631. 11s. to his creditors, and now he made his second ap-
plication to be discharged, with a schedule showing debts due
by him to the amount of upwards of 2,0001., and due to him of
1,500/., of which latter only 11/. was good.
Mr. CooKE said he appeared on behalf of two gentlemen
named Stevens and Robertson, who had intrusted the insolvent
with two horses to sell for them, and for which they never re-
ceived one penny. Mr. Stevens sent a valuable horse on the
condition that he should receive the sum for which it was sold
seven days after the sale was effected, but although his groom
made repeated applications he was pnt off from day to day, until
at length a writ was issued when the insolvent offered 201.,
which was refused. In the case of Mr. Robertson a horse had
been sent on the recommendation of the Honourable Mr.
Murray to be sold by the insolvent, and was bought as a
charger for 100 guineas, not one penny of which was given
to the owner. The name of the Hon. Mr. Murray was in.
serted in the schedule, although he had nothing to do with the
transaction, further than recommending Mr. Robertson to the
insolvent.. Several noblemen and other gentlemen had in-
trusted him with horses for sale on commission, upon which
small sums of money had been advanced previous to sale by
a person named Dent, who carried on business as a
linen-draper, in Crawford-street, on condition of being
repaid upon the day of sale, with interest, at the
rate of is. for every pound advanced. Although many
of those !gentlemen were treated in the same manner as his
(Mr. Cooke's) clients, a feeling of delicacy prevented them
appearing in opposition. However, his clients considered
they would not be doing their duty towards the public if they
didnot come forward and expose a system which they con-
sidered to be little better than swindling, although they were
well aware thst by doing so they htd not the slightest chance
of getting any portion of their debt.
Mr. Dent was examined at great length by Mr. COOKE,
and stated that he had known insolvent fur many years, during
which he had advanced him various sums of money, and a
balance of 5511. 10s. now remained due. He had been in the
habit of advancing sums of money to gentlemen who sent
horses to the insolvent's stables to be sold on commission, and
received Is. for every pound so lent. When the insolvent be-
came a bankruptin the year 1837, he (witness) was appointed
assignee under the fiat. There were a great many transactions
between them and several bills which came into his (insolvent's)
hands in the way of busines,, were given to witness. Amongst
these were one of Lieut.-Colonel Copeland's, another of Lord
Huntingtower's, and a judgment which had been entered
against Colonel Tint. Of Lord Huntingtower's bill he had
never received a fraction, nor had he any expectation of ever
being paid now.

Air.. CooKE said the insolvent's conduct amounted, so far as
his clients was concerned, to a direct breach of trust. He had
fraudulently applied the money to his own purposes, which he
had received on their account, and he also concealed certain
books connected with his Lusiness. He trusted, therefore, that
the Court would consider it a case which required its strongest
animadversion.

Mr. Commissioner REYNOLDS said there could be no douLt
but the insolvent had withheld books connected with his trade
from his creditors, and he should therefore adjourn the further
hearing of the case generally, with four days' notice to the
creditors.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

James Linchbury, described as a banker's clerk, was in-
dicted for stealing a 101. bank note, the property of Messrs.
Hanbury and Co., Lombard-street, bankers, his employers.
It appeared that the prisoner had been employed as a clerk
in the banking-house of Messrs. Banbury and Co., for upwards
of twenty years, and his father had been in the same house
before him. The case was one of an extremely intri-
cate and tedious nature. It was the duty of the prisoner
to enter all cheques paid into the bank in a book,
called the Goldsmiths' receivable book. On the 2d of
February last, the books were valued up, and it was found
that there was a deficiency in the accounts of the prisoner.
Two clerks in the office examined carefully the books, and
while they were doing so, the prisoner went to his desk and re-
turned with a 30/. note, observing that he had, by mistake,
placed the note in the desk. Some few days afterwards he was
interrogated by two of the partners in the firm, when he ad-
mitted having taken a 101. note. It appeared that the conduct
of the prisoner, who had been for a considerable period involved
in debt, had caused some uneasiness to the firm on several oc-
casions, and his employers had most kindly relieved him from
his embarrassments. Although the indictment charged the
prisoner with stealing 101. only, yet as much as 140/. had been
missed on the day the discovery of the robbery was made.
Mr. PHILLIPS, who defended the prisoner, complained at
the conclusion of the case that new evidence had been brought
of the prisoner as he otherwise
forward against the prisoner, which wthheicghooddidelnaortacatpepreoafrtihne tplrieisodenpeor.-
ntsoietsig:icon ss
,s;wo
hcfoonnhibsyoeqrienutteeonstttlihyme,
odhneeyfe(rc
defence
. Phill i p s ) was not in a posi t i vn
should have been. He concluded by calling a number of wit-
The Learned RECORDER having summed up the evidence,
the Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of guilty,
but accompanying the verdict with a recommendation to
mercy, on the ground that that the prisoner had not had the
sentence
t
full advantage of a defence by his Counsel.
The IlEcoanza then addressed the prisoner, and said it was
extremely painful for the Court to pass sentence upon a person
that and
who had hitherto borne so good a character, and who had
ner musts expect been for many years in the employment and confidence of one
he
es
be friendss for
an
of the first banking establishments in tMs City. But still for
the sake of the public interest it Was necessary to pass a sever
prisoner,pouextthenetofthee
swlt.houlte thatrysehnadtenreeecosmhomuledndneode
not
be to the fullu
tr-
spomrisoe
year. The nte
the prisoner to mercy, and. the Court was ever ready to listen
ee tOOO
to that recommendation, but under all the eircumstancesthe
sco.uernutry
parted beyond the seas for the term of seven years.
T leavee, therefore his

Nhave lately been eon-
tr ac echatel, in the Vosges:-.,0. father and
son were married to two sisters.
terat \
c' erg unusual
noi