Carlisle Patriot 18 May 1844 Legal Intelligence - Bankruptcy (2)

Legal Intelligence - Bankruptcy (2)

Carlisle Patriot - 18 May 1844

L E G A L I NT E L L I G E N C E . COURT OF BANKRUPTCY AT NEWCASTLE. (Before Mr. Commissioner ELLISON.) IN RE JOHN COWWN. [sic - should be COWEN] The examination of this bankrupt was resumed on Friday last. The notes taken during the previous inquiries having been read, the Commissioner asked if he wished to add anything to his former statement. - Bankrupt: I wish to add, that my reason for taking my money out of my trunk, was because the lock and key were so bad; and also, that in the evenings Mr. and Mrs. SHEFFIELD were frequently out, and then they left the key of the house at a neighbour's, and I believe that on the night of the 4th of March they were both out, because they told me at tea that they were going out. - Commissioner: Are you quite sure that about six o'clock on the evening of the 5th of March, there was in your trunk, which was in the house of Mr. SHEFFIELD, a canvass bag containing the sum of £510. Bankrupt: I am quite sure. - Commissioner: Your account is given credit to as true, and is taken to be true against you, and you will be further examined as to what had become of that sum of £510, and all the particulars of your statement respecting the alleged loss or robbery of the said sum on the evening of the 4th of March. You will now be examined with particularity. Is any part of that sum of money now in your possession or power? Bankrupt: it is not. - Commissioner: Has any part been delivered up to your assignee, or been in any manner employed by you, or by any other person, with your consent? Bankrupt: Not any. - Commissioner: What has become of it? Bankrupt: I can give no other account of it than I gave on my former and last examinations. I have not since recovered or heard any tidings of it. Commissioner: Your answer to the question, what has become of the money, is unsatisfactory to the court, inasmuch as the court does not give credit to your statement respecting the loss or robbery, but if your answers to the questions now about to be put to you, respecting the circumstances of that statement, produce a change in the mind of the court, of the truth of that statement, or any part of it, you will receive the full benefit of it. - The bankrupt proceeded to relate the circumstances, but added nothing to what had been already detailed. Mrs. Mary LAWSON was then called on and examined by Mr. HALL. Were you or your husband acquainted with the bankrupt before you apprenticed your son? Witness: No. Commissioner: When did you apprentice your son? Witness: A few weeks before he started business. - Mr. HALL: Did you hear he was starting business as a draper? Witness: Yes, I did. - Mr. HALL: Did your husband apply to him to take your son? Witness: Yes, he gave him £50, which was paid about March. - Mr. HALL: Did the bankrupt come to your house to receive the money? Witness: Yes, he did, but I do not recollect the time. - Mr. HALL: Were you present when your husband paid the money? Witness: I was not present, but I saw the money lying on the table. When my husband was not present, I said to him, that some said he had a good deal of money to commence business with, and others said he had not. He said he would show me the money, which he did, and counted £510 before me on the table. He had it in a canvass bag. Part of it was in notes and part in gold. He said he had more money, but he did not show it to me. He took the bag out of his coat pocket. I have only seen him once since, and he asked me if I recollected about showing me the money; that will be about three weeks ago. The Bankrupt's father was then called, and examined by Mr. HALL. Did you advance any money to your son? Witness: Yes, £220. He never told me he had been robbed. I saw my daughter give him some money which was given to her by her uncle. - Mr. CRAM: Did you get any security from your son? Witness: Nothing but a bit of paper. - Commissioner: Did your son give you any paper? Witness: I have nothing but a piece of paper, which I think my daughter has. Miss Mary COWEN was then called. Commissioner: Do you know any thing of your father advancing any money? Witness: Yes, I do. I saw no paper given to my father. I set it down in a little book. I have a piece of paper here, which I copied out of the book before I came from home. I heard first of my brother being robbed about two months before he failed. He told me he had been robbed of £510, but said he did not tell the police of it, because he was afraid to mention it for fear of injuring his credit. I lent him £260. - The bankrupt was again examined, but he adhered to what he had previously said respecting the loss of the money. He said that he took no steps to recover the lost money, but made every exertion to settle his affairs without mentioning the circumstance, he was ashamed of it. - Commissioner: The answers you have given are not satisfactory to the court, and it will be my painful duty to send you to gaol. - Mr. HALL said, he had to make a few observations on behalf of the bankrupt. He requested the Commissioner to consider the youth and inexperience of the bankrupt, he never having before been either in a large town or trusted with such a large sum of money and consequently was not likely to take the precaution which an experienced tradesman would have evinced. - The Commissioner remarked, that the bankrupt had his money locked away in his trunk from the time of his arrival in Manchester, on the 2nd, up to the night of the 4th; and the reason he took it out was because he was alarmed, because Mr. and Mrs. SHEFFIELD were going out. This appeared as if he was very careful of his money. Mr. HALL resumed, and said it would be in the recollection of the court that at the first meeting it was alledged that the bankrupt's motive for inventing this story was to set up the claims of his relatives - that appeared an understandable motive; but it had now been found that he had the money he alledged when on his road to Manchester. At the meeting on the 2nd May it was charged against him that he had concealed a large quantity of goods in a house in Penrith. A messenger had been dispatched to ascertain the truth of that charge, and it has now turned out to be without foundation. The court, therefore, if it disbelieve the bankrupt, must found its disbelief on some new supposition. It was now clear he had the money when he went to Manchester. It was clear also that the money never passed into his business - his honour would therefore be driven to the supposition, and that his conduct at the time did not warrant it: neither did his subsequent conduct warrant such a supposition. He had not failed like a fraudulent man. When he stopped payment his stock amounted to £1,400 (which was more than the average stock he had whilst in business;) his other effects to £200, and his liabilities to £2,200. The bearing of the bankrupt during the whole of the examination was not like one who had been guilty of any fraudulent act. At the commencement of his examination he was seriously admonished, if he still adhered to his first statement, that it would be the duty of the commissioner to send him to gaol. He still adhered to his first statement without prevarication, and he (Mr. H.) hoped that his honour would consider well before he sent him to gaol, where in all probability he would have to remain for an indefinite period. He considered that he had already suffered heavily from the loss of his money, while the really guilty parties, namely the two women had escaped. The Commissioner consented to defer judgment until Tuesday. TUESDAY, MAY 14. - The Bankrupt being sworn, was asked by the Commissioner if he had anything to say in explanation as to what had become of the sum of £510, part of his estate and effects, which was in his possession on the 4th day of March, 1843, and as to the alleged loss or robbery of the said sum, on the evening of the same day, at Manchester? Bankrupt: I have not. - Commissioner: Do you wish to say anything to the court? Bankrupt: I do not. - The Commissioner having then gone through the whole of the evidence, said, that he had given the subject every consideration, and he thought it almost incredible that a young man on the point of commencing business for himself, should be robbed of that sum, and not give information to the police, or, at least, to some of his confidential friends. The bankrupt had been stopping in the house of Mr. SHEFFIELD, with whom he had served his apprenticeship, and in whose house he could trust that large sum of money from the time of his arrival on the 2nd up to the night of the 4th, when he lost it, and yet he never mentioned it to him, a person in whom he might suppose he could put every confidence, neither does he mention it to any one, till a considerable time afterwards, the first person being his sister, and to her he did not name until about two months before his failure. He (the Commissioner) therefore felt it to be his duty to commit the bankrupt to gaol, there to lie until he could give a proper account as to what had become of the money. The bankrupt was accordingly committed into the hands of the messenger, there to remain in safe custody until a warrant was made out for his commitment.

 

< Prev		Next >