Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

8 articles on this Page






CHARGE OF PERJURY. Gustave Stoven, a commission agent, residing at Victoria-terrace, Old Kent voad, attended on Friday at the Mansion-house, before Mr. Alderman Waterlow, on a summons charging him with wilful and corrupt perjury. Mr. Besley conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wontner the defence. The alleged perjury was assigned upon certain affi- davits which appeared to have been made in August last, in an action in the Court of Queen's Bench, in which Charles Edward Bailey, of Royal Exchange- buildings, stock and share broker, and others, were plaintiffs, and Ferdinand Frankenheim, a diamond merchant, was defendant, for the recovery of £ 263 odd, the amount of an alleged dividend on 211 Alli- ance Bank shares, and for money paid. It appeared that on the 30th of August the defendant Stoven attended at the office of a Mr. Leverson, a solicitor, in Bisnopsgate-street, and in the presence of Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, an articled clerk of his, was Si\ orn to an affidavit before Mr. William Heath, a commissioner for administering oaths in common law. In that the defendant deposed that on the 29th of August Frankenheim told him in a conversation he had with him that he intended to leave this country in a day or two for Paris, and that he (the defendant) believed he would quit England immediately unless prevented by arrest. On the same day and before the same commissioner, the plaintiffs, Bailey and Brad- laugh, made joint affidavit, in which Bailey, after deposing in effect that Frankenheim was indebted to him and his partners in the sum of X263 15s., said that he had read the affidavit of Stoven, and that for the reasons stated in it, and because he had been in- formed and believed that Frankenheim had recently sent valuable property out of England, he believed Frankenheim was about to quit England unless he was forthwith apprehended. Bradlaugh, in the same affidavit, deposed that Frankenheim was deeply in- volved in debt, and had recently stopped payment for upwards of < £ 100,000; that he had made inquries as to his affairs, and had been informed and believed that he had very recently raised large sums ef money by the fraudulent issue of bills and cheques, and had sent large sums of money abroad. Frankenheim did not deny the debt for which the action was brought, but it was alleged on the part of the prosecution that the object of the affidavits was to arrest Frankenheim under a writ of capias; that they were used for the purpose of deceiving a judge at chambers into granting a special order in a case where there was reason to believe that a person owing j820 was about to leave the country, and so defeat his creditors. Ferdinand Frankenheim was called, and deposed that he resided in St. Ann's-road, Brixton, and had, during the last four years, carried on business as a diamond merchant in Bloomsbury-square. On the 9th af August he stopped payment, and, under the advice of Messrs. Linklater, he took steps to procure the assent of his creditors to a composition deed. He was so engaged on the 29th of August, when the conver- sation was alleged to have taken place between him und the present defendant. He had never seen the defendant until he appeared in this court to the sum- mons. He had never spoken to him up to that time. He had no intention to quit the country on the 29th of August, nor to make a journey to Paris. On that very day he attended a summons at the instance of the plaintiff Bailey and others, and admitted the debt. He heard afterwards that a capias had been taken out against him, and in consequence he made himself a bankrupt on the following day. He was not arrested. In cross-examination, witness denied that he had sent anything abroad for the last three years, either money or goods, or that he had the slightest intention to leave England. The whole of the statements in the affidavits were untrue, except that which averred that he owed the X263 odd. Mr. Wontner, for the defence, submitted that his client, a foreigner, who had only been a few months in England, and was unacquainted with its usages, had been entrapped into making the affidavit-a thing of which he was wholly ignorant—by parties who could plead no such ignorance in excuse for the part they had played in this matter. It was a most unusual cir- cumstance for a commissioner to go to the private office of a solicitor concerned in an action and adminis- ter an oath. During a lengthened professional experi- ence such a thing had never occurred before to his knowledge. If any one had committed a crime on this occasion it was not the defendant, who authorised him to say he was not aware he was doing an unlawful thing, but the men who had suborned him. The de- fendant was a native of Hamburg, where an oath was never administered but in public court, and with pecu- liar solemnities, and the defendant might well believe that, in a private room, he could not be supposed to take an oath. Mr. Alderman Waterlow remanded the prisoner for a few days, declining, however, to admit him to bail, in order to afford all persons to whom odium ap- peared to attach, to attend to give such explanations as they might think necessary.