The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-18 00:00:00

199127: iNTRLI4IO7!NOi

CROWN COURT-FRID

i'dget Di

CASES OF FELONY

ii'7;
,edtO
$
vev

ageve
o
b°l er
ro.rtb
obls
'cho

eecoli;
'lee o

•
Ji) joil
g tile
'stir

If
i s •ocy
0

13 co;
er
co'
o
or 04
fe,
ii 000"

tiff
fel3flier
05e oe'
t ift
[lieeAr
1-10 Ole

Prior"
'Cl'
7 Ye

SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZES

r. She stood cbarAcd

It having a-ssault piaceu at the
vereigns ed and robbed Catharine Shaw, of ten so-
, on the 30th of August last, at the bottom of
Crosbie-street, in this town.months'
Shewas sentenced to four
imprisonment.
Edward Peet, 25, and Edward lluf/lies, 24, were charged
with having, at Liverpool, on the 14th of August last, as-
saulted and stolen a watch from William Robson. Hughes
was discharged, and Peet was sentenced was sentenced to ten
years: transportation.
William Caldwell, 41, was charged with having, at
‘,l""seY, entered upon certain eor-in..,i
-

Tile Ina
-•-..,,Jer last, in the occupation,u ofuu 'William Howard,
armed with a gun, for the purpose of destroying game. lle
wits found guilty, and sentenced to nine months' imprison-
ment with hard labour.

'W CHARTER. CASES.
on the illiam Williams, 35, was indicted for having, at Oldham,
alth o August last, attended an illegal meeting in the
pen air, and there used seditious, wicked, and inflammatory
language, tending to bring her Alajesty's government into
cantempt, and to lead to sudden changes and sedition. There
were three counts in the indictment. The first charged him,
along with others, in exciting to riot—the second chargebt!
him, with others, in attempting to force her Majesty's su d
jects from their lawful occupatons—and the third charged
him with attempting to force the people to give up work till
the charter became the law of the land. The last part of the
indictment Was, however, abandoned.
The prisoner defended himself, and, after the witnesses for
the prosecution had jury in his own behalf. tendered their evidence, addressed the
His Lordship summed up. He explained the three counts
in the indictment, but stated that the crown had abandoned
the third. It would, therefore, he for the jury to say whe-
ther the first and second were borne out by the evidence.
If they were satisfied that the prisoners had excited others to
riot, by inducing
a
them to go and intimidate peaceful pen-
Pie, so as to force them to quit their employment ; and, in
order to accomplish that, he and others, in a large body,
overawed them and put the threat into execution, then they
must find him guilty ; hut if th were not satisfied that such
mere his intentions, they would acquit him.
'I het jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a
',l7lsrdliord f guilty
upon the first count but recommended to
already sblieiepntfio take into' consideration' that the prisoner had
months in prison.
ti
ollls
t:
d ILordshipvesaid he would attend to the recommends-
_ea then ordered the prisoner down.
t-i orge Sant/
s iti
an unlawful rneetin',, •
the month of Aug.saa who stood charged with having attended
the capacity of chairman, at Ashton,
in
1 hv
hoped his lordship,A;ust last, pleaded guilty. Mr. 1‘ urp _
u as the chargeagainst the prisoner was
slight, would discharge hiin on his
entering
into a reco-ni-
zance for his future good conducl.Nlr. Wortley, on the
part of the crown. agreed in the recommendation of the
prisonerlearned Sergeant (Murphy.) His Lordship then told the
he would be disehar,,ed, on ivin a recognizance
for -rwil , .--4, to keep the peace for"two yeargs. g
The Cuurt rose at a quarter past eight o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.---FRIDAY.
Mr. Justice Coltman took his seat on the bench at two
o'clock, when the Commercial Bank of England case was re-
"med. The first witness called was
.Alexander Graham, the manager of the Birmingham branch,
w"oae direct examination had not been closed at the rising
of the colust evening. He gave additional evidence as to
the manner in which business had been transacted at his
branch, am'. said that a sum of £lO,OOO had been set aside
boa
the purchase of shares, in the be of March, 1840,
t? a board minute. The resignation of Mr. Turner, as a
nirector, was ordered at the same time to be inserted in the
minutes. W
AI
hen
gated, the account of Mr.
-leanly was inveati-
Tied, there
appeared to be a sum of £10,816 due to the bank.
w,
_tness furnished a report to tile directors.
Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL.—Was ori-
!nallY all accountant at the 13i/114101am branch. Had pre-
`'lonsly been an accountant in Scotland. His knowledge of
hankina business in his having wound Up b.Mkrupts' estates.
Turners, business
and Ashton examiner! particular account,s at
the •
Birmingham branch towards the latter end of 1835. lour
or five of tile directors went regularly through the accounts
of the branch in 1839. The inspector of the branches went
over the accounts about once a year.
upupAlexander the present manager of the winding
of the Davidson,Connmercial Bank, said he first became connected
it in 1834. He was accountant in the Rochdale, Lud-
low, Ashhourne, and Manchester branches. Weekly, quar-
terly, and half-yearly statements were sent from the branches
toto the head bank. \Vas chiefly accountant at Manchester up 1
the stoppage of the bank, and in that capacity his duty ;
Ives to make out the statements for the directors and gene- I
to
o7board. Ile only conducted one half-yearly balance prior
the branches stopped the day before. The books and pa-
pers remained at their respective branches until they were
closed, and then they were transmitted to Manchester. Since
then
they ve been under witness's management. About
time shave stoppage witness was desired to make out an
ti.ecount of the state of the bank. The amount of the liabili-
j.tlc.:l3,3ooof the bank at assistede of the stoppage was about
,000. Witness a committee of inspectors, aP-
pointed at a general meeting of the shareholders, in forming
;1.11 estimate of bad and doubtful debts owing to the bank.
.I. here were old balances on the books. Does not know the
tlebts which have since been paid. The creditors of the bank
nave generally been paid. The shareholders have never been
pptalirdp.oseAolofiley has been borrowed of the shareholders for the
paying off the creditors. That was borrowed at
ttlie time of the stoppage. The bank still owes £50,000 to
.he ahareholders on account of the money borrowed. The
bank owes to the creditors generally, including the £50,000,
Shout .C 72.000. The liabilities of the bank on the 31st of De-
cember, 1839, were X 658,759 ss, 9d. Bills current at that
time are not included in tile sum now mentioned. The en-
tire of the liabilities in December, 1839, were less by
1:100,000 than they were in June 1810. The amount of
overdue bills to the bank on the last day of 1840 was upwards
hills to the bank on the last day of 1810 was upwards of
4:80,000. No bad debt account had been opened at that
time The amount of overdue bills on the 31st December,
wna1.:81,914 • and on the 31st December,
No general had debt account was kept at the bank prior to
the stoppage, but some debts were marked off as bad. Others
1838,1;38,553 12s 6d.
were retained to the close, and never marked off as bad. The
assets of the bank, if they could be got in after paying the
liabilitiet, would leave a surplus of betwean,£Booo and f.,9000
Pay back the shareholdars their capital. This was estimated
.)! 4 eonlltitee. 'Witness believed the bank to be a very
flourishing concern in 1836. He was then at Rochdale, and
not at head quarters. In December, 1811, witness sent a
Printed circular to the plaintiff.
Cross-examined by
xNE.--The
altnount of overdue billsthe on theSoLICITOR- 31st DecGemberß,AL 1837, was
-4()1115. The book containing the liabilities and assets was
:uncrrtistbieesttO re the directors at the time they made their reports.
That book contained the amount of the overdue bills. Se-
were the shape of life policies and guarantees,
a:-Co ,i'e,lrl for the overdue bills. Securities were
'le'd for the current accounts. Witness pre-
lairdirect Part of the report which was first laid before the
ree,t°'s arid then before the general meeting of shareholders.
r 'well, the manager, prepared another report. The only
e 50....
fr, Fitness sent before the directors was altered, but most 1
c'ths. the language of it was retained. The current accounts, '
laid bey of profit and loss, and other documents were
reportsin before the directors when they met to prepare the annual
Mr. Ashton arid Mr. Turner both advanced money
,f salh„ ank, to the amount of £5OOO each, since the stoppage.
.t2e,„Y so discounted bills and gave cash to the amount. of
~,h.`iiro at one time. The bills they discounted were bills
11/he 1 would not be discounted in the discount market.
ratniti,the bank first stopped, witness considered, after. exat-
pay a the accounts, that the assets would be sufficient o
that ~,, the liabilities and leave a surplus. It was then thought
they
the assets would be much more than it now appeared
many would They were calculated at £212,000, but a great
of
_e3'. had debts were afterwards discovered. The amount
habtl tiu3al liabilities in October, 1840, were £231,106. They
t°°,ooo.
eett reduced from the preceding June by about
offitaelxamined by Mr. KNOWLES.--Witness did not strike
r5..,0 ',4lgie bad debt when he furnished the directors with his
4 l'i!ilthough the over-due bills, in December,
weot
1839,
hasi'n
,i• , He treated those over-due bills as a,sets, ~ ti
ja, that !all any Power to do otherwise. Witness's opinion
The , it is very fallacious to treat over-due bills as assets.
tae
.e,),°,,,nut of capital paid up by the shareholders altogether
is ind ``)°,°oo. Tile £50,000 borrowed from the shareholders
Claudius of the original capital.
that ~ll'llus Vaytin, cashier at the Liverpool branch, stated
headfeoUnts were constantly sent from that branch to the
f
the direct
at Manchester. A letter, containing the report o
tr_ulrectors.to the general meeting of tile shareholders, was
latatlltiMtted in February, 1836, from the head bank to the
cashier of the Liverpool branch. It was signed by the
twvr.of the head bank.
for the
was here recalled, and said that he had searched
he ha:1; report forwarded to the Liverpool branch, and that_
bank."eett unable to find it. 11c searched for it at the head
Twave been
shareholders he SCLICITOR-GENERALsubmt•tted that the search should
as i n Made at Liverpool,e and not at the head bank. It
portantthtehraet. report should be produced, as the
" directed the manager at Liverpool to lay it before the
liis Lo
vast; unstita took a note of the objection.
tiff-.
,t 1 then proved the purchase of the shares by the,plain-
tt,,, his cross-examination, by the SOLICITOR-GENE..
of ben said the plaintiff was a surgeon and buyer and seller
NvaesOttoll, and that he did business wits the bank in bills.
kaaePt Present ill December, 1835, when the plaintiff en-
not ~_em take between 200 and 300 shares in the bank. Does
I,eit„e.rollect behig present when any such conversation passed;
tiffueloes he recollect that a factory was sold by. the plain-
t of e Plaintiff was remonstrated with respecting the na-
ad no the was paying in. The manager at Liverpool
Power. P°wer to allot shares. The directors only lied
Ithhatt
th e aatklrlternen.strances were made with the plaintiff so
linar • e of his bills both before and after he purchased the
TOlit
°f con,ie K
to t `111001:h e :
b Thanke plaintiff was frequently in the habit
;l0 .
lerie, irge Revis examined by Mr. KNOWLES : Was junior
aset 4' the Liverpool branch in 1836,. and entered the pair-
ofi, °f the shares in the book.—Cross-examined by the So-
tlie,f4t-G. 1:11.4at, Never recollects being present when
1,4 Intifi proposed to take shares in the bank.
tl nallnd
'e plaint; Taylor examined by Mr. MARTIN.—Is cousin to 1
183. f.,.11, d was a merchant in Liverpool in 1834 and
time dept
54`tter an account with the Commercial Bank at that
;etbialigrt ee t
:„11(1 Mr r " "naequence of some conversation between him
•ar the ' '-'angton tl Liverpool manager, the latter applied
skit e Plaintiff t ' le
0 buy shares in the bank. The plaintiff did
titain a
.0 uy. Li the following December Mr, Langton
PPhed to the plaintiff to buy, and said that in all pro-
m w,Ye‘there would be an excellent dividend after Christnuta
sittiti.rue'full_ll,s would participate if he bought. The plaintiff
apepPlicati_e_o. In January, 1836, Mr. Langton renewed his
paid n' and said that the bank had made 10 per
le the ,•,,;1P eaPital. The plaintiff still refused until he soldsh
gient, -'l,Oll of Btu
- .
•- li Mr .• e directors, In the latter part oftitieepslaamine-
s,iid
?fie ca
ivi,angton renewed his application, when
!'ete offenr!, ?laid purchase shares at the price at which hey
latter s4i,,cc,' In the preceding month by Mr. Langton.ul e
later
mr%tle could not do that. In ten days or a fortnight
Willi:l'4,lo3n again applied, and ultimately the plaintiff
Eli
mug to take 200 shares at'.Z6 each. Mr. Langton led-
wtahether 'l4l....°„ffer, and desired him to make. up. his mind
1,.. Parcha-,""unl buy or not. Tice plaintiff again decl!".er.
'I'M '`- 144'1 he h d f•
.th,it ,said that the report would be out in a
then
Illui n the, a seen the directors' reporfte.w
dtValys
44r41,11 it, mould write to Manchester for one, andand
he
ecitl44 read tini aorne days after, Mr. Langton 0
we to the
„, .e t:ePort, and asked him to co.
er uently
ht to u mintitf. Witness and the plaintiff su s i
was
4 Writt", T batik, when L ort. It as
tvitne,B-'"uleliment • 'ington handed the_reepplaint __.
ist- a,nelo
St G _ read it,
and on the counter. Th
L, !then the former agree_ ... .he
mmtoubinicate tile
d to purchase 20
tolartftlir'eacctho;s A.!!.._, dare ton promised to submn..,
f,s, our days after
to get the scrip down accepte .
for £1,400
rf 20 sh'a;ea.4ter, Mr. Langton handed a cheque
ned. mr.
d lodffethrretoe
ettTnifton ~iids at X 7 each, which the plaintiff
athe mai
.the price in the market was .47 I)
the
J anise
4;7. n,itT Would be allowed the differencebetween
do ross,„e .
, Witness
ir% hot k` °W' by the SourciTort-GENERA--
lica-
esrlgshare, and
12.,° to the die Of the plaintiff having made a forma
WAlnaePsPs left
~,..serpof last ectora for shares in Feb., 1836. - ' of a
ztyititiller at GiaMa aY, and now carries on the business l
ft
sa Lust irt g°w- Was twice a bankrupt
holder in
Cowl
equence of haviug been a share
before he e

Central ahly abio to rty Iss, Wan mie
bankruptcy. 'lht, plaintiff never told him that he Ithd .q.
shares in Dereniber' (Identified letters written by the
plaiuir: to the bank in 1835.) Witness always went with
Mr. Langton to the plaintiff at the time the IteL:Qtiatiotr
bout the purchase of the shares was going forward. The
ue was si4;ned for the X 7, ahtt nut for the .1:0,

n the clip

was Itecuse Mr. I,:ingion siiid it would have a bad effect on
the Manchester market, if it were signed for :anything
than £7. Mr. Langton died in eighteen months alter. The
plaintiff ne,or told witness that the bills he was sending into
the bank had been remonstrated against, and that he thought
he would get money more easily from the concern if lie
became a shareholder.

Three certificates for the 600 shares, which had been pur.
chased by the plaintiff, were then put in and read. They
were signed by Messrs. Slater and Turner, as directors.
The So Lie iron- G ENERAL asked upon which of the counts
his learned friends were proceeding?
Mr. KNOWLES said he proceeded on all the counts, be.
cause he submitted that there had been a general conspiracy
to delude the public. He thought, under such circumstances
that he should not be called upon to select.

The SoLicuroa-GtNEILAL asked, whether it was cowpe.
tent for his learned friend to go upon all the counts, seeing
that no conspiracy had been charged?

Mr. KNOWLES said the defendants were present at all the
meetings, and that, therefore, all the counts could be re-
tained.

His Lortnsnir said he should tell the Jury that they could
only find upon those counts which affected all the parties, as
the counsel for the plaintiff relied upon all.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved for a nonsuit, upon the
ground that the writing containing the alleged misrepresenta-
tion had not been produced, and referred, in support of his
argument, to the case of Lord Edwd. Thynne. He also
referred to the case of Vokes v Sleinkeller in the Common
Pleas.

His LORDSHIP said that leave to enter a nonsuit might
be reserved.

The case for the plaintiff having closed,
The SoLiciroß-GENER.AL addressed the jury for the de-
fendants. He was apprehensive, after all the evidence
which had been given, that he should be unable to bring the
precise question before them. It was one of very consider-
able importance. In a pecuniary point of view it was of the
utmost importance to the defendants. If the plaintiff was
entitled to the amount of his shares, when would there be
an end to the actions which would be commenced against
Messrs. Turner and Ashton, who stood among the first of
the merchants at Manchester, but who could never stand
against the multiplicity of actions that would be brought
against them if the present succeeded. They had been char-
ged with swindling, falsehood and, mendacity ; but it
should be proved that they had been guilty of this fraud and
falsehood for the purpose of injuring others for the benefit
of themselves, in order to sustain the action. He complai-
ned of the manner in which the case had been conducted,
because evidence applying only to some part of the transac-
tion had been given. He complained that Mr. Edge had not
been examined, and that the letters written by the plaintiti
to the bank, and produced by the witness, Davidson, had
not been read. The defendants had, unfortunately, become
connected in '36 with the Commercial Bank ; and, having men-
tioned the name of the Commercial Bank, the failure of which
had caused misfortune to many, he trusted the jury would dis-
miss all prejudice on the subject from their minds. The defen-
dants had been directors ; but they were charged, on the present
occasion, with not having inspected the books, or being ne-
gligent in the discharge of their duties. They were charged
however, with having made false and fraudulent representa-
tions, knowing them to be false, and with intent to injure
the plaintiff ; and the question was, whether the plaintiff had
made out his case. The case differed from every former
case, and also from all joint-stock bubbles. What was the
profit and motive charged against the defendants here ? Mr.
Knowles, in his opening, had said that Mr. Ashton had sold
shares and pocketed £2OOO by the transaction ; but there was
not a shadow of truth in that statement ; it had not been es-
tablished In evidence, and was wholly and entirely without
foundation. The whole charge made resolved itself into re-
presentations made by the General Board of Directors. The
first was said to be made in February, 1836, and the others
at annual and half-yearly meetings. There was no represen-
tation made by the defendants severally, but all the represen-
tions were made by the General Board ; and, if this action
were sustainable against the defendants, every member of the
board was equally responsible. He submitted, however, that
it was utterly impossible to sustain the charge of fraud and
falsehood upon the evidence which had been tendered.
There were seventeen local branches, and the head bank at
Manchester. There was a local director, a manager, and an
accountant, at each branch, and there was an inspector of
branches besides. The practice was, not for the directors to
overlook the books, but for the paid officers so to do. By
the 56th clause of the deed, the General Board of Directors
were to make known to the shareholders only so much as
they deemed right to snake public. There was no conceal-
ment made use of when the bad debts were not mentioned,
for there was a reserved fund for the purpose of covering the
bad debts. Every shareholder was aware of the existence of
the reserved fund ; and, when a question was asked at one of
the meetings as to whether the reserved fund was sufficient
to cover the bad debts, the manager answered in the affirma-
tive. And what would have become of the plaintiff and the
other shareholders if no dividend was recommended ? Would
not the shares have been utterly unsaleable under such cir-
cumstances? He would show that the defendants, Messrs.
Ashton and Turner, had struggled against the local directors
with respect to the amount of the dividends, and that the
local directors possessed the power, if they pleased, of sub-
mitting a motion at the board to have the accounts audited.
He would also show that the local directors attended the
board constantly—that they were aware of the business at
their respective branches and of the existence of the had
debts—that they were always anxious for a declaration of a
high dividend, and yet that they never moved for an audit of
the accounts. lie would further show that when the ac-
counts were audited in 184(1 by hostile auditors, the defend-
ants, Ashton anti Turner, thought the bank in a prosperous
state, and that it was fully able to pay a dividend of five per
cent ; for they had been told by the auditors that it was able
to pay a dividend of £:5 per cent, and that they expected it
would shortly be able to pay a higher dividend. He con-
tended that Messrs. Turner and Ashton had no more motive
or interest in the bank than would apply equally as well to
every other shareholder. Having read several clauses of the
deed, the Solicitor-General proceeded to call attention to the
representations which had been made to the board, in Feb.,
1837, and also to the composition of the board itself. He
said he believed the members of the board were incapable of
committing fraud, falsehood, swindling, and cheating, although
every one of them was open to such a charge on the present
occasion. The only question in the case seemed to be,
whether fraud was committed, so far as the shareholders were
concerned, in the bad debts not having been mentioned ; and
here he begged it to be recollected that Messrs. Turner and
Ashton had never given an order as to the mode in which
the accounts were to be furnished, but that order was
given by Mr. Macardy and the clerks and managers from
Scotland, which that gentleman had appointed ; and he sub-
mitted that to charge the misconduct of Macardy upon two
of the defendants would be exceedingly unjust. He then re-
ferred to the evidence of the several witnesses at great length,
commenting upon it as he proceeded, and all through con-
tending that the directors had taken the accounts upon the
representations of the clerks without examination ; and that,
although they might be guilty of negligence in having takers
them without examination, they were not guilty of fraud and
falsehood. He complained of the defendants nut having been
afforded an opportunity of preparing their defence. He
thought it a hardship that they should have been obliged to
come into court totally unprepared, they not having been
allowed access to the accounts and books of the bank. He
observed that by a clause in the deed the directors were given
a reserved fund of a certain number of reserved shares to be
disposed of in case of any contingency ; that Mr. Edge and
Mr. Panton were appointed as auditors in '4O ; and that
those two gentlemen investigated the whole of the books, and
then recommended a dividend of five per cent. to be made,
distinctly stating that the assets of the bank were in a posi-
tion to warrant the making of such a dividend, and that with
proper care the bank would be one of the first concerns of
the day. The Solicitor-General read the report of Messrs.
Edge and Panton to this effect, and in which they further
stated that the profits were considerable, and that the bank
would pay £5 per cent. for the next four years, and upwards
of £5 per cent. up to that time. He asked whether the de-
fendants were to discredit the testimony of experienced seen
like the auditors in question, who had examined the accounts
most fully, and who had placed the result of their examina-
tion upon paper and presented it to the board ? He submit-
ted that no evidence had been given to show that the plain-
tiff had become a shareholder in consequence of the alleged
false and fraudulent report of February, '39, and that in the
absence of proof upon this head there was no ground of ac-
tion. He guarded himself about being supposed to give any
opinion in favour ofjuint-stock banks ; but he said the bank
in this instance had been formed upon Lord Althorp's pro-
position of real and not nominal capital, and that there was
no one who could imagine for a moment, front the wording
and reading of the first report, that the dividend was to be
paid out of the profits, the more particularly as the hank had
only been one year in existence at the time. The Soli-
citor-General concluded his address, the delivery of which
occupied two hours and a half, at a quarter after ten o'clock,
by confidently anticipating a verdict for his clients.
Mr. BAINES then briefly addressed the jury on behalf of
his clients, Messrs. Palin and Bower, both of whom, he
said, had been ruined by their unfortunate connexion with
the bank.

His LORDSHIP proceeded to charge the jury at twenty
minutes to eleven o'clock, by observing upon the importance
of the case, and the necessity of their considering it apart
from prejudice, and solely upon the evidence. He then re-
capitulated the evidence, commenting upon it as he pro-
ceeded ; after which the jury retired, and at a quarter to one
o'clock returned a verdict for the defendants, adding, " at
the same time, we beg leave to express our opinion that there
has been gross and, unpardonable negligence on the part of
the defendants."

CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY.
NIGHT POACHING.

Richard Johnson, alias Willis, 34, and John Culshaw, 27,
were charged with having, on the 29th of September, i❑ the
neighbourhood of Ormskirk, been out armed in pursuit of
game, in a field the property of Lord Skelmersdale. Mr.
Paget conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins the de-
fence. The case was gone through nearly, but one of the
principal witnesses was himself one of the party of poachers
that night, and admitted that he expected £2O for his evi-
dence, if the prisoners were convicted. One witness said
that there were three poachers, another that there were four,
and another that there were five. Mr. Wilkins ably ad-
dressed the jury on behalf of the prisoners, and the jury
acquitted them both. It was stated that there was another
indictment against Culshaw. Johnson was dicharged.

OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES.
Thomas Butler, aged 41, a well-dressed, respectable-look-
ing man, was charged with having, at Liverpool, put off a
forged indorsement upon an order for the payment of money.
with intent to defraud M`Calmont and Co.—Mr. Paget ap-
peared for the prosecution and Mr. Wilkin for the defence.
—The former, in stating the case, explained the nature of
seamen's monthly advance notes, given them before they
went to sea, and payable a few days after the ship which they
had engaged to go with had sailed, with the party, in whose
favour it was given, on board.—James Wilcock, a boy, ap-
plied at the shipping-office of Mr. Trevaskis, in order that
he might be shipped as an ordinary seaman. This was on
the Bth of April last year. He there saw the prisoner, who
carried on business as shipping agent at the same place, and
addressed hint on the subject. He promised to procure the
boy a berth, and did so, on board the barque Glenco, bound
to Halifax, at the rate of £2 a month. The boy joined the
vessel in the river on the 14th of April, and she sailed on the
same day. He saw the prisoner on board, with a monthly
note in his (prosecutor's) behalf, and told him to give it to
his father. There was no indorsement on it then, nor did
the boy authorize the prisoner to indorse it in his name, or
write the name upon it himself, and he could write. He went
to sea, and on his return, on the 3rd of February last, he
first saw the note again, and it was then indorsed in his name,
with " his mark." The boy's father fitted him out with
clothes, not the prisoner ; and it was stated that the prisoner,
in place of giving the note, as directed, to the father, appro-
priated it to himself, and obtained the money. After the
sailing of the ship, the father saw the prisoner, and asked
him if he would deliver up the note, and his reply was, that
that
he knew nothing at all about it. He afterwards summoned
the prisoner to the Court of Requests for theh
note, but the summons was dismissed. T
afterwards brought before Mr. Rushton, and was committed.
The amount
prisoner nuwa
s
afterwards of
the
as
ue
The boy •t• That he on cross-examination, admitted that he had
stolen hismother's gown, and pawned
occasion-
ally took a sup of drink, and was in liquor when he gave the
shipping-note to the prosecutor. though
cross-examination,
l
e said he knew
said the boy was a good lad, and be never K
what he was about. The father, on his. a
cw any thing