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

488th INTZLIJORNOR

.____.
CROWN COURT-FRIDAI

CRARTER CASES.
OpeneWilliam Williams, 35, was indicted for having, at Oldham,
24th August last, attended an illegal meeting in the
air, and there used seditious, wicked, and inflamma!ory
c
language, tending to bring her Majesty's government into
ontempt, and to lead to sudden changes and sedition. There
were three counts in the indictment. The first charged him,
along with others, in excg to riot—the second charged-
him, with others, in attempti agoo force her Majesty's sub_
leers from their lawful occupns—and the third charged
him with attempting to force the people to give up work ti
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 tendered their evidence, addressed the
jury in his own behalf.
His Lordship summed up. Re explained the three counts
in the indictment, but stated that the crown had abandoned
the third It
• would, therefore, be 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
a riot, by inducing them to go and intimidate peaceful peo-
ple, 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
Weilmust find him guilty ; but if thq were not satisfied that such
leiisuintntions, they would acquit him.
fter a few minutes' consultation,
VerdietjofrgYu' illty
returnedtoa
his lord'h• uPon the first count, but recommended
cionnpsrliseorna.tto
, bee
to take into 'd • ' • oner had
already been five months a that the prisoner His Lordsh
tion ip said he would tt d the recommenda-
, and then ordered h • aen to
t e prisoner down.
George So th
uan stood h dwith having attended
an unlawful 'whoineeir in f, c arge
the caPacitY of chairman, at Ashton,
in the month of August last, pleadedguilty.M Murphy
hoped his to h'
, r. ,
slight, %,, •
s IP, as the charge against the prisoner was
ould discharge him on his entering into a recogni-
zance for his future good conduct. Mr. Wortley, on the
part of the crown, agreed in the recommendation of the
learned Sergeant (Nlurphy.) His Lordship then told the
Prisoner he would be discharged on giving a recognizance
for .t2OO to keep the peace for two years.
The Court rose at a quarter past eight o'clock.
__

_.
NISI PRIUS COURT.—FainAv.
Mr. Justice Coltman took his seat on the bench at two
O'clock, when the Commercial Bank of England case was re-
sumed. The first witness called was
Alexander Graham, the manager of the Birmingham branch,
whose direct examination had not been closed at the rising
of the court last evening. He gave additional evidence as to
'741 the. manner in which business had been transacted at his
11, ane, said that a sum of £lO,OOO had been set aside
Y
she Purchase of shares, in the beginning of March, 1840,
Y uoard Minute. The resignation of Mr. Turner, shea
director, was ordered at the same time to be inserted in
Minutes. When the account of Mr. Nlacardy was investi-
e.ted, there appeared to be a sum of £10,816 due to the bank.
vs ituess furnished a report to the directors.
ivCross-examined by the SOLICITOR•GENERAL.—Was ori-
g,inaitY an accountant at the Birmingham branch. Had pre-
:,'°llB,lY been an accountant in Scotland. His knowledge of
'ranking business in his having wound up bankrupts' estates.
thetlr rAei r ' Bower, and Ashton examined particular acconts at
rtningbain branch towards the latter end of 1835. Four
or live of the directors went regularly through the accounts
of the branch in 1839, The inspector of the branches went
over the accounts about once a year.
Alexander Davidson, the present manager of the winding
ull of the Commercial Bank, said he first became connected
With it in 1834. He was accountant in the Rochdale, Lud-
',°,v, Ashbourne, and Manchester branches. Weekly, quar-
terly, and half-
yearly statements were sent from the branches
to the head bank. Was chiefly accountant at Manchester up
;'altO the stoppage of the bank, and in that capacity his duty
was to make out the statements for the directors and gene-
board. He only conducted one half-yearly balance prior
o the stoppage. The bank stopped in June, 1840. Some
of the branches stopped the day before. The books and pa-
pers remained at their respective branches until they were
el°Bed. and then they were transmitted to 'Manchester. Since
then
Limeythe have been under witness's management. About
tjethe
of the stoppage witness was desired to make out an
aecount of the state of the bank. The amount of the liabili-
_s of the bank at the time of the stoppage was about
'4,300,000. Witness assisted a committee of inspectors, 19-
Pointed at a general meeting of the shareholders, in forming
,aji estimate of bad and doubtful debts owing to the bank.
In'Ye'there were old balances on the books. Does not know the
ttehts which have since been paid. The creditors of the bank
generally been paid. The shareholders have never been
"id. Money has been borrowed of the shareholders for the
Purpose of paying off the creditors. That was borrowed at
the time of the stoppage. The bank still owea £50,000 to
;le shareholders on account of the money borrowed. The
Dank owes to the creditors generall • including the £50,000,
about £72.000. The liabilities of the'bank on the 31st of De-
eernber, 1839 were £658,759 ss. 9d. Bills current at that
tittle are not included in the sum now mentioned. The en-
tire of the liabilities in December, 1839,
:100,000 than they were in June, 1840. The amount of
were less by
(,)yerclue bills to the bank on the last day of 1840 was upwards
en-
s to the bank on the last day of 1840 was upwards of
80000. No bad debt account had been opened at that
3,0 time. The amount of overdue bills crn the 31st December,
Rw_as .C 81,914 ; and on the3lst December, 183, £38,553 12s 6d.
general bad debt account was kept at the bank prior to
e stoppage, but some debts were marked off as bad. Others
Were retained tot he close, and never marked off as bad. The
lassets of the bank if they o. Id be g t in after paying the
liabilities, would leave a u could be got in, after paying the
iShilitie would leave a Surplus of betwo eon '£Booo and £9OOO
ijl° Pay back the shareholdsersr their capital. This- was estimated
a cotntrittee. Witness believed the bank to be a very
'unriahing concern in 1836. He was then at Rochdale, and
not at head quarters. In. December, 1841, witness sent a
Printed circular to the plaintiff.
a„uloCross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL,--The
unt of overdue bills on the 31st December, 1837, was
''''4o,lls. The book containing the liabilities and assets was
tilt before the directors at the time they made their reports,
rhat book the
d the amount of the overdue bills. Se-
curities, in the shape of life policies and guarantees,
,73°,„wiere held for the - overdue bills. Securities were
held for the current accounts. Witness pre-
`,:ilirr,„ed Part of the report which was first laid before the
Mr-etPra and then) efore the general meeting of shareholders.
Sewell, the '
d another report. The only
tePort witness manager' prepared
altered, but most
of th..
,an ess sent before the directors was
the
..'e ' guage of it was retained. The currtnt accounts,
riaiolnecroourenttshoef profit and loss, and other documents were.
directors when they met to prepare the annual
teP,°,rts• Mr. Ashton arid Mr. Turner both advanced money
,ph'eoe bank, to the amount of £5OOO each, since the stoppage.o
~20Y0,1,1,,50 discounted bills and gave cash to the amount
l_sf
wilier t one time. The bills they discounted wt emrearbkielt.
Wheo rho not be discounted in the cliscoun
roi,,,_ e bank first stopped, witness considered, afterffi exa-
pa'_°S the accounts, that the assets would be sufficient to
tha?,l,l the liabilities and leave a surplus. It was then thoughteare.
ther"une a.ssets, would be much more than, it nownsPaP d
triao:h 'it& They were calculated at £212,000,
ount
bgreat
Of ael "ad. debts were afterwards discovered. Theta m
ii 4 'lai liabilities in October, 1840 were £231,106. They
st.loo,boeon. reduced from th preceding June by about
Itesela
oft,
sin pined by Mr. KNOWLES.—Witnes did not strike
rePort g e bad debt when he furnished the directors
1ir:81.,r,: Mthough the over-due bills, in December, 1839, were
~,11 He treated those over-due bills. as assets, not
tl ' ti
saes power to do otherwise. Witness s opiniton
The I:t it
ery fallacious to treat over-due bills as assehsr.
svais 4.:021unt of vitalca paid up by the shareholders altoet e
is iridepe,'o"). h£50,000 borrowed from the shareholders
elaudiusie,t of the original capital..
that
ae s a aytin, cashier at the Liverpool branch, stated
bell., , counts were constantly sent from that branch to the
the'',l°.ann.k at 'Manchester. A letter, containing the report of
was
tr',!ar tors to the general meeting of the shareholders,
,am'otna:nn ted in February, 1836, from the head bank to the
e;:r
,of
the Liverpool branch. It was signed by the
Davis% tile head bank.
for the"on was here recalled, and said that lie had searched
he had ;;ePort, forwarded to the Liverpool branch, and that
bank,been uuable to find it. He searched for it at the head
hj,,,,l7sor.rerrolt-G, • . biasitted that the search should
was'iueen made at LivNegrilpoAorl,stland not at the head bank. It
lettelnlportaut that the report should be produced,_ as
sharouoirected the manager at Liverpool to lay it beforethe
iii.ll.lders there.
Is, !.1,-.oanslllP took a note of the objection.
tift4nr!a thso proved the purchase of the shares by the plain_
Pn his cross-examination, by the SOLICITOR-GENE.
Of c
,Qe Said the plaintiff was a surgeon and buyer and sel er
IS74B°Ltnn, and that he did business with the bank in bills.
gasedt't°t Present in December, 1835, when the plaintiff en-
l'ot reatake between 200 and 300 shares in the ba.nk. OeS
ltejthe -,tect
beingbe present when any such conversation passed;
i1,11°,8 recollect that a factory was sold by. the plain-
in. 0, "e Plaintiff was remonstrated with respecting. the na-
h,d-n t the bills lie was paying in. The manager at Liverpool
Power° "„wer to allot shares. The directors only had that
the nal 'ternonstrances were made with the plaintiff about
thar_!llre of his bills both before and after he purchased the
Tres'
q c015a.,1e I)aZ : Thplaintiff was frequently in the habit
, Ge4,,,ngiato the banke
',.'"ic in'eu"is examined by Mr. KNOWLES : Was junior
''''as r,--111,1e Livepool branch in 1.836 and entered the pur-
Sthetl,-4..,Gne,,,_shares in the book.—Cros's-examined by the So-
1111Qemaint..;:siss ever recollects being present when
td '" Proposed to take shares in the bank.
Ilaillo'iti'lff:rajlor examined by Mr.. IN...Lutist:l.—ls cousin to
ttxte: kept and was a merchant in Liverpool in 1834 and
„ „a . la account with the Commercial Bank at thatm
t4-"4 XI 1-14 "nsequence of some conversation between 11.1
11-"'elae priairiatnittgtotn,.the Liverpool manager, the latter applied
agaililgree to buy! Dr shares in the bank. The plaintiff did
4abil'• aPPlied the n the
.following December Mr. Langton
i.. ity thereto plaintiff to buy, and said tl at in all pro-
" which,would be an excellent dividend after Christmas
plaintiff
plyect;,_ lst would participate it he bought. The
..„_
a4eatie'en& In January, 1836, Nit.. Langton renewerint.unins
e haid.,„ nd, said that the bank had made 10 per
iee
Le the r ,4P't'll• The plaintiff still refused until_htee.
Z',,n_nth iq1.".,,t. of the directors. the latter part of I
,'ute said hie
rLoangton renewed hisapplication, when the Plain"
shouldam e
they
Litre offered'. Id Purchase shares at the price at which
ter 44,d , Ili the preceding month by Mr. Langton. The
I‘.4les! cl' tnaeacitAild not do th.at. In ten days or a fortnight,
itti wither' t" "4ultimately again applied, and the plaintiff
t° s,h e'l first
Ou_take 200 shares at £6 each. Mr. Langton de-
t() ether he w ner, and desired him to make up. his mind
declined
Pureh lid buy or not. The plaintiff aga'n lair.
s-ankto,, -;,-, unt,l
be had seen the directors' report. days
tiad ,i, " tlie lid that ti
kr,,:.u, at snow
null . le report would be
be i'l!srl it.ln write to Manchesterfor
told witness
fa 40 read " o days after, Mr. Lang
th
ouotnten,aafnedw then
srect to the ..ia:e r,ePort,
.and asked him to. .
tit to „ i' intiff. Witness and the communicateplaintiff
it w . ne h„„,_
It was
~._, rittea d '"K I when Langton handed the report..
tiff and
wit/ e_ ocument I '
The plain
200
~. Lss raid ~,
and ying on the counter.
the
ti.
each., itthen the former agreeuLtoitP subsequently
nure q,reeto Mn.ai Langton
the offer to
promised to s
fi r°ur dayral' ,alld to get the scrip down accepted.
for £1,400
urchinasteh
1.-): 200 shereallter, Mr. Langton handed a chenn Mr.
tha't'gton Enid at 'C7, each, which the plaintiffsigned., and
ti' the plas..„ e Price hi the market was £7 Pe
between the
and
.t 7 i"fr Would be allowed the difference
sent •
does -te,latnined .1),,,. •i
A L —W itn e s s
tic, '',l ktlo,v
of
th, lin? ;()LICTTOR-GENERAL.—Witness
appliea,-,
tiv+eriloothe direetorsef aintiff having. maste_...'"
iryhai, °I last Nlay, r shares in Feb., 183 n
on the business ofl t
''the `,,er 4t Gl,s,__,v. anNot.ansotwwiocearartets,al-Ikrupt
best io , 6° Witness left
'claequence of having been a shareholder it'll

CROWN COURT.--SATURDAY.
NIGHT POACHING.

Richard Johnson, alias Willis, 34, and John Culshaw, 27,
were charged with having, on the 29th of September, in the
neighbourhood of Ormskirk, been out armed in pursuit of
game, in a field the property of Lord Skelinersdale. 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. Wilkie for the defence.
—Thene former, in stating the case, explained the nature of
seam'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 him 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
the father. There was no indorsement on it then, nor did
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,aepr,
thepro-
priated it to himself and obtained the money. After
sailing of the ship, the father saw the prisoner, and asked
him if he would deliver up the note, and his reply was,
that
he knew nothing at all about it. Heafterwards
the prisoner to the Court of Requests
summoned
for thehe prisoner amount of the
note, but the summons was dismissed. T
afterwards brought before Mr. Rushton, and wasp was
committed.
The boy, on cross-examination, ad
stolen his mother's gown, and pawned it.
that he had
. That, he occasion-
ally took a sup of drink, and was in liquor
wren
he knew
shipping-note to the prosecutor, though he 7he gave the
what he was about. The father, on
his cross-examination,
said the boy was a good lad, and he never thing
knew any

, Ito Contriii bcwhk: WA) orily IILI4 ti 2 m IRa. 0,1 4r+iibt Dist
• L.- . tqV 'ha Pl4lht4 tIM,4 inld him that ha
,had spplled
huh 'ly .
SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZE 6 shares in December, ISM, (Iderititled Jotters wiitten by the
plaintiff to the bank in 1835.) Witness always went with
—FRI, Mr. Langton to the plaintiff at the time the negotiation
about the purchase of the shares was going forward. The.t
Bridget hie CASES OF FELONY, reason the cheque was signed for the ti, and not for the O,
num was placed at the bar. She stood charged was because Mr. Langton said it would have a bad effect or,
vweirtehighnaving assaulted and robbed Catharine Shaw, of ten so- the Manchester market, if it were signed for anything less
Crosbie-sstoren the 30th of August last, at the bottom of than £7. Mr. Langton died in eighteen months alter. The
months' . et, in this town. She was sentenced to four plaintiff never told witness that the bills lie was sending into
aulmprisonment Edward Peet 2' .
with having, at'Li); the bank had been remonstrated against, and that he thought
and Edward liughes, 24, were charged he would get money more easily front the concern if lie
saulted and stole -erpool, on the 14th of August last, as- became a shareholder.
was discharged, n a watch from William Robson. Hughes Three certificates for the 600 shares,
which had been pur-
yeanrs' transporti.
tn,!llleet was sentenced was sentenced to ten chased by the plaintiff, were then put in and read. They
x_vv:ilsicant Caldwell, Al, were signed by INlessrs. Slater and Turner, as directors.
was charged with having, at The SOLICITOR-GENERAL asked upon which of the counts
November upon entered upon certain enclosed land, on the 14th his learned friends were proceeding ?
armed with Ist'
in
was found the occupation of William Howard, Mr. KNOWLES said he proceeded on all the counts, be-
Meat vvith hgani
gitun, for the purpose of destroying game. lie cause lie submitted that there had been a general conspiracy
a. r d labour.
sentenced to nine months' imprison- to delude the public. He thought, under such circumstances
that he should not be called upon to select.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL asked, whether it was compe-
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 LORDSHIP 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. Thvnne. 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 SOLICITOR-GENERAL 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 plaintiff
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-
bons were made by the General Board; and, if this action
were sustainable against the defendants, every member of the
board was equally responsible. H e submitted, however, that
it was utterly impossible to sustain the charge of fraud and
falsehood upon the evidence which bad 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 make 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 arid 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. He would further show that when the ac-
counts were audited in 1810 by hostile auditors, the defend-
ants, Ashton and 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 hoard 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 taken
them without examination, they were not guilty of fraud and
falsehood. He complained of the defendants not 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 .t 5 per cent. up to that time. He asked whether the de-
fendants were to discredit the testimony of experienced men
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 of joint-stock banks ; but he said the bank
in this instance bad 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, from the wording
and reading of the first report, that the dividend was to he
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."