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

the Central Bank. Was only able to pay 13a. (id under oar
bankruptcy. The plaintiff never told him that he had applied
shares in December, 1835. (Identified letters written by the
plaintiff to the bank in 1835.) Witness always went with
Mr. Langton to the plaintiff at the time the negotia thin
about the purchase of the shares was going forward. The
reason the cheque was signed fur the sad not fur the
was because Mr. Langton said it would have a bud effect on
the Manchester market, it it were signed for anything less
than £7. Mr. Langton died in eighteen months alter. The
plaintiff never told witness that the hills he was sending into
the hank had been remonstrated against, and that he thought
he would get money more easily from the concern if he
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 SoLic ITOR-GENERAL 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. lie 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-GENF:RAL 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. lie also
referred to the case of Vokesv. Steinkeller 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 souse 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 tire 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. Tire 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 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 and of the existence of the bad
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 1840 by hostile auditors, the defend-
ants, Ashton ana 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 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 bad 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. lie
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. Penton 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 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. lie guarded himself about being supposed to give any
opinion in favour of joint-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, from 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 Culshatc, 27,
were charged with having, on the 29th of September, i❑ the
neighbourhood of Orinskirk, 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 £29 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 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 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 nute, and his reply was, that
he knew nothin,, at all about it. lie afterwards summoned
the prisoner to the Court of Requests for the amount of the
note, but the summons was dismissed. The prisoner was
afterwards brought before Mr. Rushton, and was committed.
The boy, on eross-examination, admitted that he had
stolen his mother's gown, and pawned it. That he occasion-
ally took a sup of drink, and was in liquor when he gave the
shipping-note to the prosecutor, though he said he knew
what he was about. The father, on his cross-examination,
said the boy was a good lad, and be never knew any thing