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

ant Mt 14 00 OA Wild adult% 'iv. • Talon ita3tity
to the truetece, they should be at liberty the Burn wi 040,
or any part of it, to the husban3, be giving etioh acourity
as they should think right to take, The marriage took place
on the 30th of November, 1840. On the 27th of March,
1841, the trustees were applied to by Mrs. Robinson to ad-
vance £BOO to her husband, partly for the purpose of his
buying the goodwill of a public-house, which it was intended
that Mrs. Robinson should manage, and partly for the pur-
pose of helping Robinson in his own business of a shipwright.
The learned counsel here read the letter of Mrs. Robin-
son, and contended that it was an authority to them to ad-
vance the money strictly within the provisions of the trust.
The security, which it occurred to Mr. Stone to take, was a
warrant of attorney, which was executed by Robinson in
March, 1841. A warrant of attorney no doubt would have
been sufficient if a most inadvertent omission had not oc-
curred. 'Where a warrant of attorney was given as against
a person who was a trader, and he became bankrupt or in-
solvent, it was unavailing, and mere waste paper, unless it
was filed within a certain time, and in a particular manner.
About six or seven months after this instrument had been
taken, it was discovered that, by the merest inadvertence, it
had not been filed in the regular manner; and when Mr.
Stone found out that, it occurred to him that he was placed in
a situation of the greatest possible danger, having in fact been
advancing trust money upon security which was perfectly
valueless in case of insolvency or bankruptcy. As soon as
he made this discovery, he applied to Mr. Robinson, first
by word of mouth and afterwards by letter, in the most ur-
gent terms, to pay the money with the least possible delay.
What, indeed, could have been more natural than to apply
to the husband, seeing that the security which he thought
good turned out invalid ? Mr. Stone wrote two letters to
Mr. Robinson. The first was dated on the 16th October,
[the learned counsel read the letter,] in which Mr. Stone
informed him that the trustees considered the security in-
sufficient. Mr. Robinson promised to make a payment upon
the following Monday, but he failed, and the defendant's
anxiety, therefore, became very great. On the 19th Mr.
Stone again wrote to Robinson as follows :
" 58, Castle-street, 1841.
" DEAR SIR,—As you have broken your promise by not
making any payment upon account of the £BOO and interest
secured by the warrant of attorney, we are under the neces-
sity of informing you, that unless we receive payment of the
whole or greater part in the course of to-morrow, we shall be
compelled to proceed, under the warrant of attorney, to a sale.
This we trust you will see the necessity of preventing.—Yours,
respectfully,—KF:NYON and STONE:"
A letter more distinctly pressing for payment than this could
not have been written. Before he (Mr. Baines) proceeded
further, he would observe, that the money paid to Mr. Stone
was a boncijide payment, and in order to make it invalid, the
jury must be satisfied that the payment by Robinson was a
voluntary payment, and not the result of pressure by Mr.
r Stone. If it was the result of pressure, there could not
be the least question that Mr. Stone was entitled to re-
tain this money for the purposes of the trust. After
these letters Several interviews took place between Mr.
Stone and Robinson, and £672 were paid in cash and
bills in consequence of these letters. At that time
Robinson was indebted to the firm of Messrs. Kenyon
and Stone between £4O and £5O for law business, which
they had done for him; and, when this money was brought
to them, Mr. Stone reminded him of it, and it was agreed
that £44 should be appropriated in its liquidation. In reality
£629 were paid on account of the loan of £BOO and interest.
Still there were £2OO not forthcoming. Mr. Stone and his co-
trustee were liable for that; and it would be found that
Robinson raised this £2OO by a sale of the stock and good-
will of the public-house. It was at length agreed that Mr.
Henderson, the co-trustee of Mr. Stone, who had sold it to
Robinson for £3OO, of which £2OO had been paid and -ZlOO
had been secured by a promissory note, should buy the
public-house from him again. This was done ; Mr. Hen-
derson paid the £2OO, which went to make up the trust-
money of £BOO, and gave up the note for the £lOO which had
not been paid to him in the first instance. In that way the
whole sum was accounted for ; and be contended that, if this
account was true, and he should be able to prove it, there
could not be a doubt of the defendant being entitled to a ver-
dict. After this statement the learned gentleman examined
at considerable length the evidence aiven for the plaintiffs,
contending that the testimony of Eden was altogether impro-
bable.

Joseph Wilfred Robinson was then sworn, and he said, I
commenced business as a shipwright in Liverpool, in March,
1841. I married on the 30th of November before, on which
occasion there was a marriage settlement, dated the 28th of
November, 1840. [The marriage settlement was here put in,
and the power read to lend the money.] On the 27th March,
1841, my wife applied to the trustees to lend me the money.
[The application was here read.] About that time I took
the Cumberland House Tavern, in Norfolk-street, from Mr.
Henderson, my father-in-law, and one of the trustees of the
marriage settlement. I paid him £2OO in cash, and gave
him a promissory note for £lOO. My place of business as a
shipwright was in the same street. I took the house on the
6th April. £2OO of the £BOO was invested in the public-house,
and the remainder was used to carry on my business of a ship-
wright. My wife was to carry on the public-house. I gave
the warrant of attorney produced as security for the £BOO.
[Produced and read.] Mr. Stone applied to me about the be-
ginning of September, for the £BOO ; he had previously applied
for his own bill, which was £44. He said he was not satis-
fied with the security for the £BOO, and he should be obliged
to call it in immediately. The application was made to me
by Mr. Stone in his own office. He made several applica-
tions for it subsequently, and I told him that, as soon as I
could get money in, I perhaps should be able to pay him a
part. The witness here produced the defendant's letter to
him of the 16th October : it stated that the trustees had
determined to place the money on mortgage, and not on a
warrant of attorney, and requested him to pay the whole, or
a part, in the course of a few days. On the 19th of October
he received another letter, in consequence of which witness
called on the defendant on the 23d October and paid him
£672, composed of two bills, one of Mr. Grote's for £l4O
145., and the other of Mr. Hemingway for £258, and the
rest in cash. The defendant, when witness took him this
money, asked for his own debt. I paid this money in this
way, £6OO towards the principal, and the rest went for in-
terest upon the £BOO. Mr. Stone wished the remaining
£2OO to be paid immediately. I told him I could not
give it him there and then, but if I sold the public-house
I might manage it. An agreement was entered into in a few
days, between Mr. Henderson and myself, that Mr. Hender-
son should take the house for £2OO, and return the promis-
sory note which I had given him for £lOO, which made up
the terms upon which I had taken it. I had been carrying
on a good business in 1841, and at the time when this trans-
action took place 1 was not insolvent, nor had I ever thought
of applying to the Court. I called a meeting of my creditors
in December, 1841, and exhibited to them a statement of
affairs, which was prepared by Mr. Robert Stone, with my
assistance. I put down the stock at the cost price. The
plaintiffs were present at that meeting. I requested that the
statement might not be taken away, but it was, and produced
at Lancaster. [The statement was here produced.] The
value of the stock therein described was £9OO. The stock
was put down at its cost price, and it shewed 20s. in the
pound, but the creditors declined to come in. Two execu-
tions were issued out ; I apprehended one from Mr. Furness,
and under that the stock was sold. Messrs. Mather had a
writ out at the same time. I was not arrested till May fol-
lowing. I went to live at Woolton because my wife had bad
health, but I came frequently to Liverpool, and was openly
to be seen. The witness Eden came into my employment
about August.—The witness then contradicted, seriatim, all
the statements which Eden had given in his evidence as to
the topics of their conversation at the various times and
places which will be found in his testimony. - Nothing, in-
deed, could be more distinct and positive than his contradic-
tions. There was no arrangement, continued the witness,
between myself and Mr. Stone to pay the money ; and it
was very inconvenient for me to pay it. Ido not think that
the man Southern is dead. I never in Southern's presence
asked Eden to enquire the price of the fixtures and good-will
of the public-house. I never mentioned my sister's name at
all to them. I never gave 7s. to pay an attorney. I never
came to an arrangement with Messrs. Fawcett and Preston
to give them a preference, nor did I ever destroy any letters
or invoices. It was at my request that Mr. Stone's brother
made out an account of the stock. My property sold under
the execution was sold at a very great sacrifice. I never
sent Eden to Mr. Stone to ask him to arrest me. Eden
appeared at Lancaster, and he did not mention there a single
word of what he has said here to-day. I was remanded for
nine months unless the £2OO paid by my father-in-law was
given up to the assignee. I remained in prison nine months.
On the enquiry there, Mr. Stone said the reason why he
pressed for payment was, that he had neglected filing the
warrant of attorney. I never said to Eden, that if I could
only get the trustees paid I did not care a d—n for the rest
of the creditors.
Cross-examined by Mr. KNOWLES.s--.1 came out of prison
on the 13th March last; and I have not begun business again.
I never gave any mortgage of my furniture and good-will of
the public-house. My debts in six months after I com-
menced bueiness were £1,059. There is no book to show
how that amount was contracted ; nor can I tell what amount
I paid to all my creditors together in that time. I paid
Furness himself between £4O and £5O, besides what he get
by the execution. I do not recollect whether Eden used to
meet me at different public-houses for the purpose of giving
me the money which he had collected. I never took Ma-
ther's bill up, but I intended to do so, no doubt.—The wit-
ness was further cross-examined at great length.
William Henderson, father-in-law of the last witness, and
co-trustee of the defendant, said, he concurred with the
defendant in his pressure upon Robinson for payment of the
money lent him. This witness went on to describe the ar-
rangement with regard to the public-house, as already stated.
In cross-examination the witness stated, that whilst Ro-
binson was in Lancaster Castle, his wife lived in witness's
house. Witness is now carrying on the public-house for his
own benefit.
Lawrence Driscoll proved the signature of the parties to
the marriage settlement.
Robert Stone, Superintendent of the Liverpool Corpora-
tion Schools, and brother of the defendant, said that up to
March, 1842, from the March preceding, he was assisting his
brother. Saw Mrs. Robinson sign the authority to the trus-
tees to advance the £BOO. The witness also proved several
personal applications from the defendant to Robinson for the
£lOO. Referring to the evidence of Eden, he said that the
insolvent had asked him to assist him in making out a state-
ment of his affairs; and witness suggested what he should
enter in it from the receipts and memoranda which he pro-
duced. Robinson entered them himself in the book from the
rough vouchers that he produced. 'Witness did not do this
on a Sunday as represented ; and he had formerly been with
Mr. Crook, the accountant, 41 years.
Mr. Blackett, clerk to Mr. Rogerson, attorney, at Lan-
caster, proved that at the hearing of the insolvent the defen-
dant stated to the court his position with regard to the war-
rant of attorney.
Cross-examined.—Could not tell whether the insolvent
was remanded for diminishing his property, or for fraudu-
lently making away with it.
This was the defendant's case; and on Mr. KNOWLES
rising to reply,
The FOREMAN of the JURY said they were prepared to
give their opinion without troubling the learned counsel, if
that course were not irregular.
The JUDGE told the jury they must be perfectly satisfied
that they understood the real question. The question was
whether Robinson had been pressed for payment ; if they
believed that Stone had pressed and urged him, then Mr.
Stone had made out a sufficient case.
Mr. KNOWLES.—My lord, and would not the question
also be whether he had paid in consequence of that pressure ?
The JUDGE.—Yes, certainly.
Mr. KNOWLES said so great wasund
of a jury that, if he distinctly ptei c)
et
yf
hadfor th einoapdi opinion
uo
pn
understood or oe (Is
what their opinion was, he would go through the ev
their minds, he would not trouble them ; but, not knowing
idce to
show them, from it, that the payment had not been made
from pressure. The learned counsel then contested this

point at considerable length, and with great ingenuity, con-
tending that Eden's testimony was perfectly credible, and
that the marriage settlement was drawn up so as to enable the
insolvent to cheat his creditors.
The JUDGE, in summing up, told the jury there were three
questions for their consideration—whether Robinson had
made the payment, and if he had, whether he had made it
with the intent of taking the benefit of the insolvent act, and
next, whether it was a voluntary payment.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff
for £782 ; damages 40s.

MOTION FOR A NEW .
DOE DEM. TIDDETS AND OTHERSTRI V.AL
Low.—This is an
action in ejectment, in the first or Salford list. It was tried
early in the assizes, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff.
Mr. MARTIN now moved fora new trial, on the ground
that the verdict was against evidence.
The JUDGE, on bearing an affidavit, granted a rule nisi.

RECORD WITHDRAWN'.
JonxsTomz V MEYER.—Tbis case was called on at aquar-
,er.past Seven; when it appearing that the principal witness