The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-08-22 00:00:00

re to see

him-to put his books in order, as there w
who said many things. On the 29th of E _
of his creditors, Mr. Michael Hamilton, cam(

Liverpool and applied to the court of bankruptc

a special inquiry made into the

)risoner's affairs

20th September, the prisoner's goods and papers were
handed into the custody of the official assignee. October
the 3d was the day appointed for the private inquiry, and
at which the perjury he was charged with was committed.
The official assignee had written to Mr. Louis Peverelle
for a statement of his account, and it was then that the
latter made the false entries in his books, which made
his debt appear £4OO. Not satisfied with this, the official
assignee asked Louis Peverelle to furnish his invoices, and
then the latter furnished the false invoices. On the 28th
of October, the prisoner filed his balance-sheet at the
bankruptcy court, in which he stated his uncle's debt to
be £4OO, not having been informed of the discovery of
the fraud ; but, as the court knew it, he was not examined
upon oath as to the truth of the balance-sheet. On the
15th and 17th November, Louis Peverelle was examined,
and disclosed the frauds which had been committed. On
the 7th December, the prisoner filed his amended balance-
sheet, in which the true amount of the debt was stated.
The prisoner had been missing, since that time, until
within a few weeks ago, when he was arrested, examined,
and committed for trial. Now, the question was whether
the prisoner had committed that perjury with the inten-
tion of defrauding his creditors, and to defeat the pro-
visions of the bankrupt law.
The first witness called was

John Yate Lee, registrar of the Court of Bankruptcy
for the Liverpool district,who depose&that he producedthe
file of proceedings in the bankruptcy of Joseph Peverelle,
amongst which was the petition of. Joseph and Mary
Peverelle, dated August 23rd, 1853, asking for protection,
also account of debts and good', dated Bth September, and
signed by both'the prisoner and his wife. [His Lordship
asked why the wife had signed ? Witness replied that it
was the custom to allow the Elicitors in charge of the case
to please themselves in such a case. His Lordship re-
marked that such a proceeding was quite irregular, and
showed a want of knowledge of a common point of iaw.]
The witness also produced the various documents sworn
to before the Commissioners, and referred to in the ad-
dress of Mr. Bliss, which. were read by the officer of the
court.

Mr. John Yates, jun., solicitor, deposed to the prisoner's
signature to the document of the 3rd of October. He
stated, in cross-examination, that the creditors had nothing
to do with the present prosecution, but that he was in-
structed by the official assignees, who received directions
from the Court of Bankruptcy to prosecute. The pri-
soner's debts were £2,000, and his assets about £l,lOO.
Some of the creditors were paid Bs. in the pound, and
£4OO had been received from Mr. Pemberton, who had
acted as the prisoner's solicitor.
Louis Peverelle, of Birmingham, the prisoner's uncle,
was then examined at great length as to his several
transactions with the latter. He spoke to receiving vari-
ous letters from the prisoner, some written in English and
some in Italian, and copies of which were read in court,
requesting him to augment his debt, which in reality was
only £BB, to £3OO or £4OO, and announcing that the pri-
soner was passing through the Bankruptcy Court, and
would pay ss. in the pound to each of his creditors. The
witness admitted that he complied with the request, on
the prisoner persuading him that his dividend would then
repay him for his former losses. In answer to his Lord-
ship, he stated that he had divulged the frauds on being
asked the question before the Bankruptcy Court. He had
often told the prisoner that if questioned upon oath he
should tell the truth, for he would not take a false oath
for any man in England. _ _

Mr: Charles Pemberton, formerly solicitor to the pri-
soner, was also examined, but his evidence elicited nothing
material.

Mr. JAMES, before proceeding to address the jury, put it
to his Lordship whether there was any case against the
prisoner on the charge of falsifying the books, grounding
his objection on what he alleged to be an informal process
in the making of the prisoner a bankrupt, which was
overruled by his Lordship. The legal argument occupied
upwards of an hour and a half. Mr. James then ad-
dressed himself to the jury on the charge of perjury on
the part of the prisoner in stating his debt to Louis Peve-
relle to be about i.:400. The learned gentleman urged that
the prisoner had not wilfully made that false statement,
relying on the evidence of Louis Peverelle, from which it
appeared that at the time the prisoner left Bristol he was
indebted to his uncle from £l5O to £2OO. The prisoner
was unable to obtain an account from his uncle, yet,
after coming to Liverpool, he got further indebted to him
over £lOO, so that the jury would see there was nearly
£3OO of debt, if they considered that the prisoner's com-
position with his creditors was not a release. Besides,
youcould not convicts manfor perjury upon his own state-
ment alone, and the only other evidence against him was
that of Louis Peverelle, who did not come into the court
with a fair and unblemished character.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, told the jury that there
never was a clearer case; and a verdict of guilty on both
charges was at once returned.
Sentence was deferred.

The prisoner was then arraigned on a charge of felony
for not giving himself up into the custody of the Court of
Bankruptcy, when called upon ; but, as no evidence was
offered, he was acquitted upon that charge.
Frank Williamson was indicted for perjury at Oldham,
and William Taylor for suborning Williamson to commit
the perjury. Taylor pleaded not guilty. Williamson
acknowledged the offence. Mr. Monk informed the court
that the prosecution against Taylor had been abandoned,
and that he (Mr. Monk) had been instructed to recom-
mend Williamson to his lordship's mercy. Taylor, the
landlord of a public-house at Oldham, had been charged
before the magistrates with allowing Williamson and a
person named Hutchinson to play dominoes at his house,
and the perjury consisted in the two latter persons deny-
ing that they had been so permitted. His Lordship,
therefore, directed Taylor to be acquitted and discharged,
but the sentence on Williamson was deferred. Mr. Monk
said that the ground upon which the latter was recom-
mended to mercy was, that he had himself admitted the
perjvy before leaving the presence of the magistrates,
expressed his contrition, and desired to be allowed to tell
the truth, but the magistrates had at once committed
him for trial.

THE MURDER BY A SWISS EMIGRANT,

Antonio Tobacchi, 25, a native of Tessin, in Switzer-
land, was indicted for the murder of John Kelly, a sea-
man, in Preston-street, in this town. A mixed jury of
Englishmen and foreigners were empanelled to try the
prisoner. Tobacchi, who is a tall, powerful man, intended,
with several others of his countrymen, to emigrate to
Australia, and actually sailed in the steamer Great Britain
the first time she started on her last voyage. As will be
remembered, however, that vessel put back, and it was
shortly after her return to port that the fatality happened.
Mr. Aspinall prosecuted, and Mr. Overend appeared for
the prisoner.

The first witness called was Wm. Bowman, a publican
in Preston-street, who stated that, on the night of Thurs-
day, the 11th of May, the prisoner was in his publichouse,
in company with another foreigner and a female. The
deceased came iu shortly afterwards, and (according to the
evidence of this witness) placed himself in a fighting
attitude before the prisoner. Witness, however, turned
him out before any blows were struck. Some time after,
he heard what had occurred.

Henry Moss, a militiaman, deposed that, a few minutes
before twelve o'clock, he was standing near one of the
doors of Bowman's house, when there were a great number
of persons coming out together. The prisoner was among
them, and made a stab at him (witness) with his dagger,
but he made his escape to the other door, and immediately
heard a female cry out for a policeman, and on turning
round saw the deceased lying on the ground bleeding.

The witness was cross-examined at some length, but
nothing material was elicited.
Mary Ann Baker, a single woman, deposed that she
was passing Mr. Bowman's publichouse when she saw the
deceased come out alone, and shortly after the prisoner,
accompanied by two women. The prisoner pursued the
deceased, and, leaning over another person, stabbed him
in the breast with a dagger. The deceased fell, and the
prisoner came back to him, pulled it out of his breast, and
returned towards the publichouse. Witness screamed out
and ran for a policeman. Saw the prisoner arrested, and
the dagger drawn from his sleeve, where it had been
concealed. _ _

Elizabeth Ridgway, a female who • lived in Preston-
street, also deposed that she saw the deceased stabbed by
the prisoner. Police-officer 221 (Fielding), who appre-
hended the prisoner, and Mr. Henry Wall, surgeon at the
Northern Hospital, were also examined.
Mr. OVEEEND, on behalf of the prisoner, made a most
eloquent address to the jury, urging that, when they took
into consideration the provocation given by the deceased
to the prisoner, they would, no doubt, feel called upon to
find him guilty of manslaughter only. His lordship, in
summing up, told the jury it would be the safer course to
find the prisoner guilty of the lesser offence only.—Ver-
diet, guilty of manslaughter. Sentenced to six months
imprisonment, with hard labour.