Pierce Egan's account of the trial of Mr. Fauntleroy, for forgery : at the Session's House, in the Old Bailey, on Saturday, the 30th of October, 1824, before Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Baron Garrow.

  • Henry Fauntleroy
Date:
[1824?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Pierce Egan's account of the trial of Mr. Fauntleroy, for forgery : at the Session's House, in the Old Bailey, on Saturday, the 30th of October, 1824, before Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Baron Garrow. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

    24/72 page 22
    of the Commissioners was occupied by s^vearing the creditors to the proof of their debts. la the early part of the morning, Mr. Basil Montagu, who attended as counsel for the petitioning creditors, sub- mitted that the separate creditors of those bankrupts could not be allowed to prove their separate debts under this Commission, which had been jointly issued against three partners of the house, without an order from the Lord Chancellor. Mr. Commissioner Law asked if there might not be some difficulty on account of the form of the Commission, which had only been issued against three out of four partners? He also wished to know whether there was any partnership existing between Marsh, Stracey and Graham, independently of that in which they were concerned >vith Mr. Fauntleroy ? Mr. Gordon, the solicitor of the Commission, answered this (Ques- tion in the negative; and with respect to the form of the Commission as being against three only, he produced a recent Act of Parliament, by which the whole estate of a partner was rendered liable to the claims of both joint and separate creditors. The Commissioners being thus satisfied as to the form of the Commission, said they would per- mit the separate creditors to prove their debts, with a view to an ulti- mate dividend, but such creditors could not be allowed to vote in any of the proceedings under the joint Cominission. Mr. Wm. Seymour applied to Mr. Commissioner Stringer on behalf of the Mary-la-bonne Charity School, to have the debts of that fund proved. He stated, that the funds were nominally under the manage- ment of a body of trustees, the number of which, however, was fluctuat- ing and indefinite, as whoever was a subscriber of two guineas was en- titled to hold that office. Mr. Commissioner Stringer said, that he was afraid he could not at present allow the debt, without the signature of all the trustees. Mr. Wra. Seymour explained that, in fact, the trustees had nothing to do with the management of the funds, the whole of which devolved upon him in the capacity of treasurer; and it rested with him to ap- point two persons to draw from the bankers as might be required. The amount of the debt was 3221. 3s. 6d. Mr. Commissioner Stringer remarked, that if Mr. Seymour was al- lowed to prove, it would be the trustees who would receive. Mr. Wm. Seymour could not allow this; the funds were to remain in his hands as treasurer, and the loss, whatever it might be, would fall upon the Charity. The proof of the debt was rejected for the present. Mr. Clark, manao^ing director of the European Life Assurance Office, Chatham-place, Blackfriars, applied for leave to prove his debt; the amount of which was about 47,0001., the whole of which, it was ex- pected, was lying in Marsh and Co.'s bank in Exchequer bills. Mr. Commissioner Law asked, if Mr. Clark was the only Director of the Assurance Company? Mr. Clark replied in the negative. There was a large body of Directors; but he was duly authorised by them to sit in every case that migtit occur; his sole signature to any policy or cheque was held to be sufficient. Mr. Commissioner Law observed, that this would not be sufficient authority in the present case. If there were a certain number of names inserted in the Act of Incorporation as Directors, the Coni- missioners would expect all those signatures, either in proof of the
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3