The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-05 00:00:00

*EST MIDDLESEX INSURANCE COMPANY
EXTRAORDINARY DISCLOSURES.

HOME CIRCUIT-KINGSTON ASSIZES, APRIL 1

NAPPER V. HOLE.
(Before Mr. Baron Gurney.)
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the de-
fendant, as the originator and principal in the establishment
of the West Middlesex Insurance Association, to recover from
him the sum of £9OO, which she had paid to that company
for an annuity of £76 Ms., and of which sum it was alleged
that she had been defrauded by the defendant ; and also that
the association had merely been got up for the purposes 'of

Mr. Platt and Mr. Gurney were for the plaintiff, and Mr

Chambers for the defendant

Mr. Platt, in opening the case, observed that in the year
1836 the,defendant set on foot an establishment which was
called the West Middlesex Assurance Association, and from
which the public were to derive great advantages. Prospec-
tuses of a most alluring description were circulated, and in
the course of a short time sums to a very considerable
amount were deposited for the purchase of annuities. The
prospectuses set forth that the capital of the company was
£1,000,000, which had been raised by the sale of 20,000 shares
at £5O each ; and the names of fifteen persons, all bearing
the title of " Esquire," were duly advertised as directors ;
and it was further announced that the bankers were the Bank
of England, the Bank of Ireland, and the Western Bank of
Scotland. For about four years the• concern appeared to be
going on prosperously, and the annuities were regularly paid ;
but at the commencement of the last year the bubble burst,
and it was then ascertained that the whole was a fraudulent
scheme, concocted for the purpose of entrapping the unwary
and plundering them of alltheir property. It would be dis-
tinctly shoWia, that of the fifteen directors announced in the
prospectuses, ten or twelve of the names were entirely ficti-
tious, and the others were persons in a very humble station
in life ; that.not only was there no capital whatever, but that
none of the shares alleged to have been taken had ever been
paid for. The learned counsel, after alluding to the alluring
character of the prospectuses, concluded by saying that it was
evident the defendant at the time he commenced the under-
taking was aware that it would not be profitable—that he
embarked in it for the purpose of 'defrauding the unwary—
that the nhole scheme was founded in fraud,. and for the ex-
press partible of applying-to his own use the money invested
with the alleged company.
After some evidence to prove that the defendant was secre-
tary and principil in the company, Mr. W. Wilson was
called and said—l was one of the directors of the company
in question. When'l first became connected with it I kept
a school in the Edgeware-road. I solicited employment as
clerk in the office. The defendant said I should be in the
office, and he :•t once placed my name in the list of direc-
tors. It was subsequently arranged that I should receiee ss.
per week for my services. I was Only required to attend one
day in the week ;. that was on board days, fur the purpose of

signing policies: I-used to sign all the policies and annuity
deeds which were laid before me. A member of shares was
allotted to me • when l was appointed a director, but I never
paid anything for them. The company never had any capi-
tal that lam aware of. I continued to,act as :1 director until
the breaking up of the concern.
tery and manager nearly the-whop: of th
deed of partnership previous to
in 1836. Amongst the directors
ander, Esq., Bedford, Esq.
Fergusson, Esq. Ido r
saw them at the board

The def

ant was secre-
. I signed the
of the office,
the names of H. Alex-
re, Esq.,— Hope, and
now any such persons, never
any of the meetings. There

are also the names of W. \Nilson, and T. P. Price, in
the list. I am the person first alluded to as W. Wilson, Esq.
and T. P. Price, Esq. is a v,,utli about 16 years of age, who
was employed in the office as writing clerk, and to go on
errands. A certain number of shares were allotted to each
of us, which of course we never paid for. The defendant
always paid me my salary ; he also paid all other persons
employed in the concern : it was agreed that I was to have
ss. a-week for signing the policies. &c., for tie first year,
and 10s. a-week afterwards. After I bad been a director for
two years I was promoted to the situation of clerk, at £75
per annum ; but still retained my seat at the board. For my
last year's services I received £3OO ; but that was after the
defendant left the concern. I received the letter produced
from the defendant ; it is in his handwriting.
The following letter was then read I— _ _

" Sir,—During the time of my secretaryship the following
sums were paid by me :—Knowles, £4,040; Mr. Williams,
£4,038 55.; Ditto, as solicitor for office business, £1,857 4s ;
Mr. Hole, £7,857 ; ditto, on retiring, £lO,OOO, in manner
following : houses in Glocester-place, Surrey-street, and
Maids-hill; to Hole, the freeholds, £8,900; total to Hole,
£26,257. I have the checks to prove the sums I have paid
to Knowles and Williams; therefore whosoever said I had
more than this is a liar, like unto Peter, who denied his Mas-
ter, and afterwards went and wept, or like unto Judas, who
betrayed his Master, and went afterwards and hanged him-
self. All that I have said or written I can prove.
" April 23. 1840. Yours, &c., " W. HOLE."
_ _

I insured my life in the concern for £lOO, and allowed dis-
count for present payment, and I received £93. I got the
money immediately after I insured ; the defendant gave me
the amount. .

Three checks for £5OO each were then put in, they were
signed " William Hole," and made payable to Mr. Wil-
liams. One check was on the Bank of England, and the
others on the Western Bank of Scotland.
William Edward Taylor said,—l was one of the directors,
and was appointed when the association was first established;
previous to that period I was a journeyman locksmith and
bellhanger, and was in the employ .of a Mr. Greathead. The
defendant married my wife's sister. I was applied to by the
defendant and Knowles to become a director. Was in the
habit of attending at the board on Fridays. I received 2s. 6d.
for each attendance fOr a year and a half. I afterwards re-
ceived a salary of £BO per annum, though I only attended as
a director to sign my name to policies. Knowles was chair-
man of the directors. I was desired by the defendant to sign
my name. I signed all documents laid before me. It was
at first arranged that I should sign for three years, as Mr.
Williams was then to take my place ; but at the expiration of
that time he said I might as well continuo signing, as it was
all the same. . .

Mr. Platt —Did you receive any directions with respect to
your dress and appearance ?
Witness.-011, yes ; we were to dress well, and were or-
dered to wear rings and jewellery.
Mr. Platt.—Did you do so ?

Witness.—Yes; as the defendants gave rings to wear.
A paper in the defendant's handwriting was here read,
upon which was a memorandum, dated Sept. 13,1839, to the
following effect :—" Tay}or fined for not havihg on his ring."
The witness said they were often fined for a similar offence.
Cross-examined.—Many tines were levied and exacted. Was
ordered by the defendant to sign the documents.
Mr. Baron Gurney observed that the witness and his col-
leagues appeared to be the " directed," instead of the " di-
rectors.'

Re-examined.—Knowles and Mr. Williams acted as sec-
retaries after the defendants left the concern. I had no sus-
picion that anything was wrong. I placed great reliance in
the defendant. Williams, Hole, Hustler, and the defen-
dant used to be in a private room together, except on board
days.

Joseph Packer, a law-stationer, stated that he was em-
ployed to engross the deed of the company; which was dated
26th September, 1837. Saw the first nine names on the list
of shareholders signed on that day. Ile was afterwards de-
sired to obtain other signatures to it. He did so during the
vacation of 1840. He applied to persons indiscriminately to
put their signatures to it, and it remained at his office for the
purpose. He was employed by Knowles and Williams. Re-
collects being at the company's office one morning when the
defendant and his wife were there. The post had just been
delivered; and he saw the defendant open some letters and
take some bank-notes from them. He =de some observa-
tion to his wife; helieved the words were "look here." He
then put the•notes into his pocket : and went away with his
wife. Whenever he got any persons to sign the deed, a num-
ber of shares were always placed opposite their names. _

Cross-examined.— nowles married his (witness's) wife's
sister. Knowles employed him to engross the deed.
The deed creating the company was then read, and it ap-
peared that the defendant was appointed secretary and ex
officio a director for life ; it further stated that he was to be
allowed, besides his salary, 70 shares, and his wife, as a pro-
vision for her and for her absolute use and benefit, was to be
allowed 700 shares. _ _ . .

.....„
Another letter, of which the following is a copy, was then

put in :

"France, Jan. 1, 1841

,
" Knowles,—Thou art a scoundrel, and thy son no better.
I shall print_ and publish all the by-laws and proceedings
which relate to any transactions which I had with the com-
pany, and expose your villainy to Mackthnie and others, and
I give you and your lying rascal of a b— notice, that if you
or he should dare to publish any slander relative to my cha-
racter, I shall instruct my solicitor to prosecute you, you
d—d perjured scoundrel—yr,u base 'wretch; swear against
your own handwriting? what' swear you never borrowed
any money of me for the ? Oh ! wicked wretch ; I
have your signature, and my solicitor has seen it. Base, base,
base; hang thyself with your friend Williams. Truth.

" WILLIAM HOLE."
ye again plundered the office

" P.S.—I have heard yc
Oh ! how many times, wre

Addressed to " Mr.• Thomas Knowles, 44, Cambridge-
terrace, Paddington, London."
This was the plaintiff's case.

Mr. Chambets then addressed the jury for the defendant.
He argued that there was no evidence to show that Hole had
not originated the speculation believing that it would be pro-
fitable to the public as well as to himself, and that the break-
ing up of the establishment was attributable to the miscon-
duct of Knowles and Williams. And although he admitted
that it had been the occasion of great distress and misery,
yet the defendant was not responsible for it, and he ought
not to be ruined because the specUlation lie had promoted
had not proved successful to those who embarked in it. The
learned counsel then proceeded at some length to comment
upon the facts of the ease, and concluded by stating that the
charge of fraud had not been proved, and that the defendant
was entitled to a verdict.

Baron Gqrney addressed the jury, and said that the plain-
tiff in this action sought to recover from the -defendant a sum
of money of which he had, as was alleged, deprived her by
fraud ; and if the jury believed that the money was obtained
by fraud by the defendant, or by others acting in concert and
conspiracy with him, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, £9OO.

l'Ajen'other actions of the same description were brought
against this defendant, for sums varying from £2,500 to £6O,
and all with a similar result.

The following are the receipts of railways for the past week
—that is to say, up to the date to whieh the respective re-
turns are made :—Birmingham, £14,112 ; Great Western,
£11,033 ; Brighton, £2,821 • South Western, £5,075 ; York
and North Midland, £1,669; Blackwell, £736; Edinburgh-
and Glasgow, £1,628; Midland Counties, £`2.316; North
Midland, £3,75 ; Great North of England, £1,067 ; Bir-
mingham and Derby; £1,033 ; Northern and Eastern,
£1.266 ; Croyden, £320 ; Manchester and Birmingham,
£471 ; Eastern Counties, 876 •, Birmingham and Gloucester,
£1,547 ; and Hull and Selby, £953.
MURDER AVD SUICIDE.—On the morning of Thursday
last, the hamlet and vicinity of Kingswood, principally in-
habited by colliers, about two miles from this city, on the
Bath road, was thrown into the most appalling state of con-
sternation by the tragic occurrences which we have now the
painful duty of detailing. Amongst its inhabitants was a
man named Samuel Cook, between 40 and 50 years of age,
unmarried, and who resided with his sister, Edith Cook, said
to have been a few years .older, in his own freehold cottage.
Samuel, who formerly was a collier, had by industry and
frugality realised a competency, and his income consisted
principally of the rents of his own freehold cottages. His
habits were serious ; he was a regular attendant at the metho-
dist chapel ; perfectly sober, even to being a member of the
teetotal society ; and through life was considered to be of a
most kindly disposition. On Thursday morning, shortly
.1 in through the
little after sevteinwonn'ctltoacgke with milk,,themi w passing lk-man, Abraham Fry, came as
usualli to
e garden in front, he was struck with
l horror at beholding
the body of Edith Cook lying in apoaof
fromher body.
life quite
extinct, and her head nearly severed
tilde
yy
found )rl .ec tseadt tui
el
neighbours, when, on entering t e
h• stl a wound on his own
Cook on the floor, with nearly as g Y
voluntary cry which broke froh m
The wretched man, who
throat, and a razor in his hand.
now I have murdered
myself." Medical assistance was sent
Choimttagrea
for, .and Mr. Sewed
surgeon the
sp
was fast hurrying to eternity , had barelydstrength to articu-
late " I have murdered my sister, and
; he sewed.
surgeon of Kingswood, was speedily o
Ise of insanity,
unhappy`victiro of, we hope,. some sudden impulse
h have' led to
up the wound and rendered every possible attention, but the
died about nine o'clock. Of the causes woe
this horrid perpetration, we can learn nothing that fully clears
the mystery hanging over it.—Bristol Journal.