The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-09-29 00:00:00

YESTERDAY

ROBBING A STABLE.
Two men, named Robert Hughes and John Hughes, were
charged with having stolen a quantity of horse gearing from
the stable of a man named Meacock, near Brunswick Dock,
on the morning of Thursday, the 27th instant. -Police-offi-
cer No. 449 saw one of the prisoners in the neighbourhood
of the stable on the morning of the' robbery, but, before he
was aware it had been committed, on Saturday he met with
him,again, and'at the same time it was ascertained that the
other prisoner had sold the property to a dealer in such ar-
ticles tbr 2s. tid. Mr. Rushton censured the conduct of the
buyer for purchasing the articles without enquiry. Both the
prisoners were committed for trial.
• Charles Rocklington was committed to the borough jail for
one month, for breaking open a seaman's chest, with intent
to rob it.

THE CASE OP ALLEGED EMBEZLEMENT.
James Leathom, whose case is briefly noticed iu our police
reports of Friday, was again placed at the bar. Mr. Pritt,
of the firm of Messrs. Avison and Pritt, appeared on behalf
of Messrs. Lovatt and Taylor, and the prisoner was defended
by Mr. Devenport:

Mr. Pritt stated he had two additional cases to bring against
the prisoner. One was a case in which he had been paid money
by Mr. James Whylock, a tea dealer and grocer in Birming-
ham. In July last he received a sum from Mr. Whylock
which he had not accounted for, but he had accounted for
money received from him subsequently.
Mr; Rushton said one great difficulty in the case was the
fact that there had been an omission by the prosecutors to ac-
count.

Mr.. Pritt mentioned' that there were three cases in which
the prisoner had received money and not accounted for it.
This, he considered, was sufficient to rebut any inference from
the fact of omission.
Mr. Rushton.—l suppose you mean to give evidence in ad-
dition to that you offered on Friday ? •
Mr. Pritt replied in the affirmative. He had received
money in July which he had not accounted for.
Mr. Rushton desired the case to proceed.
Mr. Davenport thought it right to mention that the case
had been in negociation for the last month, with a view to
settle it.
Mr. Rushton.—What do you mean by negociation ?
Mr. Davenport.—A negociation for ins arrangement where-
by the prisoner might give security for the amount.
• Mr. Rushton.—lf you have done anything of that kind,
you have made a debt of it.
Mr. Pritt said he had been careful not to make any elec-
tion under the statute.
'Mr. Rushton.—All criminal courts regard with peculiar
jealousy the following up of any arrangement of that kind in
a Charge of felony.

Mr. Pritt was aware of that, but he believed none of the
nature described had been entered into.
Mr. Davenport said the evidence of Mr. Taylor, one of the
prosecutors, would be very important to the prisoner, and
unless he were present it would be impossible to go ou.
Mr. Pritt said Mr. Taylor was in court, and would be

Mr. Richard Taylor was then sworn. He said he was in
partnership with Mr. Lovatt, and the prisoner was in their
employment as a traveller. He did not recollect when he first
discovered that the prisoner had not accounted for all the
sums he had received from their customers; but it was some-
time in August when witness was from home.

Mr. Rushton.—Did you speak to Mr. Lovett on the sub-
ject] .

Mr. Taylor replied that when he returned home Mr. Lo-
vatt told him of the prisoner's defidcations. Afterwards the
witness received a letter from a customer of the firth, stating
that he had paid a previous account to-Mr. Leathom. Wit-
ness, in consequence, proceeded to Birmingham after the
prisoner, who was then on his journey, and he admitted ha-
ving received about £l3O for which he had not accounted.
The prisoner wished to proceed on his journey, but witness
refused to allow him, and they returned to Liverpool. The
account was gone over with Mr. Loiatt, and the prisoner
then admitted having received £7O upon the whole for which
he had not accounted. Witness the same evening wrote
letters to all the customers of the firm in the country, desir-
ing them to state whether their respective accounts were cor-
rect or not. In the course of a week replies were received
from nearly all of them, and in twenty-one instances they
were found to be wrong.

Mr. Rusbton.—Thi;would bring the. date to the ht Sep-
tember when you ascertained the balance ?

The witness replied that it would be about the first week
in September. When it was ascertained, witness told the
prisoner to meet him at Mr. Pritt's office. He did so; witness
then told him the deficiency, and he replied it was only about
£250 or £3OO. The prisoner called on witness the next day
to go over the accounts, and after that had been done, he
acknowledged the deficiency to be about £5OO.
Mr. Rushton.—Did you ever, in your communications
with him, undertake to settle the matter by way of security
for the re payment of the money ?—I never pledged myself
to anything at all, one way or another
Did you make any offer to him
curitv

—He offered to give se-

You never did ?—I never proposed it.
Did you accept the offer which he made ?—No, we did not.
Then why did you delay charging him here.?—Mr. Lovatt
was from home. and I did not know what his feelings were
upon the subject. Mr. Lovatt went away under the impres-
sion that the deficiency was not more than £7O, and when be
returned we gave the prisoner into custody.

Mr. Pritt.----Mr. Leathom made propOsals at my office to
give security for the amount of the deficiency, and I was very
careful not to make any selection.

Cross-examined by Mr. Davenport.—l think it was on the
Ist of September, after I had returned from Birmingham,
that I met the prisoner at Messrs. Avison and P&itt's office.
I went over the account with him. Whenever there were
any arrears of account before, we invariably placed them to
his debit.

Mr. Rushton.—Did you permit him to overdraw his ac-
count ?—He has overdrawn it.

Was this £5OO which you now charge him with embezzling
an overdrawn account ?—Certainly not ; he has now an over-
drawn account to the amount of £4O or £5O, but that has
nothing to do with this case.

\Vas-that money which he had received from your en,,-
tomers?—Yes : it was the balance of his account of that

journey

Mr. Davenport.—When you were at Messrs. Avison and
Pritt's office, did you not propose to ensure the prisoncr'S
life ?—He proposed to insure his life.
Did you not accede to that proposal ?—At the time we were
in the office, I considered if be had given us the money, or
shewn us clearly that we could get it, I might have acceded
to the propcisal ; but I did not, as Mr. Lovatt was away.
Was not a proposal made that he should insure his -life in
the Scottish Union Fire and Life Insurance Office.---le pro-
posed to insure his life for £5OO, and to give security for the
payment of £BO a-year, the premium ; but as we were not
satisfied with the security he offered, we did not accede to
the proposal at all.
Do you know Mr. Tweedle

'—l do

Has he not seen you upon the matter of the insurance
Yes.

Do you not know, in consequence of what took place at Air•
Pritt's office, that a policy was effected upon the prisoner
life in that office ?—lt was not in consequence of Mr. Twee&
calling upon us.
Mr. Rusliton.—Will you be so good, Mr. Taylor, as to
answer the question which is this—DO you or do you not
know that a policy of insurance for £5OO was opened in the
Scottish Union Office on the prisoner's life for your benefit ?
—Yes, I know that.

And was that with your sanction and approbation ?—I did
not object to it.
Did you desire it to be done ?
done

—lt was left to himself to be

Did you desire it to be done ?—The prisoner merely said
he had been told it would be the best way for him to do, 39.°
give security for the payment of so much a year till the deb'
ciency was liquidated, but we were not satisfied with the
security.

Mr. Davenport.—Did you ever meet Mr. Tweedle in the.
street ?—I do not recollect : Mr. Tweedle called upon me, no

—, -
in the street, and said Mr. Leathom wished him to call upon
me respecting the insurance, but I told him we would not
pledge ourselves to anything.
How long was that after the meeting at Mr. Pritt's office?
--I do not recollect; I think it was only a few days.
Did Dr. Macrorie call upon you ?—I did not see him.
Did you make any use of a document brought to you by
Dr. Macrorie about the prisoner's life ?—One was brought to
me.

Mr. Rushton.—What was that ?—lt was to answer sole
questions as to the prisoner's state of health to guide hin► Ia

the insurance,

Mr. Daveuport.--Did you put your hand to that paper ?"-
I had it in my hand.
Did not Mr. Leathom call for it at your office
he did.
or
. Did he not understand it was for the express purpose
securing you the money in arrear ?—lt was his intention

'-1 sup Poe,

Mr. -11:ashton.—Dos that policy exist ?
\Vitness.—l have not seen it.
Mr. Davenport.—lt is in progress if it does not. exist, Pr
everything has been done to effect it.

Mr. Rushton.—There certainly appear to have been CO'i
siderable negotiations upon this matter; but I underst3ll,
Mr. Taylor to state that he never consented to the proposii'd
arrangement. I understand you [to the witness] to so',,,
"
~ that you never did consent to an arrangement.;,
receive this policy as a security, and to treat the defalesti°-
as a matter of debt ?

me now

Witness.—We should have received it, but the .securitY to
Mr. Rushton.—Do you answer the question. desir° ,c
administer. justice between you'and the unfortunate 013,9}0-0
the bar, but I must do so upon some certain rules.
your answer will depend the course 1 must take. 1 noWL,
you again—did you, or did you not enter into r..,,,,i5t%-4
„
with the prisoner to treat the defalcation of his as a dent,v
did you receive his proposals to enter into any security ~,,
the repayment ?—I must answer in the affirmative, as tar
that goes--we should have received his offer had there bee
good security

—I submit that Mr. Taylor does not understai4

Mr. Plitt.
the question.
Mr. Rushton.—Then I shall be glad if you will put it to
him in a plainer form. I have put it as plainly as I can. e
Mr. Pritt—[to the witness].—Did you assent to take 6°La
definite security for the debt?
The
Mr. Rushton.—That was not my question, Mr. Pritt. -no
question is not definite security, but any security. It
doubt art embarrassing situation for any gentleman t° „
placed in, but I ton sure Mr. Taylor will answer the questil,
Mr. Pritt.—llave you ever said, Mr. Taylor, that
would take the security offered.
Mr. Rushton.—No, no, that will not do ; did you confeve
to take any security to treat the defalcation as a debt ?----301,
should have taken security if good security had been 00110
Mr. Davenport.—And you have been acting under t"
impression from the time you discovered the prisoner to be
defaulter ?—Yes.
Mr. Rushton.—Did you negociate for three weeks ore•
month after you found out the defalcation.—There was a 00,
gociation : the fact is, I would not tell him what I should, ~
You have answered the question first in the affirmsnj
and now you qualify it. Was it so—yes or no ?—We sh°l3
have taken the offer if we could have had good security• 0
Mr. Davenport.—Do you know that a gentleman `I
mentioned as one security ?—Yes, he was.
And he said he would get another ?—lle said he would tri
to get another.

And the thing has been hanging on in this way ever since'
For the last ten days nothing more has been done. •
Mr. Rushton.—The only question you have to ausseel ►
to
whether or not you have negotiated with the prisonee.,
treat this as a matter of debt, and that failing seed,ridi,i
you now come here and charge him with felony
not like to do anything till Mr. Lovatt came home. 00
Mr. Pritt having said he could throw some light out",
case, was then sworn. lie said that Mr. I, e! oai and ;'ll,e
Taylor called at his office and the accounts were g°,,
through, when there appeared to be a considerable differed‘o
as to the amount of defalcation. After Mr. Leathom
gone witness advised with Mr. Taylor. Mr. Lovatt,
lieved, was then from Lome. Witness advised Mr. fril?„tf
that the-best comse to take would be to keep the prisonci,-,,
and on : he proposed to insure his life, and mentioneair
gentleman's name as a security. It appeared that the gol .
t.
man had employed the prisoner as an agent, to the neglecka
Messrs. Lovatt and Taylor's business ; and as not
satisfactory could be done, it was determined that the at to
should assume the nature of felony. No assent to treat I`
a debt was ever given before witness. pig
Mr. Davenport observed that the receipt of the docume
from►MDr. Maerorie was unitnown to Mr. Plitt. ot
r. Prat believed that Mr. Taylor had never assented
it, but had given it hack without observation.
Mr. Rushton said, this was a case which required comOcciii,
tion on his part. A grievous wrong bad been done, a br7ot
of trust of great magnitude had been committed, the evloo
which` was enormous in a large commercial community 104
this. It was his duty to take care that the prisoner wOeore
sent for trial without proper precaution ; he should there'
take time to consider the case.
Mr. Davenport requested permission to cross-exam tbe
ide
Mr. Taylor further, when the case again came before

court.
el
Mr. Rushton thought the cross-examination had Lit
concluded. It was upon the evidence now before him 0"
he should take time to consider.
Mr. Davenport then cross-examined Mr. Taylor at On'
Siderablc length. tber
st
Mr. Rushton said it all resolved into the question ile
any arrangement was proposed by the prisoner and sanctio'4l,
by the prosecutors, to give security for and treat the de'
cation as a matter of debt.
Mr. Taylor.—The prisoner was making arrangements.
Mr. Rushton.—Was that with your sanction and aPPIII
bation ?

Mr. Taylor.—Of course it_was.
Mr. Rushton.—Do you swear that?
Mr. Taylor.—lt was with our sanction I believe.
Mr. Pritt said this was quite consistent with the advicod
had given. Mr. Lovatt was from home at the time, oif
witness advised that it would be better to keep the matter
and on till his return.

Mr. Rushton.—When (lid Mr. Lovatt return ?
Mr. Taylor.—Last Saturday week. err
Mr. Rushton.—When did Mr. Lovatt know about the
falcation? wa

Mr. Pritt replied, that when Mr. Lovatt went awl r
thought the defalcation was only £7O.
Mr. Rushton having ascertained that Mr. Davenport ,pd
no further questions to ask upon the point he had raised'
journed the ease till three o'clock. At three o'clock Mr. Rushton proceeded to deliver big
cision. Before he commenced, 'I
I/
Mr. Pritt saiel Mr. Taylor wished to give some exP-1°
tion of his evidence, if the courttad no objection. be
Mr. Taylor then said, that when he was asked whethe
00,
ever negociated with the prisoner, he did not properly id'
derstand the-question. He never had negociated with utbe
He thought the question applied to merely talking nvelsoi
matter with him ; but he bad never made or accepteu
proposition to make the defalcation into a debt. Mr.
Mr. Davenport said he had known several cases when vi
Hall presided in this court, in Which he would not 23%0
criminal charge to be brought against a party after negociat'
for a settlement.
Mr. Rushton said that, as a general principle, he COP tit'
red in it, but in this case there seemed to be nothing' Oho'
met and positive on the nature of the negociations, as tOd
.10
tify him in foregoing the commitment. There scone do'
have been many communications with the accused, and soot
position to take the money, if a satisfactory arrange,"
could be made, but those communications did not assl4o,
positive aspect that there should be no further proceoifer
He did not think that the negociations had assumed a In
ture to bring them within the general principle desorihVoder
Mr. Davenport, upon which he had himself acted•
these circumstances, he felt it his duty to go into the erl"''oo,c
Mr. James Whylock, tea dealer and grocer, of Birmingi,t
proved that in July last he paid the prisoner, on accn°l"so,l
Messrs. Lovatt and Taylor, two sums of £37 12s. tki"

. _
.
£32 10s., id, _ __
ode
Mr. Staines, of the firm of Walker and Staines, wiht'leoti'
grocers, Birmingham, proved that in June he paid the:pc'
soner £2O 19s. 9d., and another gum of 1.:20 14s. 10d, °"

count of his employers

(1 beet

14, het bt,,i'l.
et
1.,
jets

Iv is and
oe, od
ittee