The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-01-18 00:00:00

He had at one time had a policy upon his life for £l,OOO •,
but be had no stock, and no cash except £7OO which
he borrowed, £4OO of which he obtained from his father.
Having borrowed this money, he obtained from the
Messrs. Tann fire-proof cases for sale. This fact was a most
material one, because if the business was not upon his own
account, and the Messrs. Tann were the real parties, then
it would be found that Mr. Harrison had throughout been
guilty of the grossest fraud—designed, as the scheme
evidently was, to defeat the just claims of Mr. Milner ;
but if no such agreement did exist between the parties,
then there would be exhibited on the part of Harrison a
most reckless disregard of consequences, inasmuch as he
knew sufficiently well that he was liable to litigation. Ho
had stated in his examination that all the goods he sold
he had received from the Messrs. Tann. In the month of
June, 1851, the Messrs. Milner commenced an action
against the bankrupt for a yiolation of their patent, which
was ultimately decided in favour of the plaintiffs, and the
costs incurred in that action by the bankrupt amounted to
the sum of £4OO. The costs of the Messrs. Milner
amounted to £335. Although the rights of the Messrs.
Milner had thus been established by the action, the
illegal proceedings of Mr. Harrison were not discontinued.
He still persisted in selling the safes which were
the patent of Messrs. Milner' and in consequence of
this an injunction was applied for and granted. About
this period, however, a very remarkable transaction took
place, which would form one of the grounds for opposing
the bankrupt. After the first action had been decided, in
the month of December, 1851, he made an assignment
of all his property to a trustee of the name of Taylor, on
behalf of himself and a man named Thomas, from which
proceeding it became evident, that if the case was ulti-
mately decided in favour of the Messrs. Milner, they
should be handed over for their costs to a man of straw.
No one could help perceiving that these proceedings were
adopted for the purpose of defeating the jast claims of the
Messrs. Milner. If successful, then Mr. Tann would have
been responsible ; but if the patent were established Mr.
Tann would not be involved, and the Messrs. Milner would
have no one to go to for their costs but Mr. Harrison—a man
of straw. The battle was, in fact, being fought with the
bankrupt, while the Messrs. Tann, whose manufactured
safes he was selling, were the teal party. From all the
circumstances of the case, it was evident, either that the
bankrupt had been guilty of the grossest fraud in being
put forward as the nominal party, and that even after he
had signed away his property, or he had been guilty of
the greatest recklessness in pursuing suit after suit in re-
sisting Messrs. Milners' patent. His business still went
on, and from the period of that assignment taking place,
he sold upwards of a hundred safes. In consequence of
this, it appeared necessary that Messrs. Milner should
bring a second action, and that action was brought in the
beginning of the year 1852. It was tried in the month of
June, and was also decided in favour of the Messrs. Milner.
The whole amount to which the bankrupt then became
liable was £1,300. Suddenly, in the course of a Monday,
the whole of the goods were removed from his shop,
and stored in the house of a trustee, somewhere in
King-street. Even the whole of his household furni-
ture was found to have been assigned. In the meantime
an execution had been issued, and placed in the hands of
the officers, to levy upon the property of Mr. Harrison ;
but on proceeding to the premises of that person they
found that the whole of the property was swept away, and
the shop shut. Since then, Messrs. Milner had not been
able to obtain any redress. He submitted that the bank-
rupt was not a party who was entitled to the protection
of that act, which was meant only for the benefit of the
honest tradesman. In this case the party must, in the
first place, have been perfectly aware, from the know-
ledge he had of Messrs. Milner's patent, that in so
selling of patent_safes, he

ope-ninz his shop for the

"'' ' her

was rendering himself open to litigation. ±
conduct had been most dishonest, if Messrs. Tann were
the real parties, or most reckless if they were not,
in pursuing a course which he must have known would
lay him open to an action. It was likewise quite clear
that the assignment was fraudulent—a gross fraud, indeed,
when taken in connection with the fact that Messrs.
Milner's right to the patent had been clearly decided by
the judgment in the first action. Having commenced
business without having either stock or money of his own
--having been perfectly aware of the danger he was run-
ning—and having still persisted in selling safes on a large
scale after the termination of the first action—he (the
learned counsel) thought he was fully entitled to call upon
the court to mark its sense of the case by a long suspen-
sion of the certificate ; for Mr. Harrison had gone on
incurring law expenses to a serious amount—a course
perfectly avoidable by the exercise of the most common
prudence.
Mr. Bardswell said he appeared on the part of the bank-
rupt, to support the application for a certificate. He con-
tended that the bankrupt was entitled to a certificate of the
first class. He confessed that he had been a good deal
amazed at the statements of the learned counsel for the
Messrs. Milner, who had thought proper to indulge in ex-
pressions ill-becoming the person whom he represented.
ft was alleged that the bankrupt put himself forward to
fight the battles of the Messrs. Tann—that he was a man
of straw—that he had recklessly incurred expenses, know-
ing all the time that the Messrs. Milner would lose their
own expenses. But if the Messrs. Milner had been so much
injured, as it was alleged, by Mr. Harrison selling the
natent safe's, why did they not proceed against the Messrs.
Tann, the manufacturers ? No I they elected to go
against Mr. Harrison, purely out of a feeling of vindic-
tiveness, and why ? Mr. Harrison had for some time
been in the employment of the Messrs. Milner ; but,
for some reason or other, he thought he could
better himself, and he certainly had a perfect right to do
so. The fact was, Mr. Harrison was aware that the
Messrs. Tann had a patent for safety boxes. He there-
fore had an interview with them,_ and made an arrange-
ment to become the agent for the sale of their boxes in
Liverpool. Was there any harm in this ? He was aware
of the fact that for six years the Messrs. Milner had
patiently and quietly allowed the Messrs. Tann to manu-
facture and sell patent boxes without interference. The
first action against Mr. Harrison was commenced in 1851,
and it was quite true that in this action Messrs. Milner
obtained a verdict in their favour ; but they all knew that
in the case of a patent the verdicts of a jury were very pre-
carious. And the bankrupt did not go recklessly to law ;
hehad the opinions of counsel before he proceeded to defend
the actions. The proceedings had ruined the bankrupt ; but
that was exactly Messrs. Milner's object, and now they
complained of having obtained their purpose. And Mr.
Milner, it must be recollected, got an injunction against
Mr. Harrison to restrain him from selling, not the boxes
which had been bought from the Messrs. Tann, for it was
only against selling Messrs. Milner's patents. Moreover,
a commitment, which was applied for on thoS ground of
his infringing the injunction, had been refused by the
Vice-Chancellor, who said that, as there were questions
of fact and law involved, an action at law must direct
them. In those actions Mr. Harrison was strongly ad-
vised that he would succeed. He thought the only
objection that could be raised to a certificate being
granted was, that he made an assignment of his goods in
the month of Oct. 1851, transferring certain portions of his
property to Mr. Taylor, as a trustee for himself and the
rest of the creditors, who had lent him between £7OO and
£BOO at the period of his commencing business, Mr. Har-
rison having at that time a little property of his own.
This deed was executed with the consent of the Messrs.
Tann ; and, if the bankrupt had wished to be dishonest,
and to deprive the Messrs. Milner of the fruits of their
verdict, he might have got rid of the whole of that pro-
perty in a very different manner from that in which he
did part with it. He might have returned all the boxes
to Messrs. Tann ; but he had bought them, and what is
more he had paid for them, and so they were his own.
What, then, did he do with them ? The boxes were re-
moved to a place of safety, and there was no attempt on
the part of the person to whom they were transferred to
dispose of them, although they might have been con-
verted into money if the bankrupt had p:eased. The
property was now in the same position in which it was
at the time the deed was executed, and so far from wish-
ing to take advantage of this deed—so far from wishing
litigation—so far from wishing trouble and expense—they
were willing and ready to give it for the general benefit of
the creditors. In his opinion that was not a fraudulent
transaction. He hoped his Honour would be of opinion
that this was a case in which the 'opposition was brought
forward solely from a vindictive feeling.
The bankrupt was then examined in support of certain
statements made by his solicitor, in the course of the
preceding observations. He stated that Messrs. Tann
had a manufactory for their safety boxes in London
during the whole time that the Messrs. Milner had a place
for the sale of their boxes in London : those safes were
the subject of dispute between him and Messrs. Milner.
During the suits against him he acted under the advice of
counsel at every step. The Messrs. Milner had threatened
him for fifteen months before the first action took place.
Mr. Hindmarsh was one of the counsel whose opinion he
received. An attachment had been applied for against
him, which had been refused. A bill of exceptions had
been tendered by him at the last action, but pecuniary
, circumstances would not permit him to carry the
case further. He acted under the advice of counsel, in
the second as well as in the first action. [Cross-
, examined by Mr. Blair.] The premises occupied by the
, Messrs. Tann were in Hackney-road. They had no place
of husinesein Liverpool until he opened his establishment.
Their manufactory was in London, and they resided
there ; but he did not think they had any place of busi-
; ness in this district. The Messrs. Tann had branch es-
tablishments at Wolverhampton and Glasgow, and he
believed also at Edinburgh and Aberdeen. The place at
Wolverhampton is under a person named Walters, who is
a lockmaker and makes Tann's locks. After he set up
i business he did not make any arrangement for the estab-
lishment of these branches. Before he left Messrs. Mil-
ner's service he had been sent to London to see the
; specifications of Messrs. Tann's patent. He could not
swear whether he did or did not say that Messrs. Tann
were using the principle of Messrs. Milner's non-con-
ductors.
Mr. Blair here put in a letter of the bankrupt to the
Messrs. Milner, written while he was in London, stating
that he had inspected Messrs. Tann's patent, and that it
" altogether appears clear to me that they are using your
principal of non-conductors."
Cross-examination resumed :—The list of witnesses
examined were substantially the same in both trials. The