Star.
London, England, 1822-10-25 00:00:00

TILE KING V. HOWARD AND GIBBS.

1 •

Mr. SCARLETT stated, that this was an indictment
preaired against the defendants by a Gentleman,
named an knell, charging them with having con-
spired to defiraud the prosecutor of the sum •f1,200i.
which he had et trusted to them to invest for him in'
good securities, by a pretended advance to the Doke
of Marlborough fur an annuity, aainst the wishes
and desire of the prosecutor. The Luarneil Counsel
stated the case fully to the Jury, and called witnesses
in support of his statement.

Itidiard Darknell,..the prosecutor, stated, that pre-
violets to the year 1818, he carried on business as a
stationer, in St. Martin's-court ; be was in the habit
of employing Howard and Gibbs as his agents to lay
out money for him. In the beginning of 1818 they
received 1,1071. 4s. Gd. for witness, for the redemp-
tion of an annuity which had been granted by the
Marquis of Sligo to the witness. Several interviews
afterwards took place between the witness and the
defendants, respec.ing this sum. The witness gene-
rally saw Mr. Gibbs. Witness wished to have the
money, but Gibbs advised him to lay it nut with the
Duke of Marlborough. Witness objected to doing
this, observing, no one would trust him a shilling.
Gibbs said—.• I have got the Duke's will;" to which
Witness replied—" What's the use of the old Duke's
will?" and they separated for that time. After this,
Gibbs and witness.met several times, and Gibbs re-
peatedly promised witness his money. Afterwards
ss itness saw Howard and Gibbs together, and again
pesiing for his money, Howard said, " a), my boy,
we have done the Marlborough annuity for you, and
it bears a premium." - Witness replied, " You are
welcome to the annuity and the premium too, only
let me have the S!igo money." Witness observed
further, it was very odd they should servehim as they
had done; they had given him neither information
nor document. Gibbs said, " Have you not, my boy?
then I'll send them to you t*-morrow ;" and the next
day witness received a paper, the same now shewn to
him. - Witness never saw the annuity deed till now.
The pencil writing on the back of the deed is wit-
ness's writing. Witness saw Gibbs several times af-
terwards. The pass-book was delivered to him by
one of Gibbs's clerks on the 22d of April, 1811.
' The entries in the pass-book were then read, and
contained items relative to the witness's account with
them. One item gave him credit for the 1,1071.
received of the Marquis of Sligo, and debited him
with. 1,200/. advanced to the Duke of Marlborough.
Against that transaction the witness repeatedly re-
monstrated, after receiving the book.: On the 21st
IL of August, in the same ye• ~ his pass-book was again
sent to him, and in this • punt credit was given to
him lot £lOO, the half? e• annuity received from
the Duke of Marlborough. Witness still continued
to remonstrate against this transaction, and to urge
for his money as the Sligo 'money, always repudi-
fig ar Marlborough annuity. At len4th the wit-
ness received a message to go to Gibbs s—he went
accordingly, and was kept there about four hours.—
Gibbs put down a £lOOO and some other notes, .and
said, 44 Look at them,-my boy !" Witness asked whe-
ther he was going to pay him ? and Gibbs said, call
to-morrow morning. Witness afterwards went again,
' GAlbe laid, witness should be paid if he AWd
nobody else. At a ssibsectwant ineetins Gibbs
eioduessl a debenture, and said to witness, " Sign

,

*

~~ ,

ot#
Ibis, and you sliall have y fit rum of ShTet
months.* . Witness.did not 66v/what it waaly and
wishing to place confidence in bit atmentift he signed
it, It was at a subsequent time thavGibbs told.wit-
ness that if he did not tell any one he shoild be paid.
Witness had never received a farthing, either of prin-
cipal or interest. The pass-book was sent to him at
a subsequent tune, in which he was made debtor for
£lOO, returned to the Duke of Marlborough.
Cross-examined.. Retired from business in 1818.
Had keen in business upwards of forty years in an,
extensive way, and settled his own affairs regularly.
Commenced purchasing annuities in 1812 ; then ad-
vanced £l6O, and received about eleven per cent.....
He received it for about four years, but had since re-
ceived nothing, and was now at law about it.
The CHIEF Jusrtcs.—You was very fortunate to,
receive it so long.
Witness resumed—Had since had other annuities.
Gibbs managed his. annuity business. Might have
received annuities in advance cf Howard and Gibbs;
used to act on their advice, but never authorised them
to lay out his money as they should consider to the
best advantage. Cannot swear that he was not told
the Marlborough annuity was principally secured on
the Post Office annuity. The debenture produced
wa's not understood by him; he had it at home with
him tor a month, but did-not read it, and afterwards
returned it to Howard and Gibbs ; but was obliged
to take it back again, as they told him, if he did not
they would send it to him. Did not recollect that
he was told the reason of executing the debenture
was, that the Lord Chancellor had decreed that the
Post Office annuity of the Duke was not chargeable.
Had not quarrelled with Howard and Gibbs; they
used to wrangle a little during. the last year of
their transactions.

The Marlborough annuity deed. was then put in
and read ; by which HoWard and Gibbs advanced
£10;000 to the Duke, on condition of receiving, du-
ring the life of the Duke, an annuity of £l6OO.
The debenture was then put in and read, by which
Mr. Darknell agreed to take £l3OO, to be paid under
a certain trust deed; of which trust deed, Colonel St.
John was one of the trustees, and released the Duke
from the payment of his annuity.
William Lewis Davis was formerly a linen-draper
in Oxford-street, but had retired from business; was
sorry to say, he had had transactions with Howard
and Gibbs. Knew them to be partners. Witness had
an annuity of the Duke of Marlborough's. The de-
fendants negotiated, and thanaged the transaction for
him. The annuity was granted in ISI3, and witness
received it down to 1817 ; don't know that defend.
ants were at all acquainted wiilt the state of the
Duke's affaits in 1817- . .

George Whitehead, formerly a clerk in the service
of Howard and Gibbs; they commenced partnership
in 1813; they had considerable transactions with the
Duke of Marlborough. Witness left them in Decem-
ber, 1817, and does not know whether the Duke was
in their debt at that time.

Jchl Felton Cooke was a clerk to the.clefendants
in 1818 ; the Duke was then in their debt about
£BOOO, upon two acceptances. Knows this only front
the ledger. Knows of Darknell's annuity, and the
sum of £10,200 being raised lot-the Duke; but does
not know whether any money was paid to him ; he
had no info: oration, except what-he obtaineJ from
the hooks.

The SciLICITOa-GENERAL addres•ed the Jury for
the defendants. . He was cnnvin.ced every one who
heard- this case. would consider it as a most extraor-
dinary one. Messrs. Howard and Gibbs bad been
the Solicitors of Mr. Darknell ; and if they had int.
properly advised him, they were liable in a common
action ; but a common action would not have suite.l
Mr. Darknell.s. purpose ; for then the defendants
would have come-into Court on equal terms, which
now they could not do; for Mr. Darknell, who was
a party interested, was allowed to tell his own story;
but the defendants were restrained from giving that
answer to the highly-coloured picture which Mr.
Darkaell had drawn, ikhick he was instructed they
could have done. The Learned Counsel then pro-
ceeded to take a review of the state in which.the‘
Duke of Marlborough's affairs were at the time Mr.
Darknell's money was advanced. At the time in
question, the Duke wanted to raise £lO,OOO, and it
was intended to be secured by annuities on the Duke's
Not-office annuity, which the highest legal authori-
ties had declared to be an available security ; and
the defendants, considering it an advantageons mode
of investing money, had divided it amongst their
clients, and had given Mr. Darknell a share of it.—
So confident were they that the. security was good,
that they even gave Mr. Darknell credit for the first
half-year's annuity of 1001. In the meantime, the
subject of the Post-office annuity came before the
Lord Chancellor ; and his Lordship decided, that the
Duke had no power over this pension; but Howard
and Gibbs had acted most carefully ; they had gone
upon legal advice of the first reputation. -Had that
opinion been right, Mr. Datknell would still have
had a good security for. his annuity ; and were the
defendants, he would ask, under such circumstances,
to be made not only civilly but criminally answer-
' able, as was attempted to be done in this case?—
When the mistake was discovered, Howard and Gibbs.
exerted themselves to obtain other securities for the
annuitants. They applied to the Duke for new se-
curity, who agreed. to assign over all the property
over which he had any controul to General St. John,
a relation of the family, in trust, to form a fund, out
of which to pay those annuities, and this being done,'
these debentures, as they were called, issued. What
could they have done better? Ile would shew that:
Mr. Darknell knew well' enough what was the na-
ture of the debenture ; and further, that though not
at prelent available, there was no doubt it„ would
oltimately be so, and that, under all the circum-
stances,' there was not the slightest ground for the
present prosecution.
Henry Havard, jun. saw the Duke of Marlborough
sign the annuity deed to Howard and Gibbs, in 181.8,
and saw the 10,0001. consideration money handed over
to the Duke., Mr. Gibbsond witness went to the Duke
at Blenheim-house to have the deed executed.
Cross-eiamined.—Does not know whether Mr.
Gibbs took his bill with him ; saw the money paid
over to the Duke ; can't say how much of themoney
Mr. Gggas took NA to town with him.
Mr. Stephen Pair,- a ccal‘lancert arm constantly
consulted for years by
_Howard mkt Meson the sub-
ject of the Duke of Marlbomilisis 'Wain. In 1817
was, ecanaltad as-to the power of theikke to charge

-
,•mirarrasied, and his onnuitiet in arrear. He believed
his Grace was in greater difficulties after he became
Duke, as he had several large sums to pay on his
ther's death.
- Mr. Merriman, nephew to General St. John, pro-
duced the deed f trust executed to General St:John
by the Duke.
Thomas Stephens, clerk to the defendants inlBlB,
was attesting witness to the debenture signed by Mr.
,Darknell, read it over to him at_the time it was exe-
cuted, and explained it to him.
Cross-examined.—Does not know that the defend-
ants had ever raised annuities to pay off the arrears
of other annuities, or that at the time of the transac-
tion, the subject of the present inquiry, taking place,
Howard and Gibbs bad bills coming due, which they
had accepted for the Duke.
The opinion of Mr. Butler in favour of the Duke's
right to give securities on his Post Office revenue was
put in and read, as was the opinion of Mr. Preston to
the same effect.
Mr. SCARLETT replied, and conietbded that the de-
fendants, in not producing the evidence in their
power, 'gave the strongest support to the 'charge,
which the testimony of Mr. Darknell had brought;
_home to the defendants. What a strange complexion
their case had—at war with their clerks, their clients,
and their assignee4—that they venture not to examine,
a single witness from their own connexions.
The Ciller JUSTICE summed up the evidence, and
requested the Jury, upon a case so frequently before
the Public as this, to release themselves from all pre-
possessions. Ilad the defendants in this case even
acted improvidently—had they not executed their
duty towards their clients—yet if they had 'laid out
the money which Mr. Darknell gave them, they were
not liable to the present indictment. The Jury would
take the evidence as it was submitted to them, but
they would feel it their duty also, as, it was his duty
to state to them, to dismiss from their Minds all that
they had previously heard as to the. bankruptcy of
Howa: a and Gibbs.

_
The Jury did not retire, but after a few minutes
consultation gave in a verdict.ofNot Guilty. .

OLD BAILEY.

Yesterday T. Craucher and C. Harrington were ;11-
dicte,l for breaking and entering the dwelling of W.;
Smith, and stealing therein eight silver spoons, the
propeity of Daniel O'Brien.
O'Brien is a milkman, and resides in the cellar of
a house in Blue Cross-street, Leicester-square. On
the morning of the 2d October, O'Brien 's daughter
went nut about seven o'clock, and at that time saw
the pi isoner, Crouchcr, standing at the corner of the
street, having► a milk can in his hand, and a blue apron
on. When she returned she met the two prisoners
coming out of the house, and one of them had a
great coat, which she after wares recollected was her
father's. The cellar was found to have been plun-
dered of a great coat, some silver spoons, and other
things. A milk can, not belonging to the cellar,was
found on a table. The prisoners were apprehended
by Avis, a Bow-street patrol, the same day.
The Jury found both prisoners Guilty—Death.

Holland and John Barnett were indicted
for breaking and entering the house of C. Clayton,
with intent to steal.

Mr. Clayton lives at No. 29, Oxford-street. It is
the Old George public-house. On the 20th of Sep-
tember, about a quarter past seven, he was standing
at the bar, when two men came into the house in
front of the bar. Barnett was one of them, but he
had never seen any of them before. Witness sleeps
on the first floor, and he has a contrivance by which
a bell rings in the bar if his bedroom is opened. No
one is allowed to enter it but his wife, his servant,
and himself, and the key hangs up in the bar.—
While Barnett and the other were drinking at the bar
the bedroom bell rang. Ile ran up stairs imme-
diately and met Holland on the stairs. He said 4, Who
are you ?" and Holland said 4. What's that to you ?"
Witness seized him, and Holland collared the wit-
ness. A struggle ensued, and witness called for a
candle, and as his servant was bringing it Barnett
and the other parsed her. One of them took him by
the neck, and he and Holland fell down stairs toge-
ther. The third man knocked the candle out of the
girl's hand as they were falling. Holland imme-
diately jumped up and ran out at the street-door.—
Witness followed immediately and caught him, and,
with assistance, secured him. He then examined his
bedroom, and found the door open, but nothing taken
away. He secured the side-door, and was doing the
same by the front doer, when. Barnett made a blow at
him with a stick, but was prevented from striking him
by the persons present.
Cross-examined—He had had a bookbinder lodging'
in his house, but he had died a short time before.—
'Holland told him, tome time after he was secured,
that he had gone up stairs to the bookbinder, but he
did not know his name.

The har-Maid gave evidence .that she was in the
room at six o'clock ; she put the bell on the doOr,
shut andlocked it, and hung the key in its place in
the bar ; she heard the bell ring while the key was
still in its place. •
Other IA itnesses corroborated this testimony; some
of whom found a dark lanthorn, and some•skeleton
keys, in and near Mr. Clayton's house. The Jury
retired for a considerable time, and returned a verdict
of Guiltp—Death.
David Jenkins and. Thomas Proud were indicted for
stealing a box, containing wearing apparel, the pro-
perty of Louisa Owen.
The prosecutric lived in St. John's-lane. Westmin-
ster, and is servant to • her aunt. She saw thi pri-
soners in her aunt's house on the day that her pro-
perty was lost, and part of it was afterwards found
id thccellar, where the prisoners use, to cut wood.
—The thieves had gone along the parapets of the.
houses, and icot in at the window of the attic in which
the prosecutrtz slept. There vas the mark of a lad's
Toot on the parapet, arLd the will grazed where the
'boz had beep lowered down into the yard. Both
prisoners denied4l knowledge of the robbery, ,and
the Jury. found Anifte Gailiy of stealing, hut. not of

enteriet the dtieliteOlirieset and Adz
indicted fat etaiikng applied, the
Byers, in his dwelling-house.
' been abont thlie weets-a servant
On'the .17th inst. his crap wilt
half-past four in the morning, by the
the alarm of a thief being in the
he had Come up to her bedside.—
Prosecutor, his wife, and a Mr. and Mrs. Odell, went
down stairs, and found all the doors closed, except
the kitchen door, and no stranger in the house. The
kitchen window *as partly open, but a deal table
near' it was not soiled by marks of feet. They found
that sore lace caps and other articles of his wife'
were missing. The prosecutor called the watchman,
and communicated his suspicions to him. The Watch:.
man said, that on going-his rounds at four
he-saw the kitchen window shutters open, a canfil;
burning, and the clothes-horse covered with cltither
She was„on this, taken to the watch-house. The pro:.
secutor searched her bed, and between that and the
sacking he found the identical articles which the pri-
soner had mentioned as those that the thief had car.
"tied away. A little girl in the house proved that the
prisoner wished her to sleep with her that night, as
something told her that the house would be tobbei
that night. The girl refused, but said she t ould tell
the watchman; to which the prisoner replied, 0,
nonsense r The girl then told the prisoner to fasten
the kitchen window; but she said, if she did that,
how was she to got up fruhe morning ?—Verdiet--
atilt, of stealing to the ',aloe of 39i. only.
The following were also convicted of felony, viz.
Robert Barnes, aged 18, for stealing three fowls ; Niary.Mor-
ris, aged 19, for stealing two tea-caddies,. &c. William Bush,
aged 31, for stealing a watch, &c. William Davis, aged 22, for
stealing wearing apparel. &c. William Richards, aged 18, for
stealing from a person; Thomas Dobey, aged 24, fur sealing a
watch, ?tc. Goodman Soloman, aged 15, and John Bailey, ay.,'
10, for stealing part of a brass crimping machine.
William Fry and Peter Ward were indicted for
breaking and entering the dwelling-kouse of W. Pap
terson, and stealing a pair of boots, his property.
The prosecutor lives in the llroaaway,We.-ttninster.
-On Ft iJaiy, the 4th of October, between seven and
eight in the evening, he was sitting in the kitchen
behind his shop, when he heard a noise, and same
persons exclaiming, " They are robbing your shop!"
He then went our, and saw that a pane of glass,
which had been cracked and mended with putties
had .been removed on one side, and through that
aperture a pair of girl's boots had beep taken.
Two little boys saw Fry and Ward together at the
window. Ward had his hand on it, but he went away
to a post. Fry went back to the window and took
something out, which he put under his coat. They
had previonsly heard the glass of the window break.
Fry gave what he took out of the window to another
boy, not to Ward. Fry returned to the window, arid
took something out again, which he gave to the same
boy. At the time there was a mob of boys about the
prosecutor's window, and when the prisoners were
taken nothing was found upon-them.
Verdict—Both Noi Guilty.
bIIDDT.E.SnX SESSCONS.

Yesterday John Semple was indicted for assaulting
a person of the name of Lewis.
The shalt facts of the case, as they were proved in
evidence, were these :—The defendant found a boy
in his orchard stealing his apples: he took -the
and, after dipping him in a horse-pond, put a rere
round his body, and suspended him in the air for
some time by means of a crane which was on his
wharf in Camden-town. The prosecutar, alarmed
by the cries of " murder" uttered by the lad, has-
tened to the spot. He remonstrated with the defen-
dant, and in return for his humane interference re-
ceived a sound beating.
Witnesses were examined for the defence, by which
it was endeavoured to be sworn that the prosecutor
had Eh; best of the fight, and was the first aggressor.
The Jury found the defendant Guilty, and he was
fined 101. by the Court.

Ii)DOS p
1 ,
iil' said, 4, I
1. ..
then he
'
to-morn
and Gib
tell nob
1111111111:: 4141"

• . •. .
. ,
. .
• ,
_ .
. ... .
his post.ogerrnemes • tint and 'e
and in June, 1817; gassiiiiesiiiiiost v ttbe-had quilted Proud.
the poeier, and afteenitesis:pser ; - ' ,StrrakPerry was inc
Mr. John Abbott, clerk, tour. *Pin : , solicitor property of Edward a
to the Doke,' prov3d that'th :77Fe.deed _ Gene- The prisoner had be
ral Si. John a- trathee for the Papp the aninti- to the prosecutor: Or
tants was executed by the advice of Mr. Saunders. ' disturbed, about halfq
tross-examined.ln 1816 and basbutiOg of 1817 prisoner. She gave th
' the Duke, then Marquis of BlandfOrd, was greatly kitchen, and that he 1
.. _ Ii? _ - ... ! . !..., !... ......n.,••• INA kA;aapata4 VAreasars•ana Ma gar:Tia ~