The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-07 00:00:00

CHARGE OF FORGERY

Thomas Arthur Barfield, a very respectable-looking young
man, aged 23, was charged with having feloniously forged
and uttered a certain paper in writing, purporting to be a
recommendation from the Reverend Edward Girdlestone,
vicar of the parish of Deane, and an undertaking from him to
be answerable for rent, &c. on behalf of the prisoner.
Mr. Lawrence Peel prosecuted, Dr. Brown defended.
In the month of June, 1839, the prisoner was recommended
by the National School Society to the Rev. Mr. Girdlestone,
to fill the office of head-master of the school of Deane. For
some reason, not mentioned, he quitted the neighbourhood
in the ensuing November. He wished to become the tenant
of a house, at Markland Hill, belonging to Mr. Thomas
Markland, of Bolton. He applied to Mr. Girdlestone for
such a character as would satisfy Mr. Markland of his eligi-
bility to become a tenant, the latter requiring some guarantee
or recommendation from him. Mr. Girdlestone refused to
give him a character, on the ground that he was, with the
exception of the recommendation from the committee of the
National School Society, a perfect stranger, and he was not
in the habit of giving such recommendations to the masters.
The prisoner, it appeared, afterwards went to Mr. Markland
with a written recommendation, couched in glowing terms of
eulogy on the prisoner's character and attainments, and pro-
mising to become security for the rent. The prisoner obtained
possession of the house, and remained in it some time, when
it was discovered that the recommendation and guarantee
had not been written by Mr. Girdlestone.
On cross-examination by Dr. BROWN, Mr. Girdlestone
said, the prisoner was married, and had, when head-master
of Deane school, £35 per annum. He would not say that he
was a young man of considerable attainments, but he was a
young man of considerable professions. He was an artist,
and had taken a portrait of him (Mr. Girdlestone.) He
taught his daughter to write. He (Mr. Girdlestone) knew
that the prisoner was wishful, and had intended, to commence
a boarding-school, and both he and his curate were referees
as to the prisoner's complete competency for this undertaking.
Dr. BROWN took an objection to the instrument, that it
was not such an instrument as rendered the prisoner liable to
be indicted for forgery, nor such an one as bore out the term
guarantee used in the indictment.
His LORDSHIP held the objection to be valid, and a ver-
dict of acquittal under this indictment was taken.
There was another indictment against the prisoner for hav-
ing obtained four works from John Heaton, a bookseller, of
Bolton, under pretence that they were for Mr. Girdlestone.
Mr. Heaton supplied books for the library of the school at
Deane. The prisoner was, during the time he was master of
the school, in the habit of purchasing books on account of the
Deane school, and also on account of Mr. Girdlestone. On
the 13th August last, he went to Mr. Heaton's shop and or-
dered several articles, amongst which were some works on
natural history. On the following Monday he called, and in-
quired if the bookseller had received back the books on na-
tural history, and selected better books as those were not
approved of by Mr. Girdlestone. He selected Goldsmith's
work on Animated Nature, and directed it to be placed to
the Deane school account. He took the books away with
him. The prisoner had a private account of his own. Mr.
Girdlestone stated, that the prisoner bad no right to purchase
books for the library. At the time when the prisoner pro-
cured these books, Mr. Girdlestone was absent in Devonshire.
The prisoner was apprehended on the 9th Dec. He had with
him at the time, a man who carried his box, and is was stated
by the police-officer, that he was at the time ab,ezinding.
The four volumes of Goldsmith's work were found in the
box.

The jury acquitted the prisoner.
The court adjourned at half-past seven o'clock, to Monday
mor,mine_ - .
The felony cases having been all 'disposed or, the iiials
the chartists commence on Monday. ,

NISI PRIUS COURT-SATURDAY.

ASSAULT.7-DEANE V. EDWARDS AND OTHERS.

This was an action of assault, in which William Deane
was plaintiff. and Jonathan Edwards and William and Amy
Reed were the defendants.

Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Cromp-
ton; for the defendants, Mr. Alexander.
The jury found Wrn. Reed, not Guilty, Edwards and
Mrs. Reed, Guilty ; and the damages £3.

RAILWAY SHAD.LS.-DELL AND OTHERS VERO.

In this action Mr. Thomas Wm. Bell and Mr. Arthur
Valentine, the assignees of the estate and effects of Messrs.
Richardson and Thompson, bankrupts, were the plaintiffs,
and Mr. John Vero was the defendant. The action was
brought to recover the difference in value of 50 half-shares in
the Great Western Railway, alleged to have been sold by the
defendant to Messrs. Richardson and Thompson, and after-
wards withheld.

Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton were counsel for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Cowling for the de-
fence.

Mr. CRESSWELL, in opening the case for the plaintiffs,
said, that in this action the assignees of Messrs. Richardson
andThompsou sought to recover the damages to the estate of
the bankrupts sustained by reason of the non-fulfilment of a
contract to sell and deliver certain shares of the Great Wes-
tern Railway. The circumstances were these. :—Richardson
and Thompson had been partners in trade, and Mr. Vero was
a gentleman of property m this town, but carrying on no
business' though he occasionally speculated in shares.
Messrs. Okill and Cooke, share-brokers, on the 24th Janu-
ary, 1840, entered into an agreement to sell to. Messrs. Rich-
ardson and Thompson fifty half-shares in the Great Western
Railway, on which £5 had been paid, at the rate of £3 12s. 6d•
per share, or £1 7s. 6d. discount, the purchaser to pay the
calls due, and the seller allowing interest. Messrs. Richard-
son and Thompson employed Mr. J. C. Townley, share-
broker, to call on Messrs. Okill and Cooke, and take up di;
shares. On the 24th, Mr. Townley accordingly called, an
said, that, at the request of Messrs. Richardson and ThomP:
son, he had come to take up the shares, handing them b's
authority. Mr. Cooke looked at the paper, and said, "It iS
all right ; but our principal is not in town, and we cannot de-
liver them to you. He will, however, be in town iu a few
days." Mr. Townley called again, and saw Mr. Cooke, who
said, the calls, of which none had been paid, amounted to
considerable sum, about £2O on each half-share. Mr. T. re-
plied that he was then quite prepared to pay both the calls and
the price—that is, if the transfer were made. He, how'
ever, received the same answer, that their principal had not
come back, and that they could not complete the transaction
until his return. A day or two after, on the 28th or 29th 01
January, one of the firm of Richardson and Thompson, the
former he believed, committed an act of bankruptcy. u°
the 31st of January Mr. Townley called again on Messrs.
Okill and Cooke. and he was then told that Mr. Vero Way
the seller, and that he (Mr. Vero) had stated, that as Messrs'
Richardson and Thompson were bankrupts, he would n°'
complete the transaction ; that he was not bound to deliver
the shares to bankrupts, and that he would not do so ;.1"
point of fact, that they had been resold under the directioi;
of Mr. Vero. Richardson and Thompson having becol°l
bankrupts, of course Mr. Townley could do no more uutl
assignees were appointed. They were appointed, and after,'"
wards Mr. Townley waited on Messrs. Okill and Cooke,l
made a formal tender of the price of shares. He recelvv-_,
the same answer that he had previously received, and tber
was an end of the matter. The difference in value would be
this :—the shares were sold at a discount of £l.7s. 6d.: th°
first time that the defendant refused to complete the nil.
chase, they had attained a premium of £1 10s., making a au-
ference of £3 per share. ,
The contract having been put in, a
Mr. Thomas Clarke, share-broker, was then called, and
stated that the purchase of the 50 half-shares was made °,
the 20th of January, on the terms stated in the contract.
Cross-examined.—On the evening of the 20th Mr. Vero
went to Dublin, and returned on the 29th. The firm
Richardson and Thompson had become insolvent in t"0
meantime. He should say that they were not insolvent no`
the 24th or 25th. When Mr. Townley called, on the 2;
no tender of the money was made, nor any transfer oft
shares offered. On a subsequent day, perhaps a day or
after, Mr. Townley spoke of the intention of Messrs. Rico
ardson and Thompson with respect to the shares. He 1
sa,;
that they intended to sell the shares in the market, and
that he (witness) reminded Mr. Townley of what had been
said before. He said, " I thought that they were to req,
a lot of 50 shares which had been purchased from Mr. s.
Roskell." Mr. Townley said that that was originally Mona
Richardson and Thompson's intention ; but since they be
become insolvent, they would not do so, as that would 1,
shewing an undue preference to Mr. Roskell. He (";lbe
ness) could not say that he had asked for the name of
transferee, or for the money ; but he certainly did mentrbe
that they had not got the name of the transferree. t
30th of January the shares were resold at £5 per sbarelf
par. This was done in consequence of the instructionsthe
Mr. Vero, who had entered into an obligation to pal 00
calls in the month of January. The calls would fall doe or
the Ist of February, and amounted to £25 per 8/10%11-
£1250 altogether, exclusive of interest. Mr. Thompson alf
ed on the 25th or 26th, and stated that he applied on been
of the creditors, and that his assignees had not then "
appointed.
Mr. Charles James Townley stated, that, on the 24th tvo
January, he called at Messrs. Okill and Cooke's ofh.eitiere
have the contract completed. Mr. Cooke observed, that.':, o-
wes a specific understanding that the calls should be pal' ea-
mediately after the transfer. Witness replied, that he 0,3 s
dertook that the calls should be immediately paid. 14°,,u1a
told that Mr. Vero was out of town, and that nothing
be done until his return. On the 25th and 27th he went ngt, re-
On the latter day he was told that Mr. Vero had not It'ness)
turned, but that he would return on the 29th. (`;. oke
did not call on the 29th, as both Mr. Okill and xr' tarn'
had promised to let him know when Mr. Vero did r?
He met Mr. Cooke, on the Ist February, on the Stocl`thea
change, and went with him to his office. Mr. Cooke inej
told him that the shares had been resold. He then obtla.inel-
from Mr. Cooke a note stating that Mr. Vero was his P tia
pal. Nothing further was done till the assignees were
. ~s
ti
e
pointed, and, after that, he went and tendered the purt, 0
money, £lBl ss. It was refused. He had made no 3e t
_,ed,
tender of the money before that time ; but he had state
from the first, that he was ready to lay down the moue).* u.
Cross-examined.—lt was, he believed, on the 20th Febr