The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-14 00:00:00

CONCEALMENT OF CHILD BIRTH

Honour Mag rat h, 16, charged with concealing the birth of
her infant, by burying its dead body, pleaded guilty. It ap-
peared that the prisoner's stepfather was the father of the
child. Sentence—Six weeks' imprisonment.

ASSAULT, WITH INTENT TO ROB

Thomas Griffithe, 18, was charged with having, on the
night of the 29th January, together with another person, un-
known, assaulted James Forester, with intent to rob him of
his goods and chattels.
Mr. Arnold appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wil-
kins for the defence. . . .

The prosecutor, who is a flour broker, living in Key-street,
said that he had been taking tea at a friend's house in Tox-
teth•park, and at about half-past eight o'clock he set out to
escort home a young woman named Catherine Burns. He
came to what he conceived to be a short cut across the fields,
and he was about to hand Catherine over a wall, when the
prisoner and another came up and said, " You must stand
treat." He asked how much the treat would be, and they
said, " Sixpence." He expressed his willingness to give
them sixpence; but some words afterwards took place, and
he knocked one of the young men down. He could not say
that that was the prisoner. He could not identify the pri-
soner. One or other of the young men then knocked him
down. He could not say whether he had given the same
account before the magistrates : the drink which he had had
on the preceding evening so affected him that he could not
tell what questions were put to him, or what answers he gave
to them. He gave Catherine Burns 20s. to keep for him.
The JUDGE.—WeII, did the prisoner and his companion
make any attempt to obtain possession of that ?
Witness.—Not in the least, my lord.
Mr. ARNOLD.—! leave him in your hands, my lord.
The JUDGE.—Did you tell the same story before the Grand
Jury ?
Mr. WILKINS.—i believe he did.

Mr. ARNOLD.—And that Catherine Burns did not ; and
that the Grand Jury. finding his statement so different to
what it had been before the magistrates, sent the case here to
be inquired into.
The JUDGE.-1 thought, from reading the depositions,
that it was not a case of attempting to rob. There is
little doubt as to the nature of the occurrence.
Mr. ARNC4,l3.—There has been great perjury, either here
or at the other place.
The JUDGE.—IIe shall not have his costs.
The prisoner was acquitted.

dnsgor-street of Sunday. the
, Park.
Robert Morgan, 20, was charged with having, at Liver-
pool, assaulted George Dunbar, and stolen from him a pair
of trousers and other articles. Mr. James prosecuted ; Mr.
Blair defended. The occurrence, according to the statement
o 7
7th
hDnurn boa
cr ,t
ntboeork, pilna cea efiaerlidy
nearonth et
nm\r‘rr.
inni
They severely boat the prosecutor, and stole
Tyohuengprimisaler was accompanied and assisted by another

!cil!r. Mar kg; ki Ft 47

slimatity.of 0d11416#

beil.ptiroh4ir

,or tiro YiTeWe o"6;wPtlon,
ilia trousers were foc.irid ori the prisoner by an officer (261)
who came to the spot, attracted by the cries of Dunbar,
and who pursued the fugitives until he captured Morgan.
Thomas Lewis, cabinet maker, master of the prisoner, gave
him a most excellent character, and said that he would un-
hesitatingly, take him back into his service to-morrow. His
Lordship observed•that the story of the prosecutor was a
somewhat strange and blind one, and left it to the jury to
say whether the whole occurrence was a mere drunken
quarrel. The jury acquitted the prisoner.
The court adjourned at five minutes to seven,.to one
o'clock this afternoon. •

NISI PRlUS.—TutraspAY

THE COMMERCIAL DANK OF ENGLAND

TAYLOR V. ASHTON AND OTHERS.—This important case,
which was an action brought by Mr. John Taylor, surgeon,
of this town, against Thomas Ashton, Alexander Bower,
Richard Turner, and Thomas Palin, Esqrs., of Manchester,
directors of the Commercial Bank of England (Joint Steck
Banking Company), came on this morning before Mr.
Justice Coltman. The following gentlemen were sworn of
the special jury .
James Retson, Liverpool, merchant, foreman.
Thomas S. Gladstone, do. do.
Thomas Rodick, Much Woolton, Esq.
John Moss, Crumpsall, merchant.
Richard Dawson, Liverpool, do.
John Clow, do. do-
Richard Wheeler, Preston, Toxteth-park, do.
William Oxley, Liverpool, merchant.
Richard Rosson, Roby, do.
James Bothwell, Barnes, Great Lever, Esq.
Jesse Ainsworth, Oldham, Esq.
" James Crossfield, Toxteth-park, merchant.
Mr. Knowles, Q.C., with Messrs. Crompton, Martin,
and Addison, appeared on behalf of the plaintiff.
Sir WM. FOLLETT' her Majesty's Solicitor-General, with
Mr. Dundas, Q.C., Hon. J. S. Wortley, Q.C., and Mr.
Cowling, appeared on behalf of Messrs. Thomas Ashton
and Turner; and Mr. Baines, Q.C., with Mr. Tomlinson,
appeared on behalf of Mr. Bower and Mr. Palin.
Solicitor for the plaintiff, Mr. John Lowe, of Harrington..
street, Liverpool ; solicitors for the defendants, Bower and
Patin, Messrs. Atkinson and Saunders; and for the defend-
ants, Ashton and Turner, Messrs. Slater and Heelis, of
Manchester.

Mr. MARTIN, in opening the pleadings, said that the
declaration alleged, first, that the defendants were directors
of a bank called the Commercial Bank of England, and in
January, 1836, published a report stating that the bank was
a prosperous concern, that there was a profit of eight per
cent. arising from it, and all the capital was paid up capital.
The declaration then went on to say, that in consequence of
this report the plaintiff became purchaser of 200 shares in
this company, at five pounds per share. In other reports, up
to the year 1840, this state of things was held out to be true,
and in consequence of those reports, the plaintiff continued
a shareholder, and purchased other shares, until at last in
1840, when the bank broke, and the plaintiff lost all his
shares. The defendants Ashton and Turner had pleaded no
less than 22 pleas. The first was " Not guilty," and of the
other pleas the Stb and 9th were the only others which were
material to the cause . .

Mr. Kslowtms, in stating the case to the jury, said, it
would be his duty to state more at length, and in language
less technical, than that adopted in the pleading the cause and
nature of the present action. It was an action of great im-
portance to the plaintiff, whose interests had been seriously
involed in the matter ; and, if he might judge from the array
of learned counsel opposed to him, it was considered of great
importance by the defendants also. The plaintiff was a pro-
fessional gentleman, residing in this town, and be had brought
this action to recover from the defendants damages for an
injury sustained by him in consequence of his having been
induced to enter a certain banking co-partnership, and to
continue a member of that co-partnership in consequence of
the false and fraudulent representations made by the four
defendants. He (Mr. Knowles) would show to the jury a
series of false statements issued by these parties, from the
year 1836 downwards. There was no new principle of the
law attempted to be set up by this action, for it had long
been a maxim of the law of this country, that if an indi-
vidual makes false and fraudulent representations, and in-
duces a party to act to his own detriment, the party making
the fraudulent representations is answerable for the injury
which he has been the means of inflicting, And it was right
that it should be so; for if it were not so, it would be one of
the greatest injuries that could possibly be inflicted upon a
commercial country ; and the law therefore very properly
said, that if a man makes representations which he knew to
be false, he should be answerable for the consequences of
the misrepresentation and suffer for the consequences. The
four defendants were persons well known to many of the
jury. They had been connected with that bank from its
commencement. This bank had its origin in the year
1834. About that time there has been some failures of ex-
tensive joint stock banks, which had shaken the confidence
of the people of this country in institutions of that sort ;
for, combined with many advantages which naturally belong
to such institutions, they had all the disadvantages usually
arising from institutious having a great number of partners,
who frequently enjoyed a power they much abused. It was
when the subject of the failures to which he had alluded was
much agitated, that the four defendants, with a person named
Joseph Macready, instituted that bank which afterwards be-
came famous in the world by the name of the Commercial
Bank of England. The first step was to form themselves
into a provisional committee, which consisted of the four de-
fendants, a gentleman named Slater, and Joseph Macready.
They employed themselves in arranging the scheme of the
bank, allotting the shares, and making other arrangements
for opening the bank. It was not until the year 1834 that
the bank could be considered as legally established, that
being the date of the deed of association and the date of
the day on which the defendants executed it. By the
terms of the said deed they were appointed, for the pe-
riod of three years, with unlimited powers and confidence
reposed in them. They had the allotting of shares
and they had the total management of the clerks and business
of the bank. In the terms of the deed there were to he one
hundred thousand shares at £5 each ; and it would be found
that one of the grand distinguishing features of the establish-
ment was, that there should be nothing but paid up capital—
that the shares should all be paid for, or that the applications
for them should be rejected, and throwing to the wind the
faults of other establishments; that they would have nothing
to represent the shares but money itself. It would be found
that in the allotment of shares the defendants began with
themselves. One of the first acts of the defendants before
the deed of association was formed, was to form a provisional
committee ; and one of their first acts was to arrange how
PaPtYeglA,Wisiffili fifettWattkadiiilara GAISMIVAiInd
and fur these they paid their money ; but, in addition to this
there was a somewhat remarkable document, the history of
which he (learned counsel) could not further explain than by
shewing that it was in the handwriting of one of the
defendants, a document drawn
up in the year 1833
or 1834, by which it appeared that the defendants bad
allotted to themselves 1,500 shares each on what was
termed a cash credit. He (Mr. Knowles) need not tell
the jury that this was hardly consistent with an insti-
tution boasting that its shares had been all paid up. The
intention of this act, no doubt, was that the defendants
should become nominally entitled, each to 1500 shares, and
receive the profits or dividends on that number of shares,
but that they should not pay one single shilling on account
of those shares. The learned counsel then adverted to the
conduct of the defendants, who, in conjunction with The
other members of the directory, voted a dividend of 8 per
cent., not out of the profits, but out of the capital
stock of the company, for the purpose of inducing other
people to take shares in the bank as an eligible investment.
The bank canseiinto operation in August, 1834, and the di-
rectors made arrangements for establishing branches at
at Liverpool, Birmingham, and Chester, and other import-
ant towns, and from these places the state of each banking
account was regularly sent to Maneheater. Things went on
apparently well up to February, 1836, when the first annual
general meetings of the proprietors was held, and in conse-
quence of the representations of the defendants a dividend
of 8 per cent. was declared. The learned counsel then drew
the attention of the jury to the reports published by the
board of directors of the Commercial Bank from 183 G, ani-
madverting upon the deceitful language in which they were
cloaked, the falsehoods which they had propagated, and the
exceedingly questionable character of the conduct of the di-
rectory down to the year 1840, when the bank stopped pay-
medt. In these reports they had stated that the branches
had been a source of profit to the establishment, when, as was
capable of the strictest proof, there had been serious losses,
not only at some of those places, but at the bead office at
Manchester. Besides giving certain amounts of profit al-
leged to have been realized, and after payment of the divi-
dend which they declared, these reports also contained state-
ments of surplus profits, which were returned as a surplus
fund. The learned gentleman also read the other reports
published by the directors, and then called the following
witnesses in support of the facts which he intended to prove
in evidence :

Mr. Thomas Higson examined by Mr. CROMPTON.—I am
solicitor of the present Commercial Bank at Manchester. I
was also solicitor with my father to the former bank. I was
one of the attesting witnesses to the signatures of Messrs.
Ashton, Bower, Turner, and Palin to the deed of settlement.
I have a memorandum appropriating some shares on cash
credit. It is signed by Mr. bower, and also some cheques
for dividends. Ido not know, except by appealing to Mr.
Davidson, whether we have any more documents of a similar
nature. I have here some cheques signed by Mr. Palin, Mr.
Slater, and Mr. Ashton. I have two documents signed by
Mr. Bower. This is the rough minute-book of the board
meetings. Before the half yearly general meetings, there is
a meeting of the board. I attended a few of the tirst meet-
ings, the minutes of which are in my hand writing. This is
the minute of the board meeting on the 2d February, 1836.
Mr. Alexander Bower, one of the defendants, signed the
minutes of the Manchester board. This is the minute-book
of the general board of directors. The minutes of the
annual meetings are in another book. In this book there is
a copy of a report signed by Mr. Bower. It contains an
alteration in his hand writing in the margin. It is the general
board minute-book. These are the minutes of the annual
meeting of shareholders on the 3d February, 1836, signed,
" Alexr. Bower, chairman." I was present at that meeting.
[The witness having been asked whether any of the defendants
were present at the meeting, the Solicitor-General asked for
the book, and desired the witness to speak from memory, and
not to refer to the book.] I have no doubt the defendants
were present. By the SOLICITOR-GENERAL.—I saw the
names of the parties in this book. I recollected that they
were present before I saw the book. By Mr. CROMPTON.—
On the Bth February, 1837, there was a meeting of the board,
the fair copy minute of which purports to be signed " Alexan-
dercer Bower." On the 6th of
Bower." The annual meeting was held the next day.
'rhereis a
1837,miu signeduteof " Alexander
annual meeting held on the 9th of
February,February, 1838, there was a meeting of the Manchester board,
and the annual meeting was held on the 7th ; there was also
a meeting of the board on the 31st Jan., 1838. This report
of the annual meeting is signed " Alexander Bower, chair-
man." After the 7th February, 1838, the meetings of share-
holders began to be held half-yearly. On the 31st of July,
1838, there was a general meeting of the board, and the
minute is signed by Alexander Bower. On the following
day, the annual meeting was held, and the minute of the pro-
ceedings is signed " Alexander Bower. At the meeting in
February, 1837, Mr. Bower was present, and I have no doubt
the others, but Ido not recollect particularly. Ido not re-
member any of the Manchester directors being absent from
any meeting. I attended the general meeting of
e meeting
annualo
share-
holders, and I do not doubt that all the defendants were
meeting the
general
of
there. On the Ist August, 1.838, there was a meeting of
shareholders, and I think this is the signature of Mr. Ash-
tonboard of directors in 1839 was held on the sth of February,
to the resolutions. The annualenanl
and the annual meeting of shareholders was held on the
6th of February. The minutes ar both meetings are
signed " Alexander Bower• Ihave no doubt the de-
fendants were all there.
the general board was held on the 6th of August, 1839,
and is signed " Alexander Bower:. and the annual meeting of
the shareholders was held 00 the eth of August, and is signed
by Mr. Bower. I believe. the defendants were present, but
1 do not recollect them heing absent ; but, at so many meet-
ings, I cannot speak positively• At the board meeting on the
4th of February, '4O, and half-yearly meeting on the sth of
February, 'lO, which are signed Alexander Bower," it
• does not occur to me that the defendants were absent. That
was not the last half-yearly meeting. The bank stopped in
June 1840, and the winding up was carried on under another
board of directors. I know nothing of the accounts of the
company, except what I heard from other parties.
Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL.—I have
been employed in bringing actions against parties on account
of the bank, amongst others Mr. Taylor, the plaintiff, who
was a customer. This was nose months ago. I got tb