The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-10-30 00:00:00

when I sold to Thomas Peck sugar to the amount of £207
7s. Bd. The two brothers were debited with it. I have never
been paid.
Cross-examined.—They did not say that the Messrs. Cross-
field had refused them sugars. The same man came about a

week after, and gave me an order which would have amounted
to more than the last; but I, thinking that they could not
have consumed what they had got, declined to execute the

order.

Mr. John Power.-1 am a provision-merchant in Liver-
pool. I knew the brothels Peck, and have had transactions
with them. On the 11th April Joseph came and wanted two
hhds. of hams, which I refused to let him have, as there was
£9O due to me, and £l3O becoming due. He stated that he

.
had no hams to keep him going, and that if I would let him
have them he would pay his account on Monday. I agreed
to let him have a hale 0) go on with, and if he paid on Mon-

day he should have the hhds. He had previously used my
cart; but he then said, "No, no; your man asks drink."
He took the bale away in his own cart. A few days after I

saw the same bale, with one or two hams taken out, in the
warehouse in Lawton-street. It had the shipper's mark on
it. The whole sum which he owed me was £239. He came
again on Monday; but as he did not bring the money, I
would not let him have the goods.

Mr. Kirby, officer to the sheriff and sergeant-at-mace in
Liverpool.—On the 14th April 1 arrested the two Pecks,
and again on the 17th and 18th on two suits. I received

orders to take possession on the 19th. 1 went to London-
road. Mr. Samuel Peck was standing on the steps. I told
him my business; he followed me in, and said that all the
goods were his. His brothers owed him 1:600; andthey had
transferred those and other goods to him. He did not say
where the goods were; but he said that he had a warehouse
in Lawton-street and one in Stanhope•street, and claimed all.
On the 19th I took possession of a warehouse in Lawton-
street. There was a large quantity of butter and bacon,
together with cheese, tea, and sugar. The goods were all in
a disturbed state. I went to Stanhope-street also on the same
day, and took possession of a shop there. It was a closed
shop. There was a considerable quantity of provisions there,
of which I took possession. Took Joseph, and left Thomas
behind in London-road.

John M`Dermot.—l was shopman to the two defendants,
and was so in April last. There was in the shop a drawer;
it was under the shelf that held the cannisters ; the drawer
was locked. After Joseph had been taken away, Thomas
Philip went and unlocked the drawer. He put his hand in.
When be took his hand out, he turned round, and put it into
his trower's pocket. He then locked it again. It was never
opened again until the officers came, when there were found
in it a few papers.
Cross-examined.—l carry on the shop in London-road
now. 1 was accused of writing anonymom letters. I did
write several—six or seven. They were written in the be-
ginning of April. My employers had been pressed before by
their creditors. I was examined before the commissioner,
and was scolded very much by him for writing those letters.
Re-examined.—l wrote them because I thought they were
not carrying on their business fairly. The creditors were
calling for payment, and they were getting in more goods
than they used to do. A great deal of goods were removed
in cart loads from the shop, after they had been brought
there. The first load was taken away on the sth of April.

After that time, several curt-loads were taken away in one
day. The assignees put me in the shop as a reward for my
integrity. I had nothing but medit.
Mr. William Miller.—l am one of the partners of the
house of Miller and Peel. I remembet the creditors of the
Pecks meeting at my office. r. Bardswell was there.. The
defendants were both in custody at the lock-up. I was de-
sired to send for them; but I was not present when the l'ecks
were there. It was a matter of astonishment that I was not

asked to be present. I was solicitor to the creditors, and re-
quested to call the meeting. I made a communicat ion, under
the authority of the Pecks, to the creditors. I had bad some
conversation with the Pecks, and had learned what they were
able to do. The communication had some reference to that
—of the poundage which they could pay—but of the precise
nature of the pay I have no recollection.
Mr. attended the meeting of creditors on the 19th
of April. The two Pecks were not present. Mr. Miller was
present. The two brothers, Thomas and Joseph, were sent
for, and came. Mr. Miller did not come hack. They said
that they would go out and consult with him ; and when they
came back they said that they could pay about 4s in the pound.
That offer was rejected. The creditors wished them to *wake
an assignment; but they declined doing so unless they had
a release horn every creditor. They said that they owed their
brother Samuel £l5OO. We told them that unless they made
an assignment we could not give them a release. They par-
ticularly stated that the property iu Stanhope-street belonged
to Samuel. The creditors wished to have an assignment of

the whole four places, in London:road,Brounlow-hill, Law-
ton-street, and Stanhope-street. A dividend has been made;
but I do know what it is exactly—it is somewhere about 4s.
I never knew until that time that they had any shops in Stan-
hope-street and Lawton-street.
Mr. Powell.—Before the arrest I had some conversation
with Thos. Philip Peck. I asked hiaLabout the state of his
affairs, and he said that they were perfectly satisfactory to
himself. 1 asked him if by that he meant that he could pay
20s. in the pound, and he said that it was not a proper ques-
tion. I saw him afterwards, and I told him that as he had
been receiving £lOO a week, and had been paying nothing.
I should think that he had large sum of money. He replied
that they might pay 4s. in the pound; but if they were
driven to bankruptcy they could not pay more than 2s. Gd.
We have received a dividend of 6s. Bd. At the meeting of
creditors I asked bins some questions, and they replied that
the property in Stanhope-street belonged to their brother
Samuel. They owed him £1,500, and they had given him the
property as a security. I said that Samuel was only a man
receiving 245. i week, and bow was it that he became pos-
sessed of so much money ? That, they said, they`knew no-,
thing about. The whole of their liabilities was about £4OOO.
Mr. Wynch accompanied Mr. Kirby to Lawton-street, and
they found there a heterogeneous mass of provisions. In
Stanhope-street there was a quantity of bacon in the cellar;
sonic cheese in what should have been the sitting-room, and
hams hanging up iu the shop. The nett proceeds for the
goods found there, after deducting all charges, was £773.
They had been sold, perhaps, at a reduction of £lO per cent.
I found some tea in the warehouse in Lawton street, which I
could identify. I was at the meeting of creditors, and I re-
collect the Pecks stating that they had no property in Lon-
don-road; they had set it to their brother. While is prison,
- they sent frequent communications to me, stating that they
might be able to make disclosures which would liberate them-
selves and their brother. On calling with au attorney, how-
ever, they refused to say any thing. I afterwards received a
communication through
-tie chaplain of the gaol; but, as

they were in the hands of justice, I refused to interfere.
Mr. David Prukerton.—l am an attorney, resident it
Crosby. I remember Joseph coming to me on Good Friday,
the 13th April. He said that he and his brother owed Samuel
a sum of money, and they wanted to transfer the shop and
stock in London road to him. I came to town and saw
the three brothers that day. I then merely took their in-
structions; but on the Saturday I went again to Brownlow-
hill. I took their instructions, and drew out the draft. (The
draft was produced and identified by witness.) The draft
was read over, approved, and afterwards engrossed by me on
a 355, stamp, at their house. The amount of consideration
was £6OO. It was executed by the conveying parties, and I
left it on the table before the three brothers. I was one of
the witnesses; the shopman was another.
A notice to produce the original had been given: but de-
fendants' counselsaid that they had not got it. Mr. MURPH Y
objected to the draft being received, on account of the stamp
not being sufficient. The RECORDER would allow the draft
to be read, but would take a note of the objection.
Mr. Pinkerton.—The draft is not an accurate copy; there
is some difference in the names, but the description is correct.
The substance is precisely the same. The draft did iu fact
transfer the stock-in-trade and good-will to Samuel for the
consideration mentioned. I went and gave Samuel posses.
sion. In the name of the goods I gave him a ham, and a
coffee-mill affixed to the shop for the fixtures, and fur the
good-will the coffee-mill answered. The deed was then
executed. There were directions given to the shopman to
change the name from Thomas Philipand Joseph to Samuel,
' and one of the former said that the servants were to consider
Samuel as their master. 1 never before in my life executed
a deed on the premises.
Cross•examined.—l knew them before, but only by sight.
I cannot telt why they applied to me. Thos. Philip Peck I
paid for the stamp and deed-355. for the former, and £2 for
the latter.
Mr. Youd.—When they were in gaol, they wrote to me two
letters. I went to the gaol and sate the two defendants.
There was a lengthy conversation, and I told the Pecks that
if they would give up the £5OO which was supposed to have
been taken bv Thomas Philip Peck from the drawer in the
shop] and throw themselves on the mercy of the creditors,
we should not pursue the case further. They seemed to say
that they had not so much as the £5OO referred to. They
said that they would not like to give the whole of the money
up, as they wished to have something to start the world with
when they came out. The bell then rang, and I left; I did
not call again, though I then promised to do so. They said
that they could pay about £3OO, but no more.
Mr. Houlgrave.—Mr. Saml. Peck has been in my service
as a cooper for twelve years, at the rate of 21s. a week. He
has a wife and seven children.
Cross-examined.—His character during that period has
been very good. He had, as I have heard, £250 by his first
wife, and had saved £lOO more.
This terminated the case for the prosecution.
• Mr. Mcitestv then addressed the jury in defence of his
clients. He said that the jury ought to be perfectly satisfied
that there had been a conspiracy with intent to defraud cer-
tain persons. The mere fact of their having purchased goods,
even to an extent greater than they required, was no proof
of an intent to defraud. They had carried on an increasing
business for many years, and with perfectly fair and honour-
able characters. flow, then, could it be supposed that they
had at once changed their whole natures, and commen ed a
conspiracy of the natnre with which they were charged? Tne •
whole secret of the affair was plain to all. The characters of
the defendants had been tarnisikr d and rendered suspicioui
by the secret actions, the anunnous letters, sit' a disrei,ute
able servant ; and they, when 'they found that their charac-
ters were going, endeavoured to prevent inevitable ruin by
drawing around them a stock of goods, to serve their rice,,-
sary purposes until they had again the opportunity of re-esta-
blishing themselves. The establishment of their brother Sa-
muel in two places, was merely a necessary result of the For-
tner act:, his two shops were opened fur the purpose of hav-
ing a greater outlet for the greater quantity of goods which
they had on hand. But that there was any conspiracy to
defraud, he could not for a moment believe. The fact which
had been paraded as the most striking proof of dishonesty,
cats the so called abstraction by one of the brothers of 1.:506
from a drawer in the shop: but he begged them to remember
that there was not one tittle of legal evidence to support that
charge. He should repeat it, that the mere naked fact of
possession was nothing. They might have had twenty thou-
sand times that amount of goods in their possession, and still
that was nor crhne. They must be satisfied that there had
been a previous determination to defraud, er the defendants
could not bp found guilty of the charge contained in the in-
dictment. The means which the defendants had taken (when
well-earned independence was sinking from beneath them
through the conduct of a viperous servant) to uphold them-
selves in the world, might have sprung from a wrong notion;
but be maintained that there was no proof of an intention to
defraud. It was an utter impossittility that men of irre-
proachable honesty could in one fortnight sink into depths of
dishonesty and crime.
The Learned Recommit summed up. He said that the
charge contained in the indictment was a specific one, and
did consist in the mere fact of getting goods, but getting
them with a predetermination not to pay. He went minutely
through the evidence, and said that if the jury were satisfied
that the goods bad been accumulated with the intention of
tieing appropriated to their own private purposes, and with
no bona fide intention to pay, then the principal charge con-
tained iu the first count of the indictment was undoubtedly
proved. The jury, then, as twelve intelligent men, would
have to say whether, looking at all the circumstances of the
case, the whole transaction struck them as one of over-tra-
ding, or as a conspiracy to derraud.
The jury, after consulting together for a few moments, re-
tired for consultation.
Mr. COTTINGH AAI then said that the learned gentleman
who had conducted the case for the defendants, had thought
proper to attribute vindictive motives to the creditors iu
nringing the present action; and he felt himself bound, as
he was instructed, to state that their sole object had been the
public good. He should be extremely sorry that any such
• ialse impression should go abroad as that the prosecutors
were actuated by vindictiveness.—Mr. JAMES (in the ab-
sence of Mr. Murphy) thought lie might rake upon him to
state that Mr. Murphy had had no intention of attributing to
the prosecutors any vindictive motive.
After an absence of about a quarter of an hour, the jury
returned, and gave in a verdict of guilty against the three
defendants.
The ItEcORDEn then briefly addressed the prisoners, after
which he sentenced Themes Philip Peck and Joseph Peck to
, be imprisoned for two )-cars, and Samuel Peck fur one year.
With this case, which occupied the court until nearly five
o'olvck, the bteineas of the seesionsdr:ourt terminated.