Star.
London, England, 1828-10-29 00:00:00

THE ICING V. JEPIERIES AND OTHERS.

This was an indictment against the defendants,
Joseph Jefferies, Henry Jefferies, arid John Millet, for a
conspiracy to defeat the recovery of a judgment debt of
5241. against the first named defendant Joseph Jefferies,
by removing and secreting his property.
Mr. GURNEY (with whom was Mr. CHITTY) stated
the case for the prosecution. The prosecutor, Diniel
Carter, and the defendant., Joseph Jefferies and John
Millet. had married three sisters, and carried on the
bosiness of market gardeners at Fulham. The prose-
cutor, Mr. Carter, bad at different times prior to the
year 1825 made advances of money to Joseph Jefferies,
amounting in the whole to 5001. Having occasion to
call in the money in the year 1324, notice was given to
Jefferies to pay it; but it not being forthcoming,
Mr. Carter was compelled to bring an action for its
recovery. No defence was made to the action, and on
the execution of a writ of inquiry, a verdict for 5001.
was obtained. This was on the 20th of January, 1825.
Mr. Carter being entitled to tax his costs and sign final
judgment on the 27th of the same month, the three
defendants, in order to defeat him in the execution
which he then intended to issue against Joseph Jeffe-
ries's property, set about removing his goods and stock.
Judgment was signed and execution issued on the 28th
of January, and then it was discovered that the whole
of the property had been removed. Joseph Jefferies
subsequently rendered in discharge of his bail to the
King's Bench prison, and ultimately applied to the In-
solvent Debtors' Court for his discharge under the Act.
On the hearing of his petition, however. the Court na
prob.ted his conduct, and ordered him to be remanded
for two years, on the ground of his having fraudulently
made away with his property. Inquiries were subse-
quently made with a view to discover the property;
and after some time it was found secreted in different
places. The Learned Counsel then described the mode
in which the goods and stock were removed, and said
that he bad no doubt of being able, by the evidence
which he should lay before the Jury, to bring home the
offence to all the defendants.

The judgment against Joseph Jefferies, at the suit of
the prosecutor. Carter, was proved; and several wit-
nesses were called to prove the removal and disposition
of the goods and stock. It appeared then they were re-
moved in the night time, and that a quantity of cole-
worts, onions, and some implements of husbandry, were
removed to the premises of the defendant Millet, and
that a large quantity of cabbages (seven cart loads),
household furniture, and other articles, were removed
to the house of the defendant Henry Jefferies. The
principal packing up and removal (in which all the de-
fendants assisted) took place a few days before the judg-
ment at the suit of the prosecutor was obtained, and
on the 2d of Feb. Joseph Jefferies went to prison. After
the present indictment was preferred, the defendant,
Henry Jefferies(a nephew of Joseph Jefferies),absconded.
Daniel Carter, the prosecutor, examined—l had lent
money to Joseph Jefft ries. I brought an action against
him to recover the amount. Joseph Jefferies's premises
at Fulham consisted of a house, yard, a garden ground
of five acres, another of nine acres, another of four acre.,
and another of between three and four acres, which he
held jointly with me. On this ground he carried un
the business of a market gardener. His ground was
well stocked and cultivated ; he had a pfantation of
cabbages of rather more than two acres. The cabbages
would have been worth 801. in May ; they were of the
very best sort ; they were all pulled up in January or
February, which rendered their value less by at least
one-fourth. Joseph Jefferies had a good house, and it
was well furnished. I was appointed assignee by the
Insolvent Debtors Court. When I took. possession of
Joseph Jefferies's grounds, it was entirely stripped of
stock, and there were little or no goods in the house;
every thing was entirely deranged; all the stock had
been removed. In February, after Joseph Jefferies had
gone to prison, I saw him several times at Fulham,
drinking at a public house opposite my door. He used
to obtain a day rule.
Sir Jams SCARLETT (with whom was Mr. MOODY)
iddieved. the Jury for the defendant Millet, and con-
tended, that there was no evidence to show that Millet,
at the time of the transaction in question, was cogni-
sant of the intention of Joseph Jefferies to take the
benefit of the Insolvent Act. It was not an illegal act
for a debtor to dispose of his goods prior to an execu-
tion coming into his house, provided he did so boos
jfde, and not io contemplation of taking the benefit of
the Insolvent Debtors' Act; and where was the evidence
in this case to prove that the defendant Millet knew
that Joseph Jefferies contemplated a surrender to pri.
son and an application under the Insolvent Act? His
selling his goods before au execution came into his
house was not an act calculated to excite in the mind
of Mr. Millet a reasonable suspicion of any improper
design being in contemplation, and he (Sir James Scar-
lett) would show by the evidence of several respectable
witnesses, that Millet had bought and paid for the
articles which had been taken to his house, and that as
soon as he discovered that Joseph Jefferies was in diffi-
culties, he returned the implements of husbandry. for
which he had previously paid and taken the receipt of
Joseph Jefferies's wife. He should also prove that Mr.
Millet, who had served several offices in the parish in
which he resided, was a respectable man, and had
always borne a good character.
Mr. THastoza, who was engaged for the two other
defendants, submitted to the Jury that whatever they
might think of the conduct of Joseph Jefferies, there
was no evidence to show that Henry Jefferies, his
nephew, knew of his design to surrender in discharge of
his bail in the action at the suit of the prosecutor, and
subsequently to take the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors'
Act.

Several witnesses were then called on the pan of the