The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-09-13 00:00:00

the learned counsel's remarks, that down
'iad, on

Ise of the year 1

1, the pi

,everal occasions

dvanced M

J. W. Thomas various

sums of money for the purr

Sing on hi

nd that on these occasions had Mr. Thomas

been in the habit of giving Mr. Hughes securities

They had several transactions, and

on his wine

there was between them what might be called a running
account in loans and securities. The particular charge
against Mr. Thomas was, that he had obtained from the

November, 1850, Mr. Thomas was indebted to the prose-
cutor in the sum of £B5 4s. 2d. for loans, for which the
latter held delivery notes for wines, either in the hands of
merchants or in bond. The circumstances of the transac-
tions were as follow. At this time the prosecutor held
certain securities on wines for money lent to Mr. Thomas,
and Mr. Thomas, desiring a further advance of, £64 from
Mr. Hughes, security for this advance was given by Mr.
Thomas, that gentleman giving Mr. Hughes a delivery
note for 21 quarter casks of wine in wood, and 20 dozen of
wine in bottle, which, at the time, were in the hands of
Messrs. Yearsley, of this town, merchants. On the 14th
of January, 1851, the advance of £64 was made by Mr.
Hughes on this security, and Messrs. Yearsley accepted
the delivery note for the goods, which Mr. Thomas
had signed in favour of Mr. Hughes. In order to show
the fraudulent way in which Mr. Thomas had been acting
towards Mr. Hughes, he might remark that, although Mr.
Thomas deposited, as security for the £64, the twenty-one
—I,. of wine nn the 14th of January, they found

that, so early as the 20th of January,
deposit was made, Mr. Thomas was dealing with _
wine, and that he obtained from Messrs. Yearsley one
cask of the twenty-one quarter-casks' and on the 23d,
three days subsequently, he received four or five more of
the casks ; and, in April and May, no part of the £64
having been repaid, he got a still further lot of the twenty-
one quarter-casks out of the hands of Messrs. Yearsley,
so that, within a few days after he obtained the loan, he
had been fraudulently dealing with the wine which he

six (rays ate.

had deposited as security for it. But the particular charge
which he made against Mr. Thomas was previous to this
date. At the end of 1851, Mr. Thomas required a further
advance of £2OO, and that being a large amount, a calcu-
lation was entered into of the securities on wines which
Mr. Hughes held, and in this calculation Mr. Tt.
set down

'homas

the twenty-one quarter - casks of wine,
according to his calculation, at £147, and this,
added to the other securities, he stated amounted
2s. However, he came now to the particular
charge against Mr. Thomas, and that was, that after
he gave Mr. Hughes the security on the twenty-one
quarter casks of wine, he obtained from him back --
document connected with a previous transaction, securing
two quarter casks of port and four quarter casks of sherry,
on a previous advance, which wines were in the possession
of Mr. Middleton, and which Mr. Middleton had accepted
to deliver to Mr. Hughes, on the delivery note being
handed to him in Mr. Hughes's favour signed by Mr.
Thomas. This security Mr. Hughes returned to Mr.
Thomas, and allowed him to take the wines from Mr.
Middleton's, on his representation that the security for
the twenty-one quarter casks at Messrs. Yearsley's, with
other securities, covered the amount of his advance,
whereas it now appeared that at the very time that he
obtained re-possession of the security given for the wine
at Mr. Middleton's, he had already been dealing with the
wine at Mr. Yearsley's. After some further remarks, Mr.
Aspinall said that although there were two summonses
against Mr. Thomas, on two distinct charges, he intended
at present to confine himself to the charge of fraudulently
obtaining possession of the two quarter casks of port and
four quarter casks of sherry from Mr. Middleton's.
Mr. Mansfield said the question which seemed to him
to arise was thiS, in whose possession the wine legally was
When taken from Mr. Middleton's.

to £337

Mr. SIMON said he was taken by surprise at the course
which had been adopted by his learned friend Mr. Aspinall.

It was quite clear that, if he did not intend to carry the
case any further than was indicated in his address to the
court, the court could not commit his (Mr. Simon's) client
for trial. There was no proof that the wine referred to
had ever been in the name of any one else besides Mr.
Thomas, and, therefore, if there was no transfer in the
books, the wine legally belonged to Mr. Thomas, and would
go to his general account with Mr. Middleton. There
must first be a false pretence, in point of law, proved
against Mr. Thomas, and this must be a fraud, because
this court could take cognizance of nothing bu
Ad

mitting that the transaction might involve a breach of
trust as between the parties, the law could ,not take cogni-
zance of the criminal charge now preferred against Mr.
Thomas. In order to substantiate the criminal charge,
it must be distinctly proved that Mr. Hughes had been
cheated of his property ; and he (Mr. Simon) contended
that, according to law, it never was his property. The
learned counsel went on to contend that the charge
against Mr. Thomas was one which came peculiarly under
the act of Queen Elizabeth, referring to secret transfers.
According to that act there must be actual possession
proved in addition to the documentary transfer from one
party to another, authorising the holder of goods to de-
liver the same. Mr. Hughes, in this case, had never had
actual possession of the goods, and therefore there had
been no traud. The learned counsel, in continua-
tion, argued to prove that nothing had been done
leoallv to make the wine Mr. Hughes s uronertv ; and if

he never had legally a property in it, kr. "Huilies now
could complain of nothing more than a breach of trust.
Supposing Mr. Hughes had purchased the wines, and had
obtained an order to have them delivered to him, the
warehouse owner was not bound to obey that order, but
he was bound to obey Mr. Thomas's order either to deli-
ver them or not according to circumstances. Mr. Simon,
after arguing the case at great length, contended that the
criminal charge could not legally be sustained, and called
upon the magistrate to dismiss the case.
Mr. ASPINALL replied to Mr. Simon's argument, and
urged that the order upon Mr. Middleton, by Mr. Thomas,
to transfer the wines to Mr. Hughes, and accepted by Mr.
Middleton, amounted to legal possession, and the wines
then became Mr. Hughes property, at least he had a
lien upon them, and Mr. Thomas had no power over them.
Here was the order signed by Mr. Thomas to Mr. Mid-
dleton, ordering him to transfer the wines to Mr. Hughes.
Mr. SIMON contended that Mr. Aspinall had not an-
swered his argument at all. The statute of Elizabeth had
especial reference to transactions of this kind, and pro-
vided, that unless actual possession was taken under a
secret transfer like this, no fraud was committed by the
party so transferring afterwards taking possession.
Mr. MANSFIELD thought it was necessary for Mr. As-
pinall to show that Mr. Hughes was in possession of the
wine. He said that without prejudice to his right. What
he wanted was the fact of legal possession.
Mr. ASPINALL said that was clearly established by the
transfer, and by the fact of Mr. Thomas having afterwards
obtained the transfer back again, on the representation to
Mr. Hughes that the other securities covered the amount
of loan, which securities he had, however, in the mean-
time, been dealing with.
Mr. SIMON again contended that there was no legal
proof that the wine in question belonged to Mr. Hughes,
and confidently called npon the magistrates to dismiss
the criminal charge.
Mr. ASPINALL (addressing Mr. Mansfield) said, if he
had any doubt as to the legal possession which Mr. Hughes
had of the wine, he would hand him up the papers to prove
it, and adjourn the consideration of the main question to
a future day, in order to give him time to consider the
point.
Mr. Simox did not think his learned friend should con-
sider that his worship had any doubt about it. He (Mr.
Simon) did not think he could have any.
Mr. MANSFIELD remarked that he had great doubts
about it. There were several questions
mired up in it.
learned
Mr. SIMON.—It is just because my friend leaves
you in doubt that I call upon you to decide at once against
proceeding.
After considerable discussion amongst the parties, Mr.
MANSFIELD decided to consider the legal question raised
by Mr. Simon, and adjourn the hearing of the case until
to-day (Tuesday).
Mr. SIMoN, in that case, must press for the case at once
to go on, reserving the point.
Mr. ASPINALL opposed this application ; and the fur-
ther hearing of the case was adjourned to this morning at
ten o'clock.
There was a great number of witnesses in attendance,
on both sides, including sOeral attornies and other
gentlemen.

doubtedly preferable for the snorter nistance. i minx it is
reasonable to anticipate the former proving superior for this,
and especiall as I am assured that the horse has been in ex-
cellent condition ever since. Of this his late performances too
hare been proof; it will, however, be a very near affair, but
will ultimate, in my idea, in the way I have said.
gulp a
1 now proceed to set forth the probable starters, with t

trainers and the riders, and atterwards shall touch upon the
remaining horses, which I have omitted already to comment
upon.
HORSE. TRAINER. RIDER.
Cmeas J. Day A. Day
Feversham %V. lintler Pettit
Filbert Hurlock Norman
Honeywood Osborne Osborne, Jun.
Mr. Sykes C. .11 arso n Bartholomew
Orestes W. King Charlton
Rataplan J. B. Day Wells
Reiver W. Dawson Whitehouse
Sittingbourne W. Butler L. Rogers
Umbriel J. Scott Templeman
Vanderdecken Fabert Marlow
West Australian J. Scott F. Butler
It will be observed that I have put down the starters at a
dozen ; and I may observe with reference, that even this
small number may be possibly reduced, as Lord Eglinton's