Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-03-26
ROYAL BRITISH BANK CONSPIRACY.

Seven Directors and the Manager, Hugh 1nne
Cameron,) of the Royal British Bank, were in Feb
ruary brought up for trial before the Court Of Queen
Bench, Lord Campbell presiding. Ths chargeI
against these parties were for conspiracy and fraud
relation to the management of the late Royal British
Bank, viz
Ist Overt Aot.-Putlishing false report for the
half.year to December 81, 1855. declaring dividend
of per Cent? and that new shares would be issued
premium.
I'd Overt Act.-Issuiug new shares, knowing ths
bank to be 10 failing condition.
Sd Overt Act.-Publishing false balance shee
for the year, false in the amount Of assets, 10 the
provision for bad debt and in the profit and loss
count.
4th Overt Act.-Psying dividend when no profit.
were made.
5th Overt Act-Buying the bank shares with the
| bank's money to keep up the price.
| 9th Overt Act.-Publishing a circular, September
TO- 1855, to the shareholders 10 induce them 10 buy
new shares, when the bank Was in falling condi
| ton.
7th Overt Act -Publishing an advertisement In
| vng persons TO open accounts when the bank was
approaching insolvency.
| 9th Overt Act.-Publishng an issue OF 2,OO0 more
shares when the bank was failing.
The I'd count charged similar conspiracy against
customers and creditors Of the bank, and contained
seven overt acts similar to numbers to in the Let
count.
the Queens subjects generally. The overt acts were
| the same "a in the Let count.
| The 4th count charged conspiracy to cheat and
defraud such Of the shareholders as were ignorant
of the true state OF the bank, by inducing them oy
false prstences, TO puI chase and hold additional
shares in the bank the defendants knowing the bank
| to BIZ in bad aud dangerous .Ondton and approach
ing insolvency. and that the shares we're unrate and
might BIZ runous to tho holders The overt acts were
the same as Nos to in the lat count
The 5'h count charged similar conspiracy against
the Queens subjects generally The overt acts were
the same as Nos. 4, and 7 in the lst count.
The 9th and last count charged general con'pira
cy TO cheat and defrsud John Arundel, and several
other persons named, Of their money"
Among the parties implicated was Mr.. Henry Dun
ming Mcleod, author of work OIL the principles
of Banking"
We extract from Lord Campbelrs remarks as fol.
lows:
Lord Campbell said, shall first pass sentence upon
you Humphrey Brown, Edward Esdaile, and Hugh
Innes Cameron. After long, and, hope, impartial
trial, you have been convicted by Jury OF your
country upon the clear.st evidence of an Infamous
crime. You were charged with consprlng to deceive
and defraud the shareholders Of the bank TO which
you belonged, by false representations and it is clear
that you did 80. acqut you OF having originated
this bank with the fraudulent intent TO cheat the pub
lie; but il ia now demonstrated that for years you
have carried on system Of deliberate fraud, and IA
brcated documents, for the purpose OF deceiving
the public, for your own direct or indirect benefit
II would be disgrace to the law OF any country 1t
this we're not crime to be punished. 1t is not a
mere breach of contract with the shareholders or
customers OF the bank but it Ia criminal conspiracy
to do what inevitably leads TO great public mischief,
in the ruin of families, and reducing the widow
and orphan from aiuence to deetitution, regret to
cay that in mitigation of your offence, it was said that
it was a common practice. Unfortunately, a axity
has been introduced into certain commercial deal
ings not from any defect in the law, but from the law
not being put in force and practices have been adopt
ed, without bringing consciousness OF shame, and
fear without much loss OF character among those
with whom they associate. Ii was time stop should
be put to such system, and this Information was
properly filed by Her Majssiy's Attorney General,
and the jury have properly found you guilty. hope
it will now b. known that such practices are Illegal
and will not only give rise TO punishment but that
no length of nvesgation no lntrcacies OF accounts
and no devices will be able to shield such practices
On account ), this being the first prosecution OF ths
nature, pronounce milder sentence than other
wire should but the mildest sentence that can pro
nounce upoI you, Humphrey Brown, Edward Esdae,
and Hugh Innes Cameron, is that you be imprisoned
| in the Queens Prison for one year.
Richard Barty Kennedy, the jury nave recommeH'
ded you tc mercy, and think there are grounds
which justified them in coming 10 that conclusion !
but still there is strong evidence against you Ihat
paper for which the jury sent shows That though you
were rapectable member of society, and filled
credtaby the Office of sheriff, you lent yourself 10
this deception. You did not derive any personal ad'
vantage fr,m It, but it is clear to my mind nat when
YOU oineG in that ast report you were fully aware
that tbe bnk was insolvent. and you knew II TO oe
false Tn, lightest sentence can give you Is nine
mouths Imprisonment in the Queens prison.
Wshavs, no doubt had 10 this country, cases parai
lei to that Of the Royal British Bank, viz concerted
plan TO deceive the public as TO the true condition Of
Bank ,sud we think the judgement in the present
case none too severe.