Monday 20 September 1824
Morning Post
Mr Henry Fauntleroy – Full Particulars
It was known that Mr.Fauntleroy was the most generally acting partner of the Banking House, and usually, when in town, normally resided there. Plank, on receiving the warrant for his apprehension, went about seven o’clock the same evening, to the house in Berners Street and inquired for Mr.Fauntleroy, but was answered that that gentleman dined from home,and it was uncertain what time he should return. Plank determined to await that time, walked about the street near the house with another officer the whole of the night and until seven o’clock in the morning. Mr.Fauntleroy not having arrived home by that time Plank took it for granted that he had taken his rest somewhere else for the night, and the officer therefore returned to his own house, leaving, however, an officer still on the watch in Berners Street.
About ten o’clock, his usual hour for business, Mr.Fauntleroy was seen to enter the Banking house and information was despatched to Plank to that effect. Plank instantly proceeded, accompanied by Mr.Goodchild to Berners Street – – -When Plank however, entered the bank immediately after Mr.Goodchild he saw this gentleman in a small office, at the end of the counting-house speaking to a gentleman seated at a desk, whom he knew to be Mr.Fauntleroy. The officer did not therefore wait to present his check, but pushing on instantly by the clerks, saying that he wanted to speak one word to Mr.Fauntleroy he entered the place, where the latter and Mr.Goodchild were in conversation, and closing the door, made known his name and business at once, at the same time producing his warrant.
Mr.Fauntleroy became dreadfully agitated, nd exclaimed “Good God, cannot this business be settled?” Plank begged of him to make no noise, but to walk out quietly for a few minutes, and they would there talk about a settlement. Mr.Fauntleroy then signed a few blank checks, with a very unsteady hand, and giving them to one of the clerks, told him he should go our for a few minutes; and putting on his hat, walked out without observation, by the side of the officer, who immediatly conducted him to the private house of Mr.Conant. Mr.Fauntleroy being now fully aware of the dreadful situation in which he was placed, expressed a desire that the principal clerk at the banking house should be sent for, that he might give him some direction about the business of the day, which would otherwise be thrown into confusion, as it was not likely that any of the other parnters woud call in, it being his day of attendance. – – -When arrived at the Bank, Mr Graham had by accident just entered,and on learning the situation of his unhappy partner, he was thunderstruck for the moment, and scarely able to articulate. Mr Graham had not well recovered from his shock when Mr.Marsh, a very elderly gentleman, another partner, came in, and the unfortunate affair being disclosed to him, that gentleman dropped into a chair, and became insensible from the shock. These two gentlemen now threw open every place, and gave very facility to the search of the officer, declaring that they had no secrecy, and that the whole of their affairs and transactions should be open to a thorough investigation. Plank made the necessary search, but found no papers of any consequence to the case under investigation. Mr Graham then accompanied Mr.Freshfield and Plank to Mr.Conant’s house.
————————————————————-
Monday 13 September 1824
Morning Herald (London)
Berners Street, Saturday night, Sept. 11 1824
The very unexpected situation in which we suddenly find our house placed by the extraordinary conduct of our partner, Mr.Fauntleroy had determined us for the present to suspend our payments, as most just and becoming to our friends in general.
W.M. Marsh
J.H. Stracey
G.E. Graham
———————————————————————
Tuesday 14 September 1824
London Courier and Evening Gazette
The circumstances connected with the suspension of payments by the banking-house of Marsh, Stracey, Fauntleroy and Graham, of Berners Street, were the subject of very general conversation yesterday in the city. From the nature of the information circulated on the subject it would be highly indecorous, without proper proofs, to give publicity to them. The necessity of suspending payments by the firm in question was publicly announced yesterday morning by the following notice – “Berners Street, Saturday night. – – –
—————————————————————————
Friday 17 September 1824
Star (London)
Mr Fauntleroy – – – – The accused, it is well known, has been the active and managing partner in the above-mentioned banking house for a number of years. Above ten years ago he was appointed joint trustee with J.D.Hume Esq. (of the Customs), and another Gentleman to the estate of a family of eight children (of which we forebear mentioning the name), deprived at an early age of their parents. The first forgery committed by the accused took place more than 10 years ago, when the names of the other trustees were forged to different intruments and ultimately to a power of attorney, by which 30,000/. stock was sold out by Mr.Fauntleroy. To conceal this fraud, he was compelled some time afterwards to replace the stock when it had greatly risen. The discovery took place from one of the joint trustees accidentally investigated the accounts at the Bank of England, which had had been induced to do, in consequence of the approach of November, when the whole money held in trust, was, by an order of the Court of Chancery, to be paid into the hands of the Accomptant-General.
The trustee was panic struck at the discovery and communicated the fact to the other partners of the Bank, when those Gentlemen expressed their surprise and great alarm at the conduct of their partner. An application was made in the middle of last week, to Mr.Conant, at Marlborough Street Office, and the whole of the facts then disclosed having been laid before him, he employed Mr.Plank, the chief officer,to apprehend Mr.Fauntleroy, having previously taken the deposition, on oath, of Mr.Hume, by which he felt authorised to issue a warrant for the alleged forgery. When Mr.Fauntleroy appeared before the Magistrate on Friday, he fully acquitted his partners of any participation or knowledge of his delinquency. – – – the prisoner was committed to the House of Correction by virtue of a warrant of which the following had been handed to us as a copy: – “Police Office, Marlborough Street, Sept 10 1824. To the Governor of the House of Correction, Cold Bath-fields, or his deputy. Receive into your custody the body of Henry Fauntleroy, charged on oath of J.D.Hume and others, before me, Jno Edmd. Conant Esq., one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace, acting in and for the County of Middlesex, which having feloniously forged and uttered as true a certain instrument with intent to defraud the Governor and Company of the Bank of England and others of the sum of 10,000/. and him safely in your custody for re-examination before me. (signed) J.E. Conant.
On the prisoner arriving at the House of Correction, on Friday night last, orders were given that two persons should sit up with him night and day, to prevent his attempting his life, which order has been strictly complied with. The prisoner’s partners have not been admitted to him without special orders from the Magistrate, and then in the presence of an officer. No paper is allowed to go to or from him without its first being submitted to the committing Justice, Mr.Conant. The prisoner is above forty years of age, a little bald, and his hair rather grey. He is said to bear a resemblance to the late Napoleon Bonaparte. Yesterday we understand the Bank Directors made important discoveries.
———————————————————————–
Sunday 19 September 1824
Englishman.
Charge of Forgery against Henry Fauntleroy Esq., Banker.
An extraordinary degree of curiosity has been excited during the past week, in consequence of a report that prevailed that Mr.Fauntleroy, the acting partner in the banking house of Messrs Marsh, Stracey, Graham and Fauntleroy, in Berners Street, Oxford Street, had been apprehended upon a charge of forgery to a considerable amount on the Bank of England. – – – An immediate enquiry took place as to the nature of “The extraordinary conduct” thus imputed to Mr.Fauntleroy. Many persons who had paid large sums into the banking-house late on the the Saturday, were thunderstruck by this notification, and the premises were completely besieged throughout the day. Some were lucky enough to obtain interviews with the partners, but little was obtained from them to diminish their apprehensions: one individual, an auctioneer in Marlborough Street, had paid in no less than two thousand pounds on the Saturday at four o’clock, the produce of a sale; – – – On Friday Mr.Graham, one of the partners in the house, had a long interview with the prisoner in Cold Bath-fields prison, in the presence of the two persons who remain constantly in his room, day and night. – – – Mr. F’s stock speculations have, we learn, for many years been very large and too often unsuccessful; and to this as well as other causes, his rash conduct has been attributed. – – –
The discovery of the forgeries is thus accounted for: – Mr.Hume had proposed to have the children , for whom he, in conjunction with Mr.Fauntleroy, was trustee, made wards in Chancery. This Mr Fauntleroy strenuously opposed, on the ground of the expense, but, on a meeting of the Solicitors, it was proved that the expense would not exceet 200/., and Mr.Fauntleroy was reluctantly obliged to give his consent. The manner in which Mr.Fauntleroy conducted himself in this discussion excited Mr.Hume’s suspicions, and in consequence he applied to ascertain the state of the stock, and by this means the whole matter was exposed.
It has been justly observed, that the discovery of the forgeries ought not to have affected the credit of the banking-house; because the firm were not accountable for the felonious act of their partner. It is naturally surmised, therefore, that there were other cogent reasons for a stoppage. Considerable advances, we have heard, have been made by the house to promote the extensive building speculations going on in the neighbourhood of the Regents Park. Mr. Fauntleroy has a splendid establishment at Hampstead, where his entertainments were of the most hospitable description. On Friday morning an Advertisement was issued, calling a meeting of the creditors of Mr.Fauntleroy at the Boar and Castle, Oxford St, on the Saturday.
—————————————————————————
Monday 24 September 1824
Morning Chronicle
Mr Fauntleroy and Messrs Marsh and Co.
We have copied from the Observer of yeserday, the account of the Examination of Mr.Fauntleroy, before Mr.Conant, at Marlborough Street Office, on Saturday; and of a Meeting of Creditors of Messrs Marsh, Stracey, Graham and Fauntleroy, held at the Boar and Castle, Oxford St, on the same day.
It was stated, at the Meeting, by the Chairman, Mr.Frost, that, at the present moment, Marsh and Co. had cash in the house sufficient to pay all who had claims upon them, and more.
But this statement must be taken, we suppose, with the limitation – that, at present, the whole extent of the operations of Mr.Fauntleroy are not known..
As far as regards the forgeries, on the Bank of England, yet before the public, the creditors of the firm will not, we believe, be affected, as the partnership creditors have a priority of claim on the partnership funds to the creditors of the individual partners, which the Bank of England are.
But, till it be ascertained that the House itself is not affected by Mr.Fauntleroy’s operations, it is premature to pronounce, merely from appearances, what will fall ot the share of the creditors.
Full Particulars of the Examination of Mr H. Fauntleroy on Saturday Evening. Marlborough Street.
During the whole of this day, this office was thronged with creditors of the banking-house of Messrs Marsh, Stracey, Graham, and Fauntleroy, Berners Street, who were anxious to be present at the expected examination of Mr.Fauntleroy, whose case during the last week has so much occupied the public attention.
Considerable doubts being entertained whether the examination would be public or not, a correspondent anxiety was, throughout the day, manifested by the creditors, who naturally sought information respecting the circumstances which had led to the suspension of the payments of the firm.
It was understood that at three o’clock Mr.Fauntleroy would be brought up, and when that hour arrived, Mr.Conant took his seat on the bench with Sir George Farrant, Mr.Dyer, and Mr.Roe, the other Magistrates.
At this time the office was frilled by persons evidently waiting for the business of the Bank, and the intimation of some of the offices in waiting, that all who had no particular business with the Magistrates may depart, was heedlessly heard, and, of course, unattended to.
The hint thus being disregarded, the officers in the gentlest way applied personally to those who remained in the office to depart. Again a difficulty arose; those within seemd disposed to remain for the business they had been for hours awaiting, and the officers evinced a creditable forbearance in not precipitatingt matters to extremities.
Plant at length communicated with Mr.Conant, and then came the order to clear the office, but so given, and so enforced, that it was quite clear, to those who see their was merely for the purpose of preventing a confused and probably interrupting crowd, and not with any view of preventing either that attendance of real creditors interested in the issue,or of the reporters for the public press, whose admission necessarily involved the consequence – whether or no the creditors of the Bank and the public at large should have an authentic information upon a subject to which their attention had been so importantly called.
During the progress of the clearing, which was in this gentle manner carried into effect, rather than enforced, a gentlman, who stated (without giving his name) that he was professionally engaged to watch the proceedings in behalf of several heavy creditors, claimed the privilege of being presentto watch, as he said, “the proceedings in the cause.”
Another individual, a creditor, made a similar application, but was informed by Mr.Roe, that he, as well as other creditors, would have other opportunities of being present to hear the proceedings, as it was impossible that any final committal would take place this day.
The office was a length cleared, and, after some waiting in the hall, it was announced that the Reporters for the public press would be admitted when the examination resumed. At a quarter before four o’clock they were called in, and the opportunity was taken by the bystanding creditors, to whom we have already alluded, to press forward at the same moment – the consequence was, that the public office was crowded in an instant.
Mr.Conant, on observing the incursion, remarked, that it could not be altogether composed of those who attended for the public press. However, after some ceremony by Mr.Fitzpatrick, the Chief Clerk, of taking down names, and keeping the bar clear, the crowd, with that desire uniformly seen of accommodating itself to the space in which it must rest,had so formed, that the officers could do their duty, maintain order, and conclude the arrangements for introducing the prisoner, without any further intervention of precautionary form (for the whole was nothing else), all preliminary matters ceased,and Mr.Conant desired that Mr.Fauntleroy should be brought in.
When order was obtained, Mr.Conant addressed the Reporters, and said that he thought it proper to inform them, that possibly ther might some circumstances transpire on the present occasion, which, if prematurely published, would have a tendency to impede public justice.
If such occurred, and they were advised of it, he was persuaded that the public press would feel the propriety of abstaining from giving premature publicity to such matters. He had no objection whatever to the attendance of the Reporters for the public press upon this understanding, the obvious utility of which they must themselves perceive.
At a few minutes before four o’clock, Mr.Fauntleroy, was placed in the front of the bar, escorted by Plank and Schofield the officers. The unfortunate prisoner, who appears not to be more than 40 or 43 years of age, is a man of the middle size, fair complexion, grey eyes, cropped hair falling on his forehead, nearly grey, a good profile, or what would be called a mild Roman contour of visage, and fresh healthy complexion.
He was dressed in a blue coat and trousers and half-boots, with a light coloured waistcoat. He leaned upon his left arm at the bar, holding his hat down in his right hand. There was a decent and gentlemanly composure in his manner; he never raised his hat to endeavour to hide his face from the crowd of strangers who gazed upon him, but kept his eyes fixed upon the ground, not indifferent to the passing business, for he heaved a sigh, and remained in front of the bar, without betraying any other symptons of attention to the judicial proceedings which were pending.
As soon as this unfortunate Gentleman was placed in front of the bar, Mr.Conant requested him to advance to the table, which he did, and the Magistrate addressed him as follows:
“I am much concerned, Mr.Fauntleroy, to hear that a person of the name of Hanson has introduced himself into your prison room, and spoke to you in an unpleasant, if not in an insulting tone of language. I am sorry that such an occurrence should have taken place, and I shall in future take care, and prevent a repetition of it.”
Mr.Fauntleroy replied in a low tone of voice: “He said nothing insulting, Sir, more than obtruding himself into my chamber without my consent.”
The prisoner having resumed his situation at the bar, the depositions already given against him (four several powers of attorney) at the private examinations, were read by Mr.Fitzpatrick, the chief clerk, and the parties subscribing them were duly bound over to prosecute.
The first depsition was that of Mr.Price, a clerk in the late banking-house, which was read as follows:- “it sheweth that the deponent hath examined a power of attorney of the date of the 7th December 1820, for the transfer of 10,000/. Imperial Three per Cent Annuities, which were vested in the Co-trusteeship of Henry Fauntleroy, of Berners Street, banker; James Dekin Hume, fo the Custom-house; and John Goodchild, surgeon, of Westerham, Surrey, in trust for the widow and heir of the late Francis William Bellis, of Hockstead Cottage, Surrey; and further that the deponent hath read the names of the subscribing witnesses, James Tyson and William Price, a clerk (or clerks) in the house of Messrs Marsh, Stracey, Grahm, Fauntleroy and Co.; and that he believes the signature William Price ot be in his own proper hand-writing; but that respecting the annexed words “in the presence of H.Fauntleroy and J.D. Hume,” the same are, as he verily believes, in the hand-writing of the prisoner, Henry Fauntleroy; and deponent hath no knowledge of his ever having witnessed a transfer of the kind in the presence of the said J.D.Hume or any other recollection of the said Henry Fauntleroy.” Mr Price signed his depostion, and was bound over to prosecute, in the usual form.
The second was that of the Rev.Charles Hardinge, Vicar of Sundridge, which was made before Mr.Conant on the 18th September, & sheweth “that the deponent hath examined a power of attorney, bearing date the 7th December, 1820, for the transfer of 10,000/. Imperial Three per Cent., and hath particularly examined the attestation, therein signed “Charles Hardinge, Vicar of Sundrige,” annexed to that which purported to be the signature of John Goodchild, surgeon of that place; but deponent declareth that the signature is not is (deponent’s) proper hand writing; nor that he any personal acquaintance with the said John Goodchild, except knowing him to be a surgeon of the neighbourhood; nor hath he ever witnessed any such transfer, or hath he had before or since a servant named John Mason, who is respesented to have attested the same transfer with him.”
Mr.Freshfield: As Mr.Hardinge is here, perhaps it would be as well to take another deposition of his, which has just been prepared. – The Magistrates giving assent to the proposition, another deposition was read, which “Sheweth that a transfer, dated 7th Sept. (or Dec) 1820, for passing 17,000/. Navy 5 per cent. annuities; to which, in the same terms as the last, the Rev. Mr. Hardinge was represented as being, with his supposed servant, John Mason, an attesting witness to the signature of John Goodchild, was not in his (deponent’s) proper hand-writing,nor had he ever attested such an instrument.”
This deposition was subscribed, and Mr.Hardinge bound over to give evidence.
The next deposition was that of Sir Richard Hardinge, Bart. of Sundridge, in the County of Kent, which “sheweth, that he (the said Baronet) hath examined a power of attorney, bearing date the 20th October, 1820, for the transfer of 46,000/. reduced 3 per cent Annuities, from the names of Messrs Fauntleroy, Hume and Goodchild, in trust, and hath examined the signature “Richard Hardinge, Bart.” and that of Mary his wife, now deceased, as attesting witnesses to the signature “John Goodchild,” both of which signatures are not in his or her proper hand-writing.
He further deposeth that he knows the said John Goodchild to be surgeon in the neighbourhood, but it not in habits of intimacy with him, and never witnessed the present or any other signature of his, to any transfer or power of attorney.” Sir Richard Hardinge signed his deposition and was bound over as an evidence for the prosecution.
In a conversation with Mr.Conant, Sir Richard Hardinge remarked, that his lady’s name was on the face of it a clear fabrication; but that the pretended hand-writing of his so much resembled his proper hand-writing, that if shewn to him in the ordinary course of business, he should have admitted it. – Mr.Conant: But here you speak positively to its not being your hand-writing to this instrument?
Sir Richard Hardinge: Certainly I do; because neve having signed any transfer of Mr.Goodchild’s, it follows, as a consequence, I could have nothing to do with this. I never, indeed, was in a room with him but once, about seven years ago, when he was employed to extract a tooth. The signature is certainly not mine.
Another power of attorney was then shewn to the Honourable Baronet, bearing the date of 30th of October 1820, for the transfer of 5,300/. four per cent annuities, and he deposed, that his signature to this transfer, as an attesting witness for the signature of John Goodchild, was also a forgery.
Mr Freshfield said, that on a former occasion, evidence had been taken which was now reduced to the form of depositions, and it would be necessary to have them, in the form in which they were now put, regularly sworn to.
The first was that of Mr.J.D.Hume, the co-trustee with the prisoner, which, in the usual terms of professional technicality, repudiated his signature to the transfers already read in evidence, and further stated, that, in a conversation which he had a few weeks ago with the prisoner, the latter informed him, that the whole of the stock, of which he (Mr.Hume) was in trustreeship with him, for the widow and children of the late Mr.Bellis, remained as it originally stood in the Bank in their conjoint names.
This conversation arose in consequence of some proceedings in the Court of Chancery, which rendered it necessary that an account should be taken for the Receiver-General.
Mr.John Goodchild was then called and sworn, and a deposition corresponding in all respects with that sworn to by Mr.Hume was put into his hand and read; he returned it and said it was perfectly correct.
Mr.Freshfield, the Solicitor for the Bank, then stated, that if the friends of Mr.Fauntleroy were desirous, he would be prepared, on the earliest possible day, to proceed with the charges against him.
Mr.Conant: I rather apprehend Mr.Fauntleroy has no wish to press the business forward, but is ready to wait the convenience of his prosecutors.
Mr.Harmer, who attended as Solicitor for Mr.Fauntleroy remarked, that no good could be obtained by expediting the business now. It would be impossible for his client to take his trial during the present Sessions, and therefore the Solicitor of the Bank might suit his own convenience.
Mr.Conant, addressing the prisoner: I believe, Mr.Fauntleroy, you are desirous of remaining where you are (alluding to the prison in which he is confined).
Mr.Fauntleroy: If you please, Sir.
The witnesses, whose depositions had been taken, were then bound over in a recognizance of 40/. each, to give evidence against the prisoner at the ensuing Old Bailey Sessions. They were as follows:- Mr Willam Price, the Reverend Charles Hardinge, Sir Richard Hardinge, Mr John Tyson, who gave evidence similar to Mr.Price on a former day; Mr.Goodchild, Mr.Hume, and Mr.Graham, a partner in the house of Marsh and Co., who proved, at the former examination, that he had received the power of Attorney for the transfer of 10,000/. Imperial 3 per cents., from the hands of the prisoner, in the form in which it was now produced.
The future examination was then postponed for a week, with an intimation that additional delay might take place, if necessary. Mr.Fauntleroy, who had scarcely looked up during the examination, was then removed from the bar, and reconducted to prison, in the manner in which he had been brought in the morning. He seemed extremely anxious to avoid public observation.
Meeting of the Creditors of Messrs Marsh and Co.
Saturday, in pursuance of an advertisement, anonymously inserted in some of the public prints, convening a meeting of the creditors on the Banking Firm of Messrs Marsh, Stracey, Fauntleroy, and Co. at the Boar and Castle, Oxford Street, about fifty persons assembled in a room in that tavern at the appointed hour (one o’clock). As they assembled, they accosted each other, to know either the nature of the meeting, or the parties who called it, but for some time no satisfactory information could be obtained; at length Mr.Frost rose and said, that it was time some gentlemen should state why tis meeting had been called, or what was the intended object. He was at a lose to know what was the object of their being thus convened – at all events, now that there were met, it was obvious that, in their unfortunate situation as creditors of the Bank, they ought to conduct themselves with the utmost temper and patience; nothing beneficial could be done without the exercise of these virtues, and particularly when the motion to exclude the Reporters from the room, which was almost unanimously negatived.
Upon a motion of a Creditor, that the list of persons who called the Meeting be produced, a paper containing the following names was put into the hands of the Chairman: – “Signed, Honeywell, for Bushell & Co.; Charters, Holland and Co.; Cork and Spain; John Messer; G.Smith; Isaac Smith jun; John Marks and Co.; Mr. William Mills; Thomas Barnes; William Sanderson; John Hill.”
————————————————————————-
Sunday 19 December 1824
Marsh, Stracy, Fauntleroy and Graham – Court of the Commissioners of Bankrupts.
Basinghall Street – Yesterday.
This being the day appointed for the bankrupts to pass their examination, at eleven o’clock three of the Commissioners of the seventh list, John Beauclerc Esq., Jefferies Spranger Esq., and John Dyneley Esq attended; Mr.Bolland, one of the assignees, was also in attendance. Mr.Common Sergeant and Mr.Merryweather also attended on behalf of several persons interested in the estate. Mr.Montague attended for the assignees and Mr.F.Pollock for the bankrupts.
Mr.Knight, Solicitor, stated that he appeared there on behalfof a large body of creditors whose claims were for a very large amount, not less than sixty thousand pounds;under these circumstances he wished to ask Mr.Bolland, the assignee, whether a balance sheet would be produced on this occasion?
Mr.Bolland – From the nature and extend of of the accounts it could not be got ready.
Mr.Knight – Then the bankrupts cannot pass their examination today.
Mr.Bolland – Most certainly not. It is not intended.
It was now intimated that the Bankrupts were in attendance, and all the Commissioners requested why might beamde for them tocome up to the table. This was found impracticable, and they were obliged to stand on the right of the Commissioners. One of the Commissioners handed the book to them; they were sworn, and informed it was their duty to make a full disclosure of all the estates and effects, and if they concealed property to the amount of 2d, it was transportable offence.
Mr.Knight then addressed the Commissioners, and said he wished to put some questions to Mr.Stracey, respecting property of which the assignees, he thought, had no knowledge, and of which Mr.Stracey could give some information.
Mr.Montague said it would be inexpedient to ask any questions of the bankrupts until the balance sheet was produced – that was the usual practice.
Mr.Knight contended that, although the balance-sheet might not be ready, still when the bankrupts surrendered, it was their duty to give every information; and he, on behalf of the creditors whom he there represented, had a right now to make any inquiries he might judge proper.
Mr.Montague would not dispute the right, he had no inclination to resist the enquiry, but there was a question as to the time of exercising that right. He could state that there was one hundred thousand pounds in hand, and early in January he expected a dividend would be made.
Mr.Knight now made application that Mr.Stracey may be examined, in order that he may give information of property that I believe the assignees know nothing of, and I think, possessing the information I do, I ought to judge of the expediency, as it regards time (This remark was loudly applauded).
Mr.Knight – I will state the object of my inquiry. On the Saturday that the house stopped payment, bills were given to a gentleman for him to get them discounted. Some of these bills have been since paid, not on account of the estate, but to a private but to a private individual. The amount of the bills so given as 10,000/. and I wish to ask Mr.Stracey for what purpose the bills were given? and how it was that the individual alluded to received the amount of one bill that became due a weeks after they were given?
Mr.Montague had just been informed by Mr.Stracey’s Solicitor, that he was anxious to be examined. There was a vast difference between concealment of property and a preference being given.
The Commissioners intimated that they had not power to exclude any Creditors from making what inquiries they pleased. It was for the benefit of the estate.
Mr.Montague then stated that the persons alluded to had been examined before the Commissioners and his deposition was on the proceedings, and a list of the property in question – The person was Mr.Burton, a broker of the greatest respectability. A claim had been made by Messrs Laflitte’s the bankers of Paris, for the sum of five thousand and upwards; whent that claim was made, it was upon a bill drawn by Mr.Burton, and for that reason requested that it might stand over. It was then not so clear as now. Application had since been made to Mr.Burton to give up the bills, who, in reply say, “No, I shall not part with any property until you dispose of the question of the 5,000/.”
It was eventually agreed that Mr.Knight, on behalf of the creditors, whom he appeared for, should have access to the deposition of Mr.Burton, and confer with Mr.Gordon, the solicitor to the Commissioners, as to the propriety of having another meeting on the subject, and that a copy of the accounts of the estate and effects should be furnished to Mr.Knight, and also to Mr.Mayhew, who appeared for another body of creditors, one copy only to be paid for out of the estate of the bankrupts.
Nothing of interest beyond the reading of the balance sheet transpired. Upon this sheetit appeared that the debts of the firm, exclusive of any claims by the Bank of England, amount to 551,149l. 16s. 7d., and the available assets to 398.833l. 13s. 4d.
Mr.Pollack stated that in the balance sheet the alleged claim of the Bank was not noticed.
————————————————————————
Sunday 31 October 1824
Common Sense
Mr.Fauntleroy’s Statement – – – With this object it is necessary that I should first state, shortly, the circumstances under which I have been placed during my connexion with Marsh and Co.
My father established the banking-house in 1792, in conjunction with Marsh, and other gentlemen. Some of the partners retired in 1794, about which time a lost of 20,000/. was sustained. Here commenced the difficulties of the house. In 1796 Mr.Stracey and another gentleman came into the firm, with little or no augmentation of capital.
In 1800 I became a clerk in the house, and continued so six years, and although, during that time I received no salary, the firm were so well satisfied with my attention and zeal for the interest and welfare of the establishment that I was handsomely rewarded by them. In 1807 my father died: I then succeeded him; at this time I was only twenty-two years of age, and the whole weight of the an extensive but needy Banking establishment at once devolved upon me, and I found the concern deeply involved in advances to builders and others which had rendered a system of discounting necessary, and which we were obliged to continue in consequence of the scarcity of money at that time,and the necessity of making further advances to those persons to secure the sums in which they stood indebted.
In this perplexed state the house continued until 1810, when its embarrassments were greatly increased, owing to the bankruptcies of Brickwood and others, which brought upon it a sudden demand for no less a sum than 170,000/. the greater part being for the amount of bills which our house had acceptedand discounted for these parties, since become bankrupts.
About 1814, 1815 and 1816, from the speculations with builders and brickmakers,&c., in which the house was engaged, it was called upon to provide funds for near 100,000/. to avert the losses which would otherwise have visited it from those speculations.
In 1819, the most responsible of our partners died, and we were called upon to pay over the amount of his capital, although the substantial resources of the house were wholly inadequate to meet so large a payment.
During these numerous and trying difficulties the house was nearly without resources andthe whole business of management falling upon me, I was driven to a state of distraction, in which I could meet with no relief from my partners, and almost broken-hearted, I sought resources where I could, and so long as they were provided, and the credit of the house supported, no inquiries were made, either as to the manner in which they were procured or as to the sources from whence they were derived.
In the midst of these calamities, not unknown to Mr.Stracey he quitted England and continued in France, on his own private business, for two years, leaving me to struggle as well as I could with difficulties almost unsurmountable.
Having thus exposed all the necessities of the house, I declare that all the monies temporarily raised by me, were applied, not in one instance for my own separate purposes, or expenses, but in every case they were immediately placed to the credit of the house in Berners Street, and applied to the payment of the pressing demands upon it. – – continues – – –
———————————————————————–
Friday 3 December 1824
Stamford Mercury
Execution of Fauntleroy
On Tuesday morning, at the usual hour, Henry Fauntleroy Esq., late partner in the house of Marsh, Stracey, Fauntleroy, and Graham, underwent the dreadful sentence of the law. It has not happened for many years that an execution has created an interest so universally intense. At the execution of Governor Wall, and of Thistlewood and his associates, the crowed perhaps was nearly equal, but although the atrocity and the peculiar character of the offences for which they died, were such as to excite the mingled sensations of curiosity, abhorrence, and commiseration, the unprecedented spectacle of a London banker condemned to die for forgery – that offence to which the property of a class of individuals at once so respectable and important in society, is peculiarly exposed – excited a degree of interest in the public mind beyond example. The multitude surpassed in extent and in density any crowd remembered within a space so limited. Although the justice and the necessity of this melancholy expiation were generally recognised, the sympathetic commiseration of the vast concourse assembled to witness the last moments of the culprit, was manifestly pervading every bosom, and may be truly said to have been universal.
At two o’clock in the morning the workmen issuing from the court-yard that separates Newgate from the Sessions House, gave “dreadful note of preparation.” The timbers that had been prepared were now brought forth, and were distributed at the respective places at which it had been decided to erect extra barriers to divide the pressure of the crowd. – – –
At half-past four the gates of the court between the prison and the Old Bailey being suddenly thrown open, the fatal platform came forth, drawn by three horses, and was slowly dragged to its destination opposite the Debtors’ Door. The heavy roll of this ponderous body, moving as it does on wheels of less than two feet diameter, is such as to have been felt in every part of Newgate, when slowly passing that massive building. – – –
At six o’clock Mr. Baker, the particular friend of of the criminal arrived, and obtained an entrance through the private door of Mr.Wontner’s house. Immediately proceeding to the room of Mr.Fauntleroy, he found the unhappy culprit in a state of resignation and comparative tranquility that was highly satisfactory as evincing the salutary effects of that religious consolation which had been so anxiously and so kindly administered by the united efforts of his spiritual comforters, the Rev.Mr.Cotton, the Rev.Mr.Springett, and Mr.Baker. Mr.Fauntleroy received his excellent friend and consoler with a degree of fortitude which manifested perfect resignation to his fate. – – – He had been shaved at five o’clock by Mr.Gostling, hair-dresser of Fleet Lane, and having washed and dressed, felt greatly refreshed. – – – But as if conscious of the inadequacy of words to the expression of his real feelings he endeavoured to commit to paper that which verbal language could not express. During the night, or very early in the morning he contrived to write a letter which was found addressed to those gentlemen. In this he poured out his thanks with a powerful expression of feeling.
A few minutes before seven, the Rev.Mr.Cotton, the Ordinary, entering Newgate, proceeded to the condemned room in which prisoners spend the last hour previous to execution, and there awaited the arrival of Mr.Fauntleroy, who shortly after approached, supported by his religious friends. – – – On entering the condemned cell Mr.Fauntleroy advanced toward the Rev.Ordinary with a solemn air, but with an alacrity strongly expressive of a grateful wish to recognise the kind attentions of the Rev.Gentleman. Preparations were then made for administering the sacrament; but previously to entering on that last solemn duty, Mr.Fauntleroy requested that his favourite hymn might be sung. – – –
The short interval which elapsed previous to the arrival of the Sheriffs he spent chiefly in silent meditation. During this time he took off his silver-mounted spectacles and requested Mr.Baker to accept them as a dying token of his sincere and grateful regard, accompanying the gift with the following emphatic expression: “Remember Sir, these are what last assisted me to read the precious truths of the Gospel.” – – — At this moment Mr.Wontner, the Govermor, and Mr.Barrett, Clerk of the Papers, accompanied by some other gentlemen, entered the room. the officers then moved towards Mr.Fauntleroy with the cords for pinioning the arms and wrists of the unhappy criminal, which duty they performed in a manner as little offensive as possible, the prisoner moving his hands with a view to facilitate their object, and throwing back the cuffs of his coat. He was at this time engaged in ejaculatory prayer, frequently exclaiming “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” – which he repeated several times before he arrived at the extremity of the prison. – – – Soon after the clock had struck eight, everything was prepared; the Sheriffs then intimated that the time had arrived when they must proceed to the fatal platform and leading the way they were followed by the Rev.Ordinary of the prison, next followed the criminal, who raised his eyes, and his hands as far as he could, towards heaven, and walked forwards with a firm unshaken step: as he passed the several turnkeys, he appeared to give them a look of recognition. Having arrived mid way between the press-yard and the debtors’ door, the bell of death sounded it first solemn knell, announcing to the crowd, which now filled the whole space between Ludgate Hill and the pens at Smithfield, the advance of the mournful procession. – – – By the time the procession had arrived at the outer door, when the Rev.Mr.Cotton proceeded up the steps to the platform, and was instantly followed by Mr.Fauntleroy, who still supported by his friends, ascended the fatal scaffold with a firm step, apparently not regarding the crowd and perturbing clamour with which he was surrounded. He was dressed in a new suit of black – coat, waistcoat, and trousers – under which he wore silk stockings of the same colour and a pair of light pumps.
The criminal being placed in the cross beam, the executioner proceeded to divest his neck of his white cravat, and putting on the cap, he immediately drew it over his face. The noose of the halter was then put over his neck and properly adjusted. These awful preliminaries did not last more than three minutes, during which time Mr.Fauntleroy stood unmoved. The executioner than taking his station within reach of the fatal bolt, the Rev.Ordinary read as follows: – “Man that is born of woman hath but a short time to live, and is full of misery,” &c. – -Suffer us not at our last hour from any pains of death to fall from thee.” On uttering the last word the bolt being suddenly withdrawn Henry Fauntleroy was launched into eternity! Thus fell this unhappy man beneath the avending arm of the law – in a few minutes motion and life became extinct. The body having hung the usual time, was cut down and taken into the prison, where it was stripped and placed in a coffin as usual; after which it was delivered to the friends of the wretched deceased.
The parting of Mr.Fauntleroy and his wife (from whom he had been separated for some years) and also between him and a young woman with whom he had cohabited, and between him and a son by his wife (a fine youth of 16 years of age) took place a day or two before the execution, and presented scenes of the most high-wrought anguish.
It is now stated, upon what is considered no less authority than that of Mr.Fauntleroy’s own legal adviser, that his forgeries were so extensive as to require 16,000/. to be paid yearly in dividends alone, in order to prevent detection.
—————————————————————-
Monday 8 November 1824
London Courier and Evening Gazette
SHERIFF’S COURT SATURDAY. THE KING V. THE GOODS AND CHATTELS of HENRY FAUNTLEROY.
At one o’clock a Jury was impannelled to institute an inquiry relative to the issuing an extent, at the suit of the Crown, against the goods and chattels (private property) of Henry Fauntleroy, pursuant to his conviction of the crime of forgery, sentence of death having been passed on him thereupon.
On the attendance of the professional Gentlemen concerned for the Crown for the issuing the above-named extent, it turned out that there were several extents against the joint property of Messrs. Marsh and Co.
In the first instance, for a bond (given as a security to his late Majesty for the sum of 8,000/7
THE KING V. WILLIAM MARSH, ESQ , BANKER.
Mr. Peacock, acting as solicitor to the Post Office, attended, together with Mr. Alexander Gordon, solicitor to the estate of Messrs. Marsh and Co., to execute the said writ at the suit of the Crown, in order to ascertain what property the said William Marsh was possessed of in 1809, to meet the security of the bond in question.
On the Jury being sworn, the first witness called was Mr. Thomas Dyer, clerk in the house of Messrs. Martin, Stone, and Co., of Lombard-street, bankers, to state the account kept between their house and Marsh and Co.’s. The witness stated that he could not speak positively to any other than the account between the two companies. To the best of his recollection William Marsh’s private account left a balance of about 30/. or 40/. to his (Marsh’s) credit.
A conversation here took place between the professional gentlemen, when it was agreed, in consequence of the absence of the clerks of the house of Marsh and Co., that the inquiry should be adjourned until seven o’clock in the evening.
THE KING V. WILLIAM MARSH, ESQ., SEN. ‘ The writ of extent in this case, which was the first for inquiry, and which was adjourned from one o’clock in the forenoon until seven in the evening. Before HENCHMAN, Esq., Under Sheriff, and a Common Jury. Mr. Peacock, as Solicitor for the Post-office, and Mr. Alexander Gordon, for the creditors, appeared.
Mr. HENCHMAN stated that a box of plate belonging to Mr. Marsh, valued at 440L., was seized under this extent. In addition to the evidence of Mr. Dyer, clerk to Martin, Stone, and Co., who had been previously examined, the following witnesses were examined :
Mr: Arthur Cuthbert Marsh sworn and examined—Is the son of Mr. Wm. Marsh, of Berners-street. As far as witness knew of the private property of his father (who is 70 years of age) he gave the following particulars :
—His father has been thrice married. He has under the marriage settlement of his second wife an interest in 16,666/.135. 4d. 3 per Cent. Consols ; under his third wife’s marriage settlement 3,810/. East ,India Stock, to the interest of which he is entitled during his life. Witness, together with George Edward Graham, were the trustees.
Witness’s father receives the interest by an annuity of 900/. a year under the first settlement, and 300/. a year under the second marriage settlement.
Mr. HENHMAN—Does this property arise by deed of settlement?
Certainly.
Mr. HENCHMAN—Then I am of opinion it is necessary that such deeds should be produced, as it is not competent to give evidence of the contents.
Witness proceeded.—This stock had been sold out, and invested in other securities, but, in fact, his father was entitled to the interest on those sums. After his father’s death the property goes to his children, issue of the second marriage. There are children by that marriage, who are all of age ( number not stated.) His interest under his third marriage consists of 303/. a year, and two houses in Bedford-square; he has no issue of the third marriage, and he derives no benefit under that settlement until after the death of his present wife, who is about fifty years of age.
The property under the third marriage is assigned to witness on consideration of a mortgage.
At the death of the present Mrs. Marsh it returns to the absolute disposal of witness’s father, but he is not certain of this. In case of no issue, witness takes the reversion in fee after his father’s death. The assignment to witness, by his father, was in 1816. The deeds are in the hands of Mr. Ward, witness’s solicitor.
Witness’s father has besides, under his first marriage settlement, a house in Sloane-square, Chelsea, but does not know who occupies it; his father’s private property consists, besides, of a promissory note, not yet due, of John Wells Bozae, for 5,107L., which will be due in May next, payable to his father, and indorsed over as a security to the house in Berner’s-street for any advances they might make on his father’s private account.
A question here arose, whether an Extent of the Crown could reach a note indorsed over as a security.
Mr. HENCHMAN was of opinion that it would, if not discounted.
Witness resumed—His father was, further, in possession of a policy of insurance in the Equitable Office, his property, on the life of Thomas Williams Williams, Esq. for 5,000/., deposited in like manner with the Bankinghouse in Berners-street; has, besides, five shares in the Plymouth-dock, which are not assigned, worth 200/. a share.
Witness’s father has also considerable landed estates in the counties of Hertford and Kent. Cannot say as to his father’s property in pictures, beyond what were sold. On further examination, witness said he and his father are interested in carrying on the business of Navy Agents, in Scotland-yaid.
Witness is not a partner, but has a salary for conducting the business. By indenture executed, it is agreed, that he (witness) shall at a future time be admitted a partner. The debts from many Naval Officers to witness and his father in his business of Navy Agent amount to upwards of 100,000/. There are also debts due from that concern, which will appear from the books, the accounts not being wound up.
Mr. William Dobson (the next witness), clerk in the house of Martin, Stone, and Co. of Lombard-street, deposed that the private account of Mr. William Marsh with that house on the 13th of September last was 314/. 1s. 1d.
On .the morning of the 14th the greater part was drawn out. They did not conceive they were entitled to stop his receipts on the private account, although the bankruptcy was gazetted.
There was another account with the firm of Marsh, Sibbald, and Co. which stood from the 12th of September (11,000/. 14s. 5d.), until the 2d of October, when 7,000/. was paid over to the provisional assignee. On the 14th the balance of Mr. Marsh’s private account was 52L 10s., and the sum now remaining to his account was 21. 10s.
Mr. HENCHMAN observed, if the inquiry was to go into the banking account in Berners-street, it would be impossible to get through it that night. The Jury, in fact, could form no opinion of the value of Mr. Marsh’s interest in the banking concern until the accounts were wound up, and that could only extend to surplus funds.
Mr. James Kirby, late clerk in the house of Marsh and Co., deposed, that Mr. Wm. Marsh sen. had a private account with the house in Berners-street, the present balance of which was 1948/. 11s. 3d. in his favour.
The accounts of the house were not made up, and witness could not say how far there would be a surplus balance in Mr. Marsh’s favour.
A discussion now took place between Mr. Henchman and Mr. Peacock, as to the imperfect evidence of the value of the several species of property in which Mr. Marsh was interested.
Mr. Henchman observing that, with the exception of the plate and houses, no evidence had been given by which the Jury could form an estimate of the interest Mr. Marsh actually possessed. How then would it be possible for the Court of King’s Bench, in case of sale, to say, upon the execution of this writ, for what sum, or to what extent of interest possessed by Mr. Marsh, the writ to the Sheriff, de venditione exponas, should issue.
Mr. PEACOCK insisted that the description given by Mr. Marsh junior, of houses and estates, besides annuities, promissory notes, and policy of insurance, was sufficient for the object of this inquiry.
Mr. HENCHMAN Still adhered to his objection, that the evidence of the annuities could not be received but from the contents of the deeds themselves, as under the trusts of marriage settlements; and in this he referred to the case of the King v. Anderton, in which it is laid down that the King stands only in the shoes of a debtor.
It was agreed: Under this difficulty, to adjourn the inquiry for the present, and the proceedings closed at nine o’clock.
MESSRS. MARSH AND SON.
In addition to the establishment in Berners-street, under the firm of Messrs. Marsh, Stracey, Fauntleroy, and Graham, Mr. Marsh, some years ago, entered upon a speculation with his son, Mr. Arthur Cuthbert Marsh, as Navy Agents, in Scotland-yard.
In consequence of the recent failure of the Banking-house, in Berners-street, the creditors of the Navy Agency establishment have become much alarmed for the safety of their funds vested in that concern, and at the invitation of Mr. Seymour, Mr. A. C. Marsh’s Solicitor, and who, up to the fiilure of the Banking-house, acted likewise as Solicitor for that firm, between thirty and forty of them met yesterday, at one o’clock, at the British Coffeehouse, in Cockspur-street, for the purpose of examining into the state of the affairs of the Navy Agency establishment.
On the motion of Mr. Seymour, Sir BENJAMIN HALLOWELL was called to the Chair. Mr. SEYMOUR said, that he held in his hand a case which had been submitted to the opinion of Counsel, but previous to reading which, he would briefly state the nature of the circumstances, which was, that the account standing at the banking-house in Berners-street, in the name of Mr. A.. C. Marsh, was considerably overdrawn, and if for this over-drawing Mr. A. C. Marsh was liable, there could be no doubt that he was insolvent.
It was the interest of every one of the creditors of the Navy Agents to avoid this, and consequently, if any such claim was made by the assignees of the bank in Berner St, it was for them to resist it as far as in them lay.
Having stated thus much of the outline of the business, he would now proceed to read the case which be held in his hand.
During its perusal, Mr. Seymour stated, for the information of the company, that the arguments in the case were founded on facts, admitted as well by the Berners-street assignees as the creditors of the Navy Agents, and in reality those assignees had been as anxious as themselves to obtain the opinion of Counsel on the point, that they might know how. to proceed.
He mentioned this to shew that the opinion of Counsel had not been taken on an ex parte statement. The case then stated, that in May, 1817, a partnership was formed for a term of twenty-one years, between Mr. William Marsh, the father, and Mr. Arthur Cuthbert Marsh, the son, as Navy Agents. The articles of partnership were dated May 20, 1817 ; but it was therein agreed that the son should not be considered as a partner till the sum of 44,000/. Three per Cents. were invested by him; this sum had never been so invested, and he had from that time to the present continued to act in the office on a salary of 800L. per annum, without having any share whatever of the profits accruing.
Previous to this contract of partnership, Mr. W. Marsh had been carrying on the same business since the year 1815; and before his son’s at all appearing in the concern, had overdrawn his account in Berners-street, to the amount of 3,000/.
At Berners-street it was perfectly understood that Mr. A. C. Marsh had no share in the profits, although the account of the Navy Agency-house, at the Banking-house, was kept open in his name; but this was on a clear understanding that be was not to be in any way personally liable; this understanding was first by parole, subsequently by letter.
It therefore presumed, that all the partners of Berners-street would testify that they did not consider the son as personally responsible, however they might argue relative to the application of the assets of Messrs. Marsh and Son ; but in reply to any such argument, Mr. A. C. Marsh contended that the Assignees of that bankruptcy could only look to the surplus assets of that house, after the other creditors had been satisfied.
The letter that announced that Mr. A. C. Marsh was not in partnership in the Managing Office, was written by the elder Mr. Marsh to his brother partners in Berners-street, after a very dangerous illness.
As the case stood at present, it appeared that there was a sum of 73,585L. due to the Berners-street house, from the house in Scotland-yard; on the account entitled the account of Mr. Arthur Cuthbert Marsh, for which indeed the former house held several valuable securities, but which, comparatively, would go but a small way towards liquidating that account.
The surplus assets were calculated its amount to 30,000L. and this was the only sum that could be pledged, for the original assets must not be otherwise reduced; but if the assignees had really a right to claim on the whole assets, there would be no doubt that the Scotland-yard house would be ruined.
To ascertain this point, an application had been made not only to the assignees, but likewise to Mr. Fauntleroy—to Mr. Fauntleroy, because, at the time of the application, that Gentleman had not been included in the commission of bankruptcy.
The letter that had been addressed to those persons by Mr. A. C. Marsh, stated that the overdrawn account was solely his father’s, and that he, in fact, was merely acting as clerk.
On this letter Mr. Fauntleroy indorsed a memorandum, stating, that he would not consent to any proceeding against the house of Marsh and Son, except by joining with them in appointing a receiver and manager. Mr. A.C. Marsh then contended, that the house in Berner-street had no personal remedy for the cash due to them, and no claim on the property till the other creditors were paid.
This case, Mr. Seymour stated, had been submitted to Mr. Bell, certainly the most able man now alive in such matters, and with permission, he would read that Counsel’s answer to the case.
It was as follows: Mr. A. C. Marsh is liable at law to all the debts of the partnership in the Navy Agency business, and if he and the assignees cannot agree in the mode of getting In and applying the effects of that co-partnership, a Court of Equity will appoint a receiver to get in the same, and would apply them in payment of the joint creditors.
I have often read with astonishment the cases at law where one partner has been allowed to recover in his own name, became his other partner was what is called a nominal partner only. and think, if ever they came to be examined by a mind like Lord Eldon’s, who knows the various consequences of such decisions, both at Law and Equity, they would never be acknowledged as law. But however a Court of Law may deal with such cases, that will not prevent Mr. A. C. Marsh’s right to have a receiver appointed. Indeed, it seems more necessary that Equity should interfere for the protection of Mr. A. C. Marsh, if such is the law.
Whether the Banking.house can claim to share the joint effects as a creditor of the partnership, is a question of more difficulty. But though the money was applied for partnership purposes, yet if it was in fact advanced upon the mere responsibility and account of Mr. W. Marsh, as is asserted in the letters, I am of opinion the Banking-house has no claim on the partnership effects as a partnership creditor, bat only on the separate estate of Mr. W. Marsh. (Signed) John Bell.
Mr. SEYMOUR congratulated the Meeting on the opinion of Mr. Bell, which was decidedly in their favour, though still it could not be denied that many difficulties presented themselves in the case.
It was certain that Mr. A. C. Marsh was not personally liable, but that the house in Berners-street had all along looked to the assets, which assets had been deposited with them for security; this was an untoward circumstance, and it was likewise a thing that would tell against them, the cheques of the navy agents. on the house in Berners-street, being always signed by Mr. A. C. Marsh, or by Mr. Stevens, his clerk, expressing that he signed for Mr. A. C. Marsh, though the real cause of this was to distinguish the account of the Navy Agency establishment from Mr. W. Marsh’s private account.
The assignees had had the candour to state, that since Mr. Bell’s answer they had resorted to several other opinions, and the majority of those opinions they had found to be discouraging; the real fact was, that the will of the assignees was to be ultimately right,-though the responsibility was not vested in them to decide whether it was for them to resign all claims to any but the surplus assets; this decision rested with the creditors of the Berner:- street House, and he certainly had some hopes that they might yield the point, though doubtless, they had no inclination to put it desperately to a venture.
—At all events, as it was quite clear that the assignees could not take the assets of the Scotland-yard House into their possession, and pay A. B. or C. he trusted at least that they would consent to the appointment of a receiver and manager, to keep possession till it was decided what the claims of the Berners-street House were.
If Mr. A. C. Marsh had wished to have saved himself trouble, nothing would have been so easy for him as to have got a commission out against himself, and so have ended the matter; but his real desire was to do justice to all the creditors, and it was for this purpose that he opposed the including the claims of the Berners-street House in the division of the original assets. A Creditor asked, if the opinion of the partners relative to the liability of Mr. A. C. Marsh had been given subsequently to the securities and other pledges being left at the Berners-street Bank?
Mr.Seymour, in answer, stated that this acknowledgment had been made subsequent to everything. For his own part he could not see any objection to the appointment of a receiver; for even if a Court of Law were to decide the great question against them, they would only be driven back to the point from which they started, and would have the satisfaction of knowing that the funds had been preserved whole, without any expense being attached to such preservation.
On a question from another Creditor, Mr. SEYMOUR observed, that at all events nothing could be done with the creditors of the other house for some time, as the next meeting of the Commissioners was not to take place till the 16th of December, and it was not likely that there would be any meeting prior to that, as there would be no new facts to acquaint the creditors with.
An Attorney, who stated that he attended on the part of Mr. Commissioner Middleton, asked where the funds had been remaining up to the present time?
Mr. Seymour replied, that of course they had rested in the bands of Mr. A. C. Marsh. A Creditor observed, that it was a very difficult question to understand how, if two persons carry on business together, and borrow a sum of 10,000/. that they were not mutually, liable for the debt.
Mr. Seymour observed, that the whole case abounded with intricacies, but that, in answer to the particular objection that had been started by the last speaker, he would refer him to Mr. Bell’s opinion. The most feasible plan, as it appeared, to him, would be a letter of license. Mr. Seymour then, after inquiring if there were any further questions, that he could answer? proposed Mr. A. C. Marsh’s, and his own retiring, in order, that any discussion that might be started might be carried on the more freely.
These Gentlemen accordingly withdrew, after Mr. Seymour had submitted the following paper to the attention of the Meeting, as a statement of the affairs in Scotland-yard:
— An Account of Debts said Credits of Wm. Marsh and Son.
Total amount of debts, as extracted from the Ledgers
£28,788..3. 8
Mr. Pettit’s claim 400. 18. 6
29,188. 16. 2 .
Balance 34,024. 0. 4
63.212.0.4
Total amount of debts esteemed good,and extracted from the Ledgers
53,186.13.4
Estimate of value of a Policy of Insurance at the Equitable Office, on the life of Mr. J. Rowe 2,400.0.0
One-Eighth of the ship John 500.0.0
Doubtful debts 7,126.3.2
£63.212.16.6
During Mr A.C.Marsh’s absence, several of the Creditors, among whom was the Chairman, took an opportunity of expressing the high opinion they had of Mr A.C.Marsh’s character and integrity.
The first proposition brought before the Meeting was the period of time that should be allowed Mr A.C.Marsh to endeavour to collect the debts of the Firm.
The letter of license, according to Mr Seymour’s hint, appeared to be universally adopted, and it was at length resolved that the said letter should extend in the first instance for twelve months; the creditors retaining the power of prolonging the period, if necessary.
It as then resolved that a Receiver should be appointed on the part of the creditors, and on the part of Mr.A.C.Marsh; Mr Marsh, of course, to appoint his own Receiver, and the creditors theirs; and in case of any difficulty, a Committee of the Creditors was agreed to be appointed, who might conveniently be called together to decide on each point.
After a few more remarks from some of the other creditors, the Meeting separated.