The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-25 00:00:00

LARCENY

Henry Andrew, a fashionably dressed young man, aged?
28, was charged with having, in July last, at the Aintree
race-course, stolen from Samuel Towers, a quantity of silver
money._

Mr. CARDWELL conducted the prosecution, Mr. WILKINS
the defence.

Mary Riznmer, a servant to Mr. Tower's, stated that on
Wednesday, the 15th July last, she was at Mr. Towers'
booth or stand, at Aintree race-course. Witness here de-
scribed the various compartments of the stand. She was
in the kitchen that looks into the bar. Between seven and
eight o'clock in the evening, she saw a man with a white coat
on him, from the bar, which was enclosed on all sides, so
that no one could get inside. He turned from the counter,
and she saw in his hand either a bason or a porter mug. She
called out loudly, " Stop that man with a white coat on, for
he has stolen something." She ran out and called, " Stop
thief !" There were at that time three or four persons stand-
ing about, but no one had a white coat on except the man
that went out. She followed him. She ran about fifty yards.
She ran as fast as she could, and turned back when she found
that she could not catch him.

Elizabeth Houston stated that she was, on the day in ques-
tion, serving in Mr. Towers's front bar. She saw the pri-
soner in that place several times during the day. The money
was kept in earthen bowls under the counter. One was kept
for shillings and half-crowns, another for sixpences. and
another for copper. Between seven and eight o'clock she
missed one of the bowls. The prisoner was standing at the
counter, directly opposite to where the money was placed.
She saw him before the money was gone, and did not see him
after. She ceased to see him the moment the call of " Stop
thief " was heard. The prisoner had on a white coat, a black
stock, and a small-striped waistcoat. There was no one in
the booth in a white coat but the prisoner, and only two
other persons altogether, and they had come in with him.
Mr. Samuel Towers, jun.. son to Mr. Towers, the prose-
cutor, corroborated the above evidence as to seeing the pri-
soner standing at the bar. close to where the money was
placed.
Mr. Samuel Towers, sen., further corroborated the testi-
mony of Sarah Houston. The bason was about 1 foot- 5
inches from the top of the counter. It contained about
twelve pounds. He served the prisoner several times during
the day. He had on a light _coloured coat.

David Allsworth, police 469, deposed that he apprehended
the prisoner on another charge, which was dismissed by Mr.
Rushton, and as the prisoner answered the description that
was given to him of the man that had robbed Mr. Towers,
he sent Mr. Towers word.

Mr. Wlmarls addressed the jury at great length on behalf
,of the prisoner, and called Thomas Collett, butcher of Old-
hall-street; Patrick Miller Smith, butcher; Thomas Hales,
butcher, and partner with Thomas Collett, who swore that
the prisoner wore a dark blue surtout on the Wednesday and
Thursday; that he did not wear a white coat on either of
these days; and that he was frequently in Mr. Towers' bar
on the Thursday, the day after the robbery was committed.
It came out, on cross-examination, that the prisoner was
what is commonly termed " a sporting character."
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The court root
at ten o'clock.

asiigne
against
of the
and,

Mr.
that Ti
Subject
21st ju
n
bank ij
the sail
fere
pee,

trtec'
Mr.
questioi
out of

1)':i ac
slgssce

was ent

which;
ther th(
diatribe
uPon tl
exebute
the ban
curity.

credi6
of the li
Self in
stop pal
but to
to mak

portion

a case
but a le
fined tb
Griffith
as a cax
of 1836
they w

aiderabl
to the g
ance, p
on the
timber

accepte

came d
maulb
ank u
Mr. Gt
at matt.
Stittitet

e4ougt
ineo :
hadi Ito

runt se

',Poll 1-r

ether ;

wits noi

Was no
deed w
elecutt
ther m.
believe
rily ; a
for it m
that tli
have

way th
The fia
Phtee,
ners
for the
Pose a

Prove—;
and th,
at)out
corky
meet c
learnet
that IN
85 Id,
ever, 8

P
engavbe
then w
!stating
two WI
the bai
ing 01(

for 4:;2,
done
ed,ani
tile stt
11-)ar:

stance,

The
Mr.
lordsh
whethi
and th
bankr,
that tit
part of
The

oPinio
stance
the pa
that ti
been a
that h
hensic

Prove.
Nlessr
do?

rnatel.
hank;
froth
bank
Mr•
he Wo

With
rupt ;
of tht
to Ulu
of the
12,r st

a'pre
Mr.
(
in Y 1(
who!,

ence.
upon
bill i 3
Prese

sever
from
Ntan,
,Grifn
°Y th

wort
the I)
prefe
Th
Th
said

Tr,
The
and t
rem

Will
Ph,
def.,
Plot
Plait
they

• NISI PRIUS COURT.--YEsmnAY.
(Before Mr. Baron Rolfe and a Special Jury.)
lim:Kim AND 'OTHERS V. GRUGEON AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by Ha dock and another,
assignees of the estate of Thomas Griffiths, a bankrupt,
against James Grugeon and James Hamilton, public officers
of the Commercial Bank of England.
„„14, Cresswell and Mr. Crompton were for the plaintiffs,
Wig htraa n and Mr. Watson for, the defendants.
Mr
• C RODIPTON opened the case. The pleadings set forth
that Thomas Griffiths was entitled to certain plots of land,
hsubject to certain mortgages upon the same ; that upon the
et June, 1836, he executed a mortgage between himself on
banke one. part, and Thomas Langton, manager of the said
the• open the other part. The issue raised was, whether
said mortgage was executed by-war of fraudulent pre-
ference, and in contemplation of bankruptcy. The plaintiffs
asserted it was, and the defendants denied it.
Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the court and jury. The
question, as they would understand from the pleadings, arose
t of the bankruptcy of a person named Griffiths, whose
'tusignees had thought it right to institute these proceedings,
to ask of the court to grant this issue, in order that it might
°e ascertained whether the Commercial Bank of England
was entitled to retain the proceeds of the estate in question,
Which was conveyed to them by way of mortgage; or whe-
ther the assignees we re entitled to them, for the purpose of
distribution among the creditors at large. The assertion
Dien the part of the plaintiffs was, that this mortgage was
uteri to the bank, not in consequence of any pressure by
the,
bank upon the debtor that he should give them this se-
curity, but to. place them' in a better position than the other
creditors. By law that could not be done. The principle
of the law of bankruptcy was, that when a trader found him-
self in insolvent circumstances, it was his duty at once to
Stop payment, to make no further distribution of his effects,
but to allow his assignees, under the authority of the law,
to make an equal division of them to every creditor in pro-
portion to the amount of his claim. When he said this was
a case of fraudulent preference, he did not mean a moral,
but a legal fraud. The learned counsel, having further de-
fined the term, proceeded to state the circumstances. Mr.
Griffiths, the bankrupt, for some years carried on business
as a carpenter and builder in Liverpool. In the early part
of 1836 his affairs had become much embarrassed ; by May
they were hopeless, and he foresaw that bankruptcy must
follow. In December 1835 he bought timber to a con-
siderable amount from Messrs. Williams and Co.—one lot
to the amount of £629. for which he gave them his accept-
ance, payable four months after date. That bill became due
on the 26th April. In January he bought another lot of
timber front them to the amount of £239 is. Bd., and he
accepted their draft at four months, which acceptance be-
came due on the 29th May. These two acceptances were
paid by Messrs. Williams and Co. into the Commercial
liank of England. As might be e'xpeCted from the state of
Mr. Griffiths' circumstances, they were dishonoured when
at maturity ; but before the second was due, the bank in-
stituted proceedings upon the first; and he believed a
Fognovit was given for both bills, although the second
bad not become due. In the beginning of the month of
June several acts of bankruptcy were committed. The bank-
rupt sent to Mr. Bardswell, solicitor to the assignees, and
uPoli mature investigation, it was found that there was no
other resource but for him to go through the Gazette • there
Was not, therefore, the slightest doubt that Mr. Griffith's, who
!as now dead, must have lated bankruptcy when the
ueed was executed. On thecontemp 21st of June a mortgage was
executed to the bank for between £4OO and £5OO, after ano-
b?r mortgage had been given. There was strong reason to
believe that these were given on his part perfectly volunta-
Sly and he (the learned counsel) had the best proof of that,
or it was not until a considemble period after the bankruptcy
that the bank knew they possessed that security. It might
was
been placed in the hands of a third party, but the fact
'Zs the bank did not know of it till long after the bankruptcy.
The, fiat issued upon the 15th of July ; the adjudication took
Place, and on the 2d of August, Mr. Turner, one of the part-
for the purpose of proving their debt. The jury would sup-
_ se that a partner coming forward on the part of a firm to
and a debt, would know the state of affairs between them
the bankrupt, and that. Mr. Turner would have known
about the mortgage ; but he stated that the bank held no se-
curity except the two bills in question, and the verbal engage-
8' ent of Mr. Thomson that the money should be paid. The
,7arned counsel then read the bank's proof of debt, stating
Mr. Griffiths was indebted to them in the sum of £869
Id, for which they had no security or satisfaction what-
engagement save and except the two bills of exchange and the verbal
thegagement of Mr. Thomson for the payment thereof. Here
8,
.9 was the bank, with their own attorney at their elbow,
t!locipg that they had no security for this money except the
ie bbills which had been mentioned. But some time after,
ank produced the deed of mortgage. The assignees find-
qg property mortgaged, offered it for sale, subject to the ibortga
fr, ge. it was mortgaged altogether for £l9OO, and sold
dor ...2200. There was some discussion as to what should be
oe with the surplus. Chancery proceedings were threaten-
ed, and at last the assignees consented to the bank receivin
the surplus. His case, then, was this :—he should show thg e
4e!libarrassments of the bankrupt, that he was frequently de-
.2ed to his creditors, and that it was under these circum-
4Eances the mortgage in question appeared to have been
teitlecuted, in the presence of some person unconnected with
pe bank ; he should show that the bank themselves were
erfectly ignorant of its existence, and it would appear to have
then executed voluntarily, unless the bank could show that
tey had exercised pressure to the bankrupt. If they could
at,thebank was not entitled to the surplus.
The learned counsel then called witnesses, who proved the
tat°e of bankruptcy and the other circumstances mentioned in
Zu opening. The proceedings sunder the commission of
bankruptcy were put In, as well as the mortgage, dated 26th
une, 1836. It purported to be signed for the bank on one
p2n-t, the bankrupt on the other, and to be witnessed by
William Morris, clerk to Mr. Thompson, solicitor. Mr.
tardswell, solicitor to the assignees, was also called.
The plaintiffs' case being closed,
Mr. WiGHTMAN said he would take the opinion of his
lordship upon this point. There were two issues. The first
whether the mortgage was executed by fraudulent preference,
and the second whether it was executed in contemplation of
bankruptcy. Had sufficient evidence been given to show
that the execution of the deed had been voluntary upon the
part of the bankrupt?
The JUDGE decided that there had.

Mr. WIGHTMAN said his lorciship having expressed that
°Pinion, it became his duty to state to the jury the circum-
stances of the case, as they would be presented to them on
thepart of the defendants. Their case rested upon this—
t there was nothing in the whole of it to show there had
been a voluntary preference on the part of the bankrupt, or
that he did not execute the deed under the reasonable appre-
hension and fear of pressure which the circumstances would
pr_oye. Two of Mr. Griffiths' bills, paid into the bank by
Tessrs. Williams, were dishonoured. What did the bank
do? They adopted the ordinary course taken by creditors :
they applied to Mr. Griffiths for payment; he refused; pro-
cess was taken out against him ' • he was arrested ;' and ulti-
mately a cognovit was given. Mr. Watson, solicitor to the
tank, prepared the cognovit, upon a verbal understanding
!ank did
Mr. Thompson, the bankrupt he would ' solicitor that if the
agree to take the cognovit,see them paid.
Thompson was a very respectable practitioner : no doubt
Ze Would have fulfilled his part of the undertaking ; and it
vyt-5 °Pon the faith he would that the bank was satisfied
th the cognovit. A fiat was issued against the bank-
"Pt ; the proof which had been read was made upon the part
?' the bank ; and he (Mr. Wightmanor) would admit that up
'of that time neither the bank n their solicitor were aware
°,l the mortgage in question, and that accounted for Mr. Tur-
!:- stating that the bank held no security except the two bills
21 exchange and the verbal undertaking of Mr. Thompson.
fnine time after that proof had been made, Mr. Thompson,
Zrehensive that proceedings might be taken against him as
Griffiths had become bankrupt, handed over the mortgage
question for £468, and another for £4O to the ank the
Whole of the debt owing to the bank was £0,868, and b
these; two
614-°rtgagees made up the exact amount. Whether Mr. Thomp-
+l_l,asked the bankrupt to give him this mortgage, or what
;°lt Place upon the occasion it was executed, he had no
°rep ofshewing, for Mr. Thompson died before the answer
ko",e.assignees to the suit in Chancery was put in. This
r`gae having been given, Mr. Watson on the part of the
atiL* entered into communication with Messrs. Littledale
cl-Bardswell, solicitors to the assignees. The assignees were
BPoBed to sell the mortgaged property, but when Mr. Wat-
ii" came in his claim was to be preferred. An arrangement
p„nallY took place, by which the bank agreed to join in the
(14YeYance of the property to the purchaser, without preju-
/ice te their claim 'for the right of tacking the mortgages.
t. e thought the bank had been hardly used, for up to that
the nn mention had been made to them by the assignees of
e Mortgage having been given by way of fraudulent prefer-
u-nee• In consequence of that proceeding the bank insisted
bill
n their right to tack the mortgages, and they filed their
Present
in Chancery, and a suit was instituted under which the
—esent issue arose. The learned counsel then detailed the
veral proceedings in the Chancery suit, and contended that
°in the answer of the assignees, as well from the circum-
stances of the case, it was evident the bank had pressed Mr.
Griffiths to sign the mortgage. He should also establish this
by the witnesses he should call.
bankrupt r- Morris, clerk to M Tomson, roved that the
was a client of Mrr.. Thomph spon, anpd his signature
Lo the mortgage.
Mr. Watson, solicitor to the bank, said he had sued the
„,°!tnkrupt, on the first bill of exchange, and he was arrested.
Pe Put in bail, and a cognovit was given with an understand-
ing that the money should be paid. The witness produced a
variety of documents connected with the cause for the purpose
° f establishing the case for the defendants, but they were too
long to enable us to give even a summary of them.

b.
bank
-Mr. aEsswir.m. replied, urging that the had not
been at all ill-used by the assignees, and that the fact of the
niortgage being given, not to Mr. Thompson himself but to
the bank, was the strongest possible proof of a fraudulent
Preference.
The learned JUDGE summed up at considerable length:

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the judge
said he would certify this was a case for costs if it were found

necessary