Sunday 16 January 1825
Englishman
BANKRUPTCY OF MARSH AND CO.
Yesterday a meeting of the creditors of the bankrupts, Marsh, Graham, Stracey, and Fauntleroy, took place at the Commissioners’ Court, Guildhall, for the purpose of proving debts, of assenting or dissenting from the assignees commencing a suit in equity against all necessary parties, for the recovery of the debt claimed to be due to the estate of the bankrupts from the estate of Marsh and Son, Navy Agents, and to consider and determine upon such other measures as shall be deemed expedient with reference to that claim; and also to assent to or dissent from the assignees compounding certain debts due to the estate of the bankrupts, from various persons whose names were stated to the meeting; and also to assent to or dissent from the assignees paying in full the wages of the several clerks and servants of the late banking-house, and also to assent to or dissent from the assignees selling by private contract certain property of the bankrupts.
At a quarter past one o’clock, Mr. Bolland, the principal assignee, was voted into the Chair, and Mr. Gordon, the solicitor under the commission, read the advertisment from the London Gazette in pursuance of which this meeting was convened, and setting forth the business intended to be submitted to it.
Mr.Gordon proceded to address the Meeting upon the state of the bankrupts’ affairs. He said that on examining the books of March, Stracey, and Co. they found an account of a debt due to that firm, from Marsh and Son, the navy agents, which the assignees contended to amount to 73,505/.l8 s . 8d. There was on the opposite side to be deducted an unascertained amount of certain securities supposed to be worth 10,500/.
The question for the creditors was, how they were to get at the balance of this debt?
The advances of which this large sum was composed, had been made by the late banking firm, in the year 1815, upon this clear understanding, that Mr. Marsh, sen. was to be, in fact, the responsible person in the navy firm, and his son, Mr. Arthur Cuthbert Marsh to be only a nominal partner, the salaried manager, except upon a certain contingency, which had never occurred.
The Bank was always to look to Marsh, sen. for the money, and not to Arthur Cuthbert Marsh, in whose name the account was permitted to stand, to prevent its being mixed ‘ up with the private account of Mr. Marsh in the firm.
The firm of Marsh and Son suspended payment when the bank failed, and the creditors of the former were informed, that, if the alleged debt due to the bank were kept out of the claims the Navy Agency house would be able to meet all their debts in full, and have a surplus of 30,000/., which would pass to the separate estate of Mr. Marsh, sen., and necessarily be available for the creditors of the banking concern.
The creditors of Marsh and Son were, of course, anxious to throw the banking creditors upon whatever surplus should remain after the payment in full of their own demands; but the assignees were of opinion that it would be better for the banking creditors to go in upon the whole of the estate, rather than on any contingent balance.
A great many difficulties had however arisen in the discussion to which this particular question had given rise, and many cases had been submitted upon it to lawyers, who had differed exceedingly in their views of the matter, and, on the whole, given very little encouragement to go to law upon the business.
New light had broken upon the transaction lately, and the assignees said that, true the credit had been given to Mr. Marsh, sen. only, but it was also true, there was an understanding that Mr. Arthur Cuthbert Marsh should not be a partner in the Navy Agency concern.
Now that they found the junior Mr. Marsh to have been substantially a partner, they (the assignees) conceived themselves clearly entitled to claim upon the partnership assets. Mr. Heald was of opinion they had a clear right upon Marsh and son.
Mr. Bell was doubtful on the point. The assignees after giving the matter their best consideration, thought it better to go before the Lord Chancellor for so large a sum, and it was for the creditors to sanction, or dissent from their opinion. They must be aware of the uncertainty and inconvenience of a Chancery suit ; but there was every reason to hope, as the creditors at each side were equally interested in the early decision upon it, that the matter would be so arranged by mutual agreement for the legal consideration, that they would he able to go straight forward, and have a decision without much loss of time.
The meeting would decide whether it were preferable to go to law, or abide by the surplus in Marsh and Son’s affairs?
He ought to state that at a meeting of the creditors of the Navy Agency concern, held in Scotland-yard on the 10th of November, Sir Benjamin Hallowell in the chair, a resolution was adopted to give Mr. Arthur Cuthbert Marsh a letter of license to go on winding up the affairs of his house for 12 months.
A creditor remarked that in the letter of license Mr. A. C. Marsh was described as not being a partner, but a salaried clerk. Mr. Gordon replied, that the tact of Mr. Marsh, Jun. being to receive 800/. a year “out of the profits,” made him a partner, according to the Attorney-General’s opinion.
A Gentleman, who said he was interested for a creditor of the Navy Agency concern, declared that it was essential the creditors of both firms should come to a speedy understanding upon the matter.
The creditors of Marsh and Son, although four months had elapsed since the suspension of their payments, as yet knew nothing of the state of their affairs. They were uninformed about their assets. There was certainly some delicacy to be observed in any detailed statement of their accounts for many of their debtors were naval characters of consideration, whose private accounts ought not to be unnecessarily exposed. But there ought to be some recognized manager besides Mr. Marsh, jun. himself, to look after their affairs.
Mr. Marsh himself ought not to be the receiver nor the collector, which was much the same. It was then suggested that whoever was appointed receiver or collector, ought to give adequate security for the due discharge of his duty. Mr. Gordon said that the assignees had received from the solicitor to Marsh and Son, the copy of a draft of agreement for the appointment of a receiver of the navy agency concern.
And it was suggested that it would be proper, it possible, to make one of the gentlemen of Messrs. Coutts bank that receiver; but upon looking over the terms of the deed, it was discovered that the receiver was to be made responsible in some degree for the details of the collection, and this responsibility was declined by the firm of Coutts after consulting with their solicitor.
Mr.Bolland, the Chairman, hoped that the creditors would instruct the assignees how they were to proceed with regard to the firm of Marsh and Son.
Mr. Knght, the other assignee, said that they were of opinion they had both law and equity in prosecuting their claim upon the general funds of the estate of Marsh and Son.
Mr. Knight, the Solicitor, said the case was not quite so clear – he anticipated many difficulties in the legal progress of such a cause, in consequence of Mr. Marsh, sen., being a partner in both firms, and the peculiarity of the two accounts,
Mr Bolland : We do not contemplate this difficulty, nor is it started by our legal advisers.”
Mr. Knight: “But you must meet it, and it had best been considered at the outset.”
Mr. Gordon could not see this difficulty in the progress of the cause.—Mr. Knight repeated his persuasion of the difficulty.
Mr. Gordon replied, that there were cases of two bankrupt firms, the one claiming upon the other, with an identical party common to both.—Mr. Knight said that that had only occurred in the case of bills of exchange, and not where there was an open balance of account as in this case. Mr. Lord said that the creditors were incompetent to discuss the legal technicalities of such a question, and therefore it was useless to delay the real business of the day, which was, whether the assignees should have the power of taking legal proceedings if they thought proper for the recovery of the debt due to the banking concern, by Marsh and Son.
To plain men it would certainly appear extraordinary, if Mr. Marsh, sen. could take out of the bank of which he was a partner above 70,000/., and put it into another concern for his own separate interest; and that it could be then said, his banking creditors, after his bankruptcy, who had supplied this large fund, were to have no claim upon the estate of the other concern, established by money taken out of their own pockets [hear. hear !].
To shut out such a claim would, in fact, be to pick their pockets [hear, hear!]. To put it to rest, he moved that the Meeting do consent and agree, that the assignees should prosecute, if they thought proper, a suit in equity, to recover payment of the debt due by Marsh and Son.
Mr. Wilson seconded this motion. Mr. Frost ridiculed the legal refinement which, it was said, would impede their claim upon the estate of Marsh and Son, and complimented the assignees of the banking estate for the honour and zeal they had shewn in the discharge of their duty in behalf of the creditors [hear, hear!].
The motion was then put and unanimously carried, and followed by a resolution, recommending the appointment of a proper receiver for the assets of Marsh and Son, until the question between the two estates should be adjusted.
———————————————————————–
Friday 21 January 1825
Morning Chronicle
Sheriff’s Court – Thursday
Extent in Aid
In the matter fof Marsh, Stracey and Co., – A Jury having been impannelled in this case,
The Secondary stated that the question for them was, to ascertain what estates real and personal, and what goods chattels, &c. Mr.William Marsh was possessed of on the 7th of April 1809, and what estates, sum or sums of money, goods chattels, &c., he was possessed of at the time of the teste of this writ, which was in November last.
The Solicitor for the Post Office, on whose part this extent issued, stated to the Jury, that in order to furnish the most satisfactory evidence on the question before them, he should call Mr.W.Marsh himself, who was in attendance.
Mr.W.Marsh having been sworn, stated, that since the 7th of April, 1809, he had been seized of no real estate or freehold property. He had been possessed of a paternal and hereditary freehold estate at Hampton, which had come to him from his father,and would, of course, descend to his son, and that estate was conveyed to the son in the beginning of 1808, he having become of age some time in 1807. As to the question now under consideration, in the period alluded to, he was possessed of the family plate, a permissory note for £2,000/. and a policy of Insurance on the life of William for £5,000/.
The Jury found accordingly.
We understand this question was raised before this Court in order to found a motion before the Court of King’s Bench, in the ensuing Term.
———————————————————————
Thursday 24 Feb 1825
The credits of the Bankers Messrs Marsh and Co., who failed in consequence of Mr.Fauntleroy’s conduct, it is said exceed the debts. they own nearly five hundred thousand pounds, and have property and claims to the amount of nearly five hundred and forty five thousand pounds.
Mr. Fauntleroy
It is generally believed that Mr.Fauntleroy has been a victim to, among other things, the vice of gambling; that is as groundless as the rumour which was lately contradicted of his having been involved in difficulties by building speculations in Brighton. Billiards was almost the only game he was in habit of playing,and at this he never hazarded more than a shilling; nor at his own table would he suffer others to do so, it being with him a pride to say that a larger sum was never lost in his house. At whist he also occasionally played, but he was seldom known to exceed a crown, and never guinea points; nor can we learn that he was in the habit of playing at any other game. Must has been said of Mr.Fauntleroy’s intimacy with Mrs.Bertram, alias “Mother Bang” (who, by the bye, is a Brighton woman, and well known there by the name of Kent”. We know that he has not seen her for period of several years. It is stated that Mr.Fauntleroy frequently visited the Continent, and spoke fluently several foreign languages. On the contrary he was never out of England for more than a few hours, and spoke no living language but his own. Has resided at Tunbridge Wells, occasionally visiting Brighton, and other watering places, but never going to London. The establishment of Mr.Fauntleroy in Surrey was by no means on so extensive a scale as has been represented, the house being really a small one, nor is it true that he had any establishment at the west end of the town, as has been stated, or indeed any other place except Brighton; the one referred to was in the suburbs of London, in the neighbourhood of Lambeth or Vauxhall, and so little was it known, that the peace-officers had considerable difficulty in finding it. It is also untrue that the female who resided there, was brought by Mr.Fauntleroy to this country from Paris; although she was educated in France, she is an English woman and her name is Miss F – – – ,but she afterwards assumed the name of Mrs F – – – . She occasionally visited Brighton, but when she did so, she occupied a separate house or lodgings.
It has been reported that Mr.Fauntleroy was in the habit of bringing females of a certain description to his residence here. This is not the case, nor is it we believe true, that Mrs K – – -, a lady well known in Brighton, and who is now living here in great style, was formerly under his protection, although he was acquainted with her. Mr.Fauntleroy when at Brighton lived in a very quiet way, as we learn from those who have dined with him, his dinners being as remarkable for their plainness as his wines was for their excellence; he kept no plate in his house, bringing it with him from London; and his establishment consisted only of a gardner, and, we believe, two females servants. In addition to what has been said above, we can also positively state Mr.Fauntleroy never entered a gambling-house in his life. A gentleman residing in this town married a cousin of Mr.Fauntleroy.
—————————————————————–
Saturday 25 June 1825
British Press
Valuable Life Interest of about £4,000/. India Stock; £16,000/. Consols; the Reversion of £13,000/. 3½ per cent.; £
600/. per annum Long Annuities; and a Capital Leasehold House in Upper Harley Street.
By Messrs Dawson and Cafe. (by Order of the Assignee of Messrs Marsh and Co.) At Garraway’s on Tuesday, July 5, at 12 in Four Lots.
A Life Interest of Mr.William Marsh to the Dividend on £16,666/. 13s. 4d. three per Cent. Consols and to the Dividend on £3,810/. India Stock; also the Dividend in Reversion of £13,120/. 5s. 5d. three and a half per Cent.
To be received on the Life of Mr.J.H. Stracey, aged 53, if he survives Mrs.Stracey, aged 45 years, a Reversion of one-fourth of the Rent of a Capital House, No.56 Upper Harley St; £605/. 11s. 2d. Long Annuities; to £840/. 16s. 8d. four per Cent.; and to £329/. 17s. Consols, if Mrs Stracey survive a Lady aged 80 years.
Particulars may be had of A.Gordon Esq., Solicitor, 57 Old Broad Street; at Garraway’s; and of Messrs Dawson and Cafe, Great Marlborough Street.
———————————————————————-
Monday 4 July 1825
Morning Herald (London)
Dividends
William Marsh, Josias Henry Stracey, and George Edward Graham, of Berners Street, bankers, July 23, at ten, at Basinghall Street.