The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-01-18 00:00:00

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT,

IN RE W. F. FARLIY.—RAISING MONEY UNDER
POST-OFFICE STAMPS.—This insolvent was opposed by
Mr. Cooke for Messrs. Evans and Payne. The trade
debts amounted to £1,700. It appeared that the insolvent
had kept a toy-shop, and was appointed letter-receiver by
the posttoffice authorities, for which he was paid £56
a-year. On the postoffice being removed from his house,
he was found " wanting " in the sum of £331 17s. 4d.—
Mr. Cooke put several•questions to the insolvent, and
from his replies, it transpired that he had been in the habit
of pawning postage stamps, and that he had disposed of as
many as twenty-five to thirty pounds' worth at a time in
this way. Altogether he had raised about £3OO upon his
" government security." The rate at which the money
was lent him was 10 per cent., receiving from the pawn-
broker £lB for every £2O worth of stamps,—Mr. Cooke
submitted that the pawnbroker who had sanctioned this
dishonest traffic must be entered as a creditor, and must
also be examined.—The Commissioner said there was no
doubt whatever that the insolvent had wilfully left all
mention of these transactions out of his schedule, for the
purpose of screening himself and the pawnbroker. A
traffic in government stamps—which the insolvent had re-
ceived from the crown to sell in his official capacity—
would never be sanctioned. The matter must be sifted
to the bottom, and the whole particulars set forth. The
case would therefore stand adjourned for a week.—Ad-
journed accordingly.

MR. SEYMOTJR'S DEFENCE OF REID.-Mr. Seymour,
like Mr. C. Phillips, whose example he has followed, is
an Irishman. It is important to the English bar that it
should.be asserted, that the principles enunciated by Mr.
Seymour are, as it would appear, merely importations
from the other side of the channel, and are not born and
bred, and domiciled on our own soil. Mr. Seymour as-
serts that counsel is bound to preserve the secret reposed
in him in professional confidence, So far be is right.
Counsel is not bound to read his brief to the jury. He is
also, says Mr. Seymour, equally bound "to frame the
best defence in his power from the evidence given at his
trial." Here lurks the fallacy. This is the truth, but not
the whole truth. He should have added, " provided that
in doing so he violates no moral obligation ;" and a fore-
most duty is, that we shall inflict no wrong upon others
even for our advantage. The definition of the duty of
counsel we take to be this. He is to say for the prisoner
what he might say for himself had he the ability. His
business is to show to the court, not so much that the
prisoner is or is not guilty of the crime charged, as that he
is not legelly proved to be guilty ; and this he may do,
even with a full knowledge of guilt in fact, without the
slightest violation of the strictest morality. But, in doing
this, 'religion and morality forbid the resort to falsehood of
any kind, and humanity unites with them in denouncing
so monstrous an injustice as the attempt to shift the
o]urge from the guilty to the innocent.—Law Times.,