The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-04-10 00:00:00

AVERAGE PRICE OF BUTTER, &c.

8 D SD g D d
Bacon, 47 cwt.... 45 0 6 47 0 Banbridge ...... .. 80 0 6 86 (1
Hams, dry 56 0 60 0 Waterford,
Do. wet
Firkin Lard,
Bladdered do 6O 0 .. 66, 0 Limerick — 0 .. 0
Grease Butter .... 40 0 .. 42 0 Belfast 9O 0.. 01 0
Pr;me Mess Beef, Derry BO 0 .. 96 0
r tierce, 98 0 ..110 Cork, gds —o.. 0
Prime Mess Pork, Newry.
49' barrel. 78 0.. 80 0 [Sligo
--0 .. 0
[Sligo
0.. 0

All
From the 27th

DESCRIPTION.

Wheat Qrs
' Barley . Qrs
Oats
Flour.
Ditto Barrels
Malt • . Cwt
thaw eai Loads
Bran Qrs
Beans • Qrs
Peas Qrs
Rye
Shelled Barley... Cwt
Rudeseid • Barrels
Indian Corn Qrs

RIVALS
larch to 1

040
215
5235
C 670

OF CORN.
the 2d April, inch

COAST-

3272
2914
1260
139

EAST
IN DIES.

10m12
319
734 i
6229
270
5002
5060

°.xsrsv~.a•

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE,

TUESDAY, APRIL 10.—Wind W.

AartlvEn.—Herculean,Huxtable ; Memnon, and Phrenil
Hartley, from Calcutta—Lady Campbell, Johnston, from Demerara-
Nelson Wood, Robinson, from Berbice—Dryope, Hamilton,' fro.
Pernambuco—Delhi, Herbert, from Buenos Ayres—brigand,
from St. Domingo--Orpheus, Bailey, from New York; sailed 191
March—Hebrew, Carr; Charles, Bake; Statira, Montgomery; Job
N. Gusler, Davis ; Edwin, Wiison; and Citizen, Thorpe, from Ne
Orleans—New England, Davis, from Mobile—Consbrook, Pollok
and York, Meyer, from Charleston, sailed Bth March—Ruby, Wescot
and Sterling, Stinson, from Savannah—Eliza Ann, Burgess; Americi
—, from Mobile—Forth, —, from St John, N.B.—Glorat, Thom:
for Ceara—Creole, Tracy, from New Orleans—Mandane, fro'
Alexandria—Queen of the South, Gillard, from Lisbon

Heber, Campbell, from Batavia, at the Cape of Good Elope
Warwick, Little, from Ceylon, at ditto
Blakely. Snipe, from !Manilla for London, at St Helena, and sailet
again on the 17th February
Experiment, Drink water, hence, at Tampico
Pearl, Masters, hence, at ditto
Fama, Wright, hence, at Monte Video
Florence, Cuudy, from Buenos Ayres, off Romney
Great Western, (steamer,) sailed from Bristol, for New York, o
the Bth instant
Mary, Walker, from Constantinople, at Smyrna
David Banks, Jolly, cleared at ditto, for this port on the .16th Marc
Cawton, Boyce, hence, at ditto
Maria, fleene, hence, at Ostend
Black-eyed Susan, hence for Constantinople, was spoken on the 21s
March, in lat 41, long 9
Phillips, Woolley, hence for Valparaiso, was spoken on the
instant. in lat 41 23, long 13 ,
Delaval, Hall, hence ior Newcastle, at Yarmouth, very leaky, and
must discharge, having been on the Newcombe Sand
Dundalk, Green, hence for Dundalk, at Drogheda, after being on
shore at Balbriggan since 23d February

THE LIVERPOO, STAND \RD

APRIL. 2.

LANCASTER EASTER QUARTER SEssioNS

tMPOUTANT FKLONY CASE.
Joseph Cazneau, a young man of respectable appearance,
and, we understand, of respectable connections in Liverpool, was
put to the bar on a charge of having stolen, at Liverpool, 8 bales
of cotton twist, the property of Gustavus Fincleison and others.
—The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and the jury was swum.'
Mr. Wilkins addressed the jury for the prosecution. He was
glad to be able to congratulate the jury on their labours being
so limited; but, whilst he congratulated them on the circum-
stance of their being but one case for their consideration, he
begged to. call to that one their most serious attention. He
would also add, with all respect, that it was a case which re-
quired the close attention of, not only the jury, but the bench,
as on the latter would devolve the duty of esplaning to the former
the construction of the laws. It was somewhat curious and
interesting to mark the history of our English raws on the sub-
ject of larceny, if merely to show the expensible principles of
those laws, and the readiness with which they might be adapted
to meet particular circumstances, and such exigencies as time
might bring round. The definition formerly held was, that, to
constitute a larceny, it was necessary to show a felonious intent.
That was the old construction ; but to meet the exigencies of
the times, a more extensive construction arose, and what was
called a constructive taking was admitted; so that the law did
not require an actual theft to be proved, but that the property
in question was obtained by fraudulent means and with a frau.
duleut intention. That was larceny. He had not the privilege
of hearing the law laid down iu the charge to'the grand jury ;
but if he was wrong, the able bench before whom he spoke would
correct him. If, for example, .they found that the prisoner at
the bar had obtained possession of the goods said to be stolen,
with intent to defraud the owners, that would be larceny. If,
again, they found he got possession with no such original inten-
tion, but as what was called a builee—that was, the goods were
intrusted to his care,—and if by an act of his, he put an end to
the contract for bailment, from that moment the larceny corn-
tnenced. Mr. Starkie, in his book of evidence, held that if a
carrier broke open a box delivered to his care, and appropriated
is contents, though at tlaelitus he entertained no such intention,
hat would he felony, the privity of contract being determined
here was no longer any question. That, he (Mr. Wilkins)
_aaprehended, met the case. First, if the jury believed at the
tine the prisoner received the goods he had a felonious intention,
tley would have no difficulty in finding him guilty. With re-
tard to original intention, it was laid down by Mr. Archbold
fiat if a carrier took out and appropriated part of a bale of goods
ntrusted to his care, that was a good proof of an original inten-
,ion to commit felony; and then carne Mr. Starkie's case, where,
supposing that there was no such original intention, but that the
contract for bailment was put an end to, the larceny would
Continence. Having stated what he apprehended was the law,
,•he would now proceed to detail the facts of the case they were about
to try. The prosecutor was a merchant of Manchester, in partner-
ship with two other merchants; one of whom i esided at Berlin. and
the other at Hamburg. it appeared that in the month of June
last, he received instructions to ship some twist by a vessel called
the Josephine, and he forwarded a letter to the house of Messrs.
Peter Sorenson and Co. of Liverpool.- [Here the learned coun-
sel read the letter. It was an order for shipment to Burge, by
the Josephine, and it further asked Messes. Sorenson to advise
when the Josephine arrived, and say if she had room for the
goods, He next read a letter in reply from Messrs. Sorenson,
and written by the prisoner. This epistle stated that the Jose-
phine had not arrived, but was expected daily, and that they
would secure room and advise arrival. The first of these letters
was dated the 14th of June, 1837, and the second the 16th of
the same month.] Shortly after, the prosecutor went over to
Liverpool, and called and saw the prisoner, stating to the latter
what were the instructions of the firm, with regard to the twist.
,The prisoner said Mr. Sorenson had left the office, but that he
would take care to have the goods shipped by the Josephine.
On the 19th of July the goods were forwarded, together with a
letter of advice and a specification of the goods. Fifteen bales
were thus forwarded by the railway, and notice was given to the
prisoner that there were 23 others at the prosecutor's brokers,
in Liverpool, and a bill for £47 4s 2d sent for acceptance; in
consideration of a certain bale shipped on account of Snecken-
"stromn, the owner of the Josephine. That bill the prisoner ac-
cepted, arid it had come back dishonoured, [The letter of di-
rections sent by the prosecutor was here read. It merely gave
the usual orders respecting payment of freight, insurance, &c.
which was to be charged to the consignee at Borga ; and referred
to the bill of exchange just mentioned. I He should put in the bill
of exchange, and prove that the prisoner accepted it. In August,
in consequence of certain information, the prosecutor went over
to Liverpool, and found Messrs. Sorenson's office shut up, and
the prisoner not .to be found. He then went to Dublin, and
there found eight bales which had been sold by auction. He
should prove, by the prisoner's own admission, that he sent the
bales to Dublin for sale. He understood the prisoner meant to
tell the jury, that he only acted for Messrs. Sorenson ; but that
would not avail him; for, if an agent were guilty of dishonest
or felonious acts, the jury would be told by the bench, that he
was responsible. He (Mr. Wilkins) understood the prisoner
meant to say that he did the act to meet Sorenson and Co.'s
bills; but if so, why send the goods to Dublin, and incur risk
and freight, whilst there was a more likely market near at hand,
both at Liverpool and Manchester? 'Flat was point for the
jury's consideration. But suppose Sorenson himself had so
disposed of the goods, he apprehended he would stand in the
same position as the prisoner; and if so, a fortiori, the prisoner
was guilty. He had to inform the jury, in conclusion, that two
bales were found at the railway station. He begged, injustice
to the prosecutors, to say, that they were actuated by no vindic-
tive feeling; and he begged to say, also, that they did not come
there, as was said, to oppose the prisoner in the Insolvent Debtors'
Court; and he (the prisoner) knew that. He knew he could
have asked the prosecutor for proof of his debt, andhe could
not have substantiated it. The prosecutors had only done what
they conceived to be their duty to the public, and to the com-
mercial world in particular, who would be subject to like frauds,
unless the parties perpetrating them were dragged forward to
answer for themselves at the bar of justice. He apprehended
they tad done their duty, and that the prisoner wou:d be proved
guilty of the charge alleged against him.
Gude vats -Findeison sworn.—l am a merchant residing at
Islandiester. 1 have two partners, Sigismuud Antoine Liebert
and John Joseph Liebert ; one at Hamburg, and the other at
Berlit.. We forwarded a letter to Messrs. Sorenson, on the
14th Jute last. I undertake to swear this is a copy of the letter.
[l'he letter was here read.j I received an answer. [The answer
of the 16th June was here put in and read.l The signature is
the prisoner's. lam acquainted with his hand-writing. Our
firm is tarried on as S. A. and J. J. Liebert. I had occa:ion
to go tc Liverpool shortly after. I called at Sorenson's office.
Tu the )est of my recollection, I spoke to the prisoner. I can-
not say; there were two persons, and, to the best of my belief,
he was Ale. lie spoke to me. I never considered the prisoner
as an arent. I asked for Mr. Peter Sorenson, but he said he
was not in. He did not tell me be had gone to America. I
talked about the Josephine. I asked if she bad arrived, and he
said she had not. 1 said I should like to know when she arrived,
and he said he would let ice know. It was because I intended
to send the goods, which I described as twist and cotton. Short-
ly after, I forwarded a letter of advice to Messrs. Sorenson and
Co. [better, dated July 19, 1837, and the accompanying spe-
cification of the goods, was here put in and read.] According
to that advice I sent a bill. [The bill referred to in the letter,
and accepted by the prisoner, was put in and read. It is the
custom to present for acceptance immediately. From informa-
tion I had received, I had occasion, the latter end of August,
to go to Liverpool. I went to Sorenson's office. It was closed.
I went :o Cazueau's place; but I did not find him there. I did
not find him at all. The Josephine was in port. None of our
goods had been shipped by Sorenson. 1 found two bales at the
railway station, and these I shipped myself. With the excep-
tion of those, no other was shipped by the Josephine. In conse-
quence of further information, I went the day after to Dublin,
and found 500 bundles of the cotton twist there. I could swear
to its being ours. When speaking of bundles, bulk had been
broken, and sold by action. I found the goods at a manufac-
turer's house. I returned to Liverpool, and since then the pri-
soner has been made bankrupt. I attended the last examina-
tion of the bankrupt. I did not prove any debt. He was exa-
mined about the twist. I had not received one farthing for the
goods sent.
Cross-examined by Mr. Boileau. The firm in Hamburg is John
Joseph Liebert only, but that at Berlin the same as that at
Manchester. I considered that Sorenson had received the goods
to be sent to Sneckenstronim. At Liverpool, I believe it was
Joseph Cazneau who spoke to me. There was another clerk.
He said, Mr. Sorenson was not in, and came forward and spoke
to me. He only said, Mr. Sorenson was out; he did not say
where he had gone. I took his answer as that of a clerk.
only said, I considered him as no agent, because I only knew
Peter Sorenson and Co., and the twist was sent to him. I was
not on board the Josephine; but I knew there was none of the
goods on board, from a conversation with the owner. Never
did any transactions with Sorensons' before. The letters were
signed by procuration, and the bills were accepted in the same
way. I considered Peter Sorenson and Co. responsible. The
bill was never paid ; we were obliged to pay it ourselves. Caz-
neau's place was near the water somewhere; he had no office.
I heard Messrs. Peter Sorenson and Company were Danish
consuls. 1 found the goods at a manufacturer's in Dublin.
I inquired-first at Mr. 11. Littlewood's, and after that at Mr.
Littledale's, the auctioneer. He said, he had received the
goods direct from Peter Sorenson and Co. I attended the
bankruptcy. I did not prove, because I was not asked. I un-
derstood my examination would come after the creditors were
doue with. I stated what had been done, and said that I had
not received the twist. I did not make any claim. This is my
handwriting [a paper handed to the witness.] I know Sneck-
enstromm, and have received letters from him too. I think
that is his signature [a paper handed.] This looks somewhat
different, but it is impossible to tell [speaking to another paper.]
I think there is a difference. I deal largely in foreign transac-
tions. I do not know the custom of Finland. A bundle of
twist is 101bs; so that I found about five bales in Dublin. One
bale, " F.S. 51," was on Sneckenstromm's own account. The
value would be about £so—from £44 to £5O. 1 was here before
the Insolvent Debtors' Court. 1 looked at the schedule to see
if my name was inserted. I found it there. It was disputed. -
Re-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—I never considered myself
a creditor of the prisoner. 1 lodged a detainer. When goods
are shipped, the bill of lading would show it. I saw the letter
to Mr. Littledale. It was signed by Joseph Cazneau.
Roscoe.—l am clerk to Messrs. Lowndes and Ro-
binson, of Liverpool. I attended the examination of the pri-
soner before the bankruptcy commissioners. [The examination
was here produced and read. In the course of it the prisoner
admitted that lie had received the letter of advice from Mr.
Findelion before he shipped the goods to Dublin.]
Here the case for the prosecution closed.
Mr.BOILEAu objected that the other side had failed to prove
that the property belonged to the prosecutor. It was plain he
considered Sorenson and Co. answerable. The bill took that
part at least, for which it was Considered payment, out of the
prosecutor's hands; and as to the rest, he contended that the
railway company would have been answerable, but having de-
livered it over to Sorensons, it became theirs.
The Coons said the property was still Mr. Findeison's, and
over-ruled the objection.
Mr. BOILEAU then addressed the Jurv.—His learned friend
had truly laid down the law of larceny; but he apprehended
that there was one ingredient that he had wholly failed to supply
in this case, and that was the original intention to commit
felony, There was nothing whatever, in evidence, to prove
that at the time the goods were sent by the railway, the prisoner
made application for them; and unless they could prove that he
intended to appropriate, the indictment could not be held good.
The prisoner was only the agent of Sorenson and Co., and how
could the jury say the goods were fraudulently obtained? Was
there one word as to the false pretence? Was it not clear
throughout that the prisoner acted only as the agent of Sorenson
and Co.? and if he could show that the goods were parted with
by him as the agent of Sorenson, they must acquit him. Unless
there was proveela wrongful appropriation, he was clearly acting

as agent (.4 Sorenson anti Co., and for them converted the

goods. ,Was :here any benefit to he derived by the pris.)ner
No. Did he r►ceive any commission ? No. He (Mr. Boileau)
would distinctly show the jury the grounds on which the goods
were sent to Diablin. It was at the urgent instance of one blur-
__

pby,who had claim on Sorenson and Co. Mr. Peter Soren

;in:: before he .eft the country, had given the prisoner a general
power to act fo' him. That power was recognised, and the pri-
soner sent overthe goods in consequence of the threats of Mur-
phy. He did itto relieve Messrs. Sorenson anti Co.'s difficulties.
He admitted that a great breach of trust had been com-
mitted, hot he thought he should also be able to show that
it .was at most hot a cause of civil action. lie would prove
that Sneckensromm had himielf received from the prisoner
a certain bill, and bad discharged all liability as to 1.134-

teen hales; and if Sueckenstromm took from the prisoner a
bill in oischarge of a certain debt, he wondered on what
eronad the prosecutor could say he had received no benefit.
It was all very true, that at Liverpool Mr. Findeison did not
meet with the prisoner; but the reason must be evident. So-
renson and Co. were in difficulty, and Murphy was
.strongly
urging his claims upon them. The prisoner resided at the other
side of the water, and was himself in no flourishing circumstan-
ces. If his intentions had been fraudulent, would he not first
have satisfied his own creditors with the proceeds of the goods
on the spot, and divided the money amongst his creditors ?
Further, Mr. Findeison had taken a bill, and he said he held
Sorenson and Co. answerable. Well, five bales were found at
Dublin ; and if he thought there was any debt, why did he not
claim? The fact of his not claiming was strong evidence to
show that he did not think the prisoner was liable. His learned
friend said he had not opposed him in the lusolveut Debtors'
Court, but his learned friend did oppose him.
Mr. Wilkins.=-I did not—for Mr. Fendeison.
Mr. Boileau.—ln fact, the property was wade the subject of
litigation in every way. He should prove that there was an
action pending for the recovery of the goods. His friend said
the crown prosecuted, but it was at the instance of particular in-
dividuals, as in all other cases. Then what were the jury to say
about vindictive feelings?' Ile would show that, about the 3rd
of Juue, Peter Sorenson went to America; that, before doing
so, he applied to the prisoner to know if he would act, not only
as his commercial agent, but as vice-consul for Sweden and
Norway; that after arriving in America, he .acknowledged that
agency. Ile should show that Captain Sneckenstromtn had
induced the prisoner to give him a bill,—that he received a bill
for the full amount, and discharged him.
Mr. Wilkins.—My learned friend cannot do this, I appre-
hend ?
Mr. Boileau.—Down to the latest moment he contended that
no fraud was committed by the prisoner; and if there was no
fraud, the jury could not convict.
Mr. Clarke, from the bench, observed tbat he never knew a
case more completely stripped of all difficulties. It was a clear
larceny; if not, there was an end to all security in trade.
Hannah O'Neill, a smart-looking young woman, fashionably
attired, was first examined for the defence. I was housekeeper
to Mr, Cazneau. He lived in Upper Tranrnere. He was living
there in August. In that month, on a Sunday, Captain Sneck-
enstromrn came, and Geraldson, clerk to Messrs. Sorenson and
Co. Captain S. called on the Thursday morning afterwards.
Other persons came and they were admitted. Mr. Cazneau did
out juin them that morning. Oa the Thursday morning, Capt.
S. called, but he did not get in. I told him Mr, Cazneau was
not at home. He was not satisfied, and went round the house
and looked in at the parlour window. He saw Mr. Cazneau
about three weeks afterwards. I saw a receipt. He gave a bill;
Geraldson was present then. Geraldson called previously. He
brought a letter, and gave it to me.
John Geraldson.—l am a Norwegian. I was clerk to Messrs.
Sorenson and Co. Mr. Sorenson left England„l think, in the
month of May. Ido not know the cause. I did not keep his
-books. There was an English clerk. I took the foreign part.
I know the prisoner. He came frequently to the office, after
and before Mr. Sorenson went away. I acted on his instruc-
tions. I did so because I knew he had a power of attorney, as
agent. I do not remember when the bales were sent. I was'
present with Captain Sneekenstrom and the prisoner in August.
He gave a bill to Captain Sneckenstromm, who took it with
biro. He is in Finland.
Mr. Wilkins addressed the jury in reply. He knew his
learned friend's conscientious zeal on behalf of his client, and
lie respected his knowledge of the Law : but he was sorry that
on this occasion his zeal had led him into a line of defence, to
support which, he was obliged to resort, not to common law,
but what he might designate very uncommon law. He (Mr.
Wilkins) however, could observe, that the court clearly saw
through the case, and, from the intimations that were given,
he had reason to think it would agree with the law as he had
humbly laid it down. It was clear the goods were forwarded
with special advice and a most scrupulous order, and there was
proof that, in violation of that advice and that order, the goods
were sent to Dublin. It was also proved that the prisoner was
keeping out of the way, and that, with otbercircumstances com-
bined, led to the inference that he knew he was doing wrong.
Another strong fact was that the prisoner did not tell Mr. Fin-
deison, that Mr. Sorenson was gone to America; but, on the
contrary, held out a pretence by implication, in order that he
might get possession of the goods, he well knowing that if he
had said Sorenson had gone out of the country, he would never
have got the goods. There was, therefore, good evidence of his
guilty intention. It would be for the jury to say so by their I
verdict, and he had no doubt the prisoner would be ultimately
dealt by with judgment and justice.
The Chairman summed up. He observed that the law of lar-
ceney, as laid down by ,the learned council, lie had no reason to
disagree with, and he believed it was pretty much to the same
effect as what he himself had addressed to the grand jury. Sup-
posing the prisoner had got the goods with a view to misappro-
priation, that would be guilt; and there was also the case of a
party in the character of a bailee—that was when property was
confided for some special purpose—if the party intrusted di-
verted the property to purposes of his own, that would also be
larceny. Of course, neither court nor jury could look into the
prisoner's mind, and say what his intentions were; and they
were obliged to judge from the circumstances of the case. The
prisoner had received letters to ship certain goods, and what
would be the natural conduct of a person meaning fairly on re-
ceiving the goods; Would he not have told the prosecutor,
that Mr. Sorenson had gone to America? Did the jury think
it probable, if that was stated to Mr. Findeison, that be would
have intrusted the goods to the prisoner? That appeared to
afford proof of the prisoner's intention. Did he ship the goods
afterwards? No. Even on his own admission be said he sent
them to Dublin. He (the chairman) was not aware of any
right he had, in contravention of his directions, to do that; and
it was for the jury to say what inference they drew from it. He
could not conceive, either, that any authority from Captain
Sneckenstrorntit would so authorize the prisoner. The goods
belonged to Mr. Findeison, and it did not appear that he had
received any payment from Captain Sneckenstromm. The
jury, however, would judge. They would look at the prisoner's
conduct, and if they saw any reasonable grounds for doubting
his guilt, they would, as in all other cases, give him the benefit
of that doubt; but if not, it would be their duty to find- him
guilty.
The jury immediately returned a verdict of guilty.
Mr. Fendeison, on being asked by the bench the value of the
whole property, replied that it was about £7(X).
The Chairman proceeded to pass sentence. The offence of
which the prisoner had been found guilty was one of a very se-
rious complexion, and they had seen many persons sent from
that court out of the country on charges of a much lighter die.
It was necessary, for the protection of the public that such
cases should be met with due severity—the moral guilt was very
great, and it was right that the punishment should be com-
mensurate. The sentence of the court was that the prisoner be
transported for seven years,

This was the only felony case on trial, and at its conclusion
about six) the court adjourned.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE BANK.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
SIR, —1 observe in your paper of the 27th ult., that in the re-
port of a trial, " Thomas and another, assignees, v. Connell,"
Mr. Cresswell is made to say :—" In this way the South Lan-
cashire Bank got some £l,lOO, the produce of goods which were
sold under circumstances which induced the assignees, at the
last assizes, to bring an action, which terminated in a verdict
which compelled them to refund the money they had so re-
ceived."

Passing over whether these words were used by the learned
counsel in error, or inserted by your reporter by mistake, as.
not material, I beg to assure -you that the South Lancashire
Bank never did have a fraudulent preference—no action was
brought against it. and no refunding ever took place.
The facts of the case are these:—Brown and Cheetham
opened an account with this bank, but we would not open that
account and take their bills without a guarantee ; and Messrs.
Lilly, Bentley, and Brown, sen., guaranteed the bank accord-
ingly. Now, when Brown and Cheetham were in difficulties,
the bank naturally and properly called on the sureties, and they
paid off the money, and there the transaction ended, Lular as
this bank was "concerned.

It is true that the assignees brought an action against those
sureties for obtaining a preference, and they were obliged to
repay the money they had so obtained; but the South Lan-
cashire Bank had nothing to do with this; it was never applied
to to refund any thing either in this case or any other.
I shall be obliged, therefore, by your contradicting this part of
the report, either by insetting this letter
PENNY
bNyva,pi‘ai elraaugaragph.. of
your own.—l am, R
Manchester, April 2, 1838.