A GHOULISH ROBBERY..|1895-11-02|The Cardiff Times

A GHOULISH ROBBERY..

News

Cite

Share

A GHOULISH ROBBERY.. "toenda'nf „Skat,!rday,—Early this morning an "airied DaNrt MuniclP»1 Insane Asylum, Possesion' urf| was arre3ted having in his *&stitut« nf ?x belonging to tho Pathological PoHce opened H Griefsw?ld University. The hearts I:» case a°d found therein human Pound's T^f8' an<^ 'unKs> weighing altogether 15 18 alleged that these were stolen by deceased >erati the Institute from the bodies of despatch Vjllnatt)8- The prisoner was about to tested.-CcniZSj}^* Wh#B

A TOWN INFLAMES.

FATAL COLLAPSE OF A HOUSE.

N CUBAFINSURRECTION.

SHOCKING DISCOVERY AT A V…

- DIVED TO DE A TH.

-----.--MURDEROUS ATTACK ON…

FATAL ACCIDENT ON A FRENCH…

WALKING ROUND THE WORLD.

LYNCH LAW IN AMERICA,

News

Cite

Share

LYNCH LAW IN AMERICA, A Negro Murderer Burni te Dsath. haJf* Yob*. Wednesday.—The New York WL morning publish a despatch fro ^Och'ino n 'n rIlexas, giving horrible details o „ 18 outrage. A young married white worn ^tion I red on Monday. Subsequent "nvesti- horriblt ed that she had been outraged and **8 8trL,n,Ut'lated- A negro who had absconded Posse with f SUsi)ected of the crime, down p ^°8S succeeded in running the fug'f the lynphT lnin6 to 'he town they were uiei by 'Wiff'snffi8' who took the prisoner from *Od then ?Cer'oarried him to the sceneof the crime, 10 death hlna 10 » stake slowly roasted him *°rture -Ln, rse crowd, it is aaid, witnessed his New" V tral News. received Wednesday.-According to intell- >ed £ !?^fwro Tylei, Texas, a negro public snni Was burned at a stake o ^ho nian hnH at 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon. Ionian nampd A/Tavifi|)ed and murdered a white *he body Th 8 Bel1' and had then mutilated caPtUri?e Defro was pursued by bloodhounds convev»rt t confessed his guilt, and was armed moh !(,i! gao1 by police officers when an "n to thft Persons seized him and carried "apidly in»» murder. The crowd, which n? decidn ea8ed to 2,000, appointed a committee Jhev uPon the form of punishment. bum^° a t'baB the prisoner should y*ile „„ .ln the public square. Hilliard L w,fe a Ka,l,ln8 th» decision, wrote to /}ote of farewell, which he gave to the l Smith :—^ have been arrested by I don't know what they will do to me. Wfts subse 860 you auy a'ore, good-bye." He ^•ch 7 {9)neni'y marcned to the mam plaza, on I"* ma JJV Persons were assembled, includ- **8re sby y°««en, children, and negroes. Wagons *3 Well a,, rounded the square, and these, vant trees' buildings, and every other point "^ftlbera^f* were crowded with sightseers, ^ntrv of whom arrived specially from the A scaffold was erected in the centre of |*>al !Jrare> and upon it were piled faggots, oa straw, which were drenched with oil. Was seeu t0 sp^ak, but his words x^oud ^a^ 'e. He subsequently prayed in which was heard for some distance. tio*is „, hed to an iron rail. When all prepara- ,ftUrde- jfe 00iriplete, Bell, the husband of the ^ble wo™2* applied » match to the inflam- 6ri erlal- Flames immediately burst forth '°t tho negro, who was heard crying ^ell f°y- -he faggots, however, did not ignite Laflier burning for a short time almost t8,)»»htV man be,D^ sti11 alive- The fire waa ^toKlj' and after 5° minutes of torture the ed negro died.—lieuter.

OTCH EXPRESS IN COLLISION

News

Cite

Share

OTCH EXPRESS IN COLLISION Several Persons Injured. railway accident happened at 3 o'clock »•» ha»«?i morn'ng at Preston Station, which v?Vetal unattended by loss of life, although ^tch „')er30113 sustained personal injury. The u'3 sl6p*^ress'insisting of 11 bogey carriages fifst B saloons, left Carlisle at 1.5 a.m., and /M> ^rest P'Dff P,ace should have been Wigan. w"e in ? Roods train was waiting on the loop «?b the i°l r to al,ow the exPres3 to pass, Ir0 iatt r' thinking the signal lowered for a? sfeamet aPPlieci his own train, put r°tbe Abo express was leaving the station ?Jllided ,h0n?ent' and instantly the two engines ?* the »r> j P°'nts of the loop line. The driver ?{» enoin tfain' who was on the footboard of when the impact occurred, saved i!?erab!v /eaP'nS over tho boiler, but was con- *5°ck. ji, ru!sed, and is now suffering from J*°Ue of fireman, however, escaped unhurt, v^ivecj j 30 passengers in the fast train n"J«'y. though several experienced 0vv escapes. An empty carriage thft tne engine was overturned, J^Piug „ second was telescoped by a te a°u!0iianr' two ot" the occupants having as greatl, e?caPa3* The engine of the express "ablea y damaged. The passengers were all ^r"ages tKPl0Ceed to London at 5 a.m. in the ^!»R8uh^Lhad escaped injury, another engine Jze fiard»;tuted f°r the damaged engine named >Ire °f th«» r "fh'ch it is interesting to note was ?°tives tK ~°ndon and North.Western locomo- North to°^ in tbe recent railway race

[No title]

MIRE FATAL FIGHTS.

REPRISAL AT BITLIS.

"TbmenianiJX^tdked AND n

News

Cite

Share

"TbmenianiJX^tdked AND n ceived ber" between Euzeroum and Tre- Baiburt, on t e road hundred Mussulman lazes, bizond. ^(.jnj.Henry rifles and supported armed wth Martini any^ stafced tQ bav6 by the Turkish mU catjon tha Armenian in- attacked without £ >r in tbe district. They .ChOOl., .»d«t. set fire to the Arme seeking to escape tie sheds. and th Pe fired by the Turks. It from the names we mb8r 0f young menand is further al'eged that a numoa^ women were burnt horribly mutilated, women were outiag urcjie8 the Mussulman After desecrating carrying away cattle mob pillaged the.JrpL number of Armenians and other property. ^.t the commence- killed is stated to ex VI]]ages applied foi pro- tection to c a reaueat, only sent three gen- in response to t ie untlj the pillaging i"h0 £ £ «" '!» ring!«d«. •« was overv. fUn-ififis The news of the mas- known to the au Dajnful impression in diplo- sacre has produced a painiu v affording matic circles, wh^eit'Siega aoti0n fresh evidence of ^he yrevJt further out- rage by the exempla.ry punishment of the guilty partles.-Reuter. Ufficitlol from the Governor and MililW «" £ ,to Art»en».> ol whom W1 upon the Mussui » Mussulmans then mortally wounded. t defend oloied their .hop. and '^d 'in tha ooiirae ot 1 rre sr us* zusriz def'jro, a.nd .roopg to restore order, and they S £ J3° £ o»mi3, Jl isb»'°e »d wjg-s t Armenians have a«ac^erovocation on tho part habitants witl o I P. desoatch, transmitted of the latter. An °ffioiaI despawiCorpSt by the c°m^nder o Egendi, attached announces that major Cavalry, was w the 38th Re&'°h« 4th iSt in the Church of K iSSSS.^ inqubi°ryyha9ebeenUopened to discover the authors oflihe outrage- Renter,

REFORM SCHEME A SHAM.

LETTER FKOM MR GLADSTONE.

THE EXECullON OF MR STOKES.j

News

Cite

Share

THE EXECullON OF MR STOKES.j A Missionary's Version. Reuter's Agency has received important news lue to the fact that he w Arab chief, and >f obtaining reparation from Stokes, so ihat having obtained what he, jw Sute far from aiding Kibong g enoes between ,dually tried to settle tne ain» q 0 them. The 'Senary Society's Pilkmgton, of the Churc retUrned home. staff in Uganda, whu> ha J jt^ter'a Agency 3peaking to a representative ot said jn the subject, Mr rUKing^ the firs(. Although there were many ju reached detailed account in Uganda, Uganda in May or June. n. ^|g knew per- inflndinf, fb<' J* rpctlv well that Mr otoKes fi nurcose „pedibioo to Kibonge ~»u'/Jt.Jr,„ird^ J his of demanding reparation for jb^"™ knowll head man, So Swahih named JUIP3, well known to us all inUganda, him a large Arab chief. Mr Stokes tooK w»» thr h ftnd weH-armed (wravan* an^c ™ were known t0 the German sphere, lhse once dispels the mystery whioh seems to have attached to his presence in tbe Arab oamp. The fact, too, thao he WM at war with XibonR8 would also be of itself sufficient reason to account for his possession of arms and iunmunition. The UK.ndi, w"HtharJ.,?»r officer tro" Bukobn, on he"rmg "at Mengo of Stokes's death, eaid it was murder. Mr pilkington then prooeeded to .IJote tha.t 00 reoeipt or t British in Uganda. He saia once taken by the BritIsh in He said Mr Jackson, aotinl("commissioner, at¡ once sent despa.tches to the authoritIes demanding the parties of tbe trial, and Mr Wilson, officer in charge at Toro, went across the th(j matter. see One State oSWd 8 firgt that Stokes had gone State oSWd 8 firgt that Stokes had gone Belgian officer t afterward9 admitted he had VJiSU-—?. It is of oonrae, not known wbat detat. Ji'Saliebnjy h» « £ » »^ »-JT general Stokes's he has put down his foot very impression Belgian Government, and severely most exacting character reparation of ^hefcher reparation is 'kely ;D0'tf .bo'fo™ aty^bSu»° Z SSdVrt in tli'o opinion of the Bel«i»M Il' AIAJOR LOTHAIBB. »»- iotbre ? mistaken s sweet euphemism forhm2Ifc^l. French ^YfficU for the Belgian

ALLEGE?-BOYCOTTTNG A ''CLERGYMAN.

Charges of Fraud. ..

News

Cite

Share

Charges of Fraud. ALLEGED MANIPULATION OF BALANCE: SHEETS. Jabez Spencer Balfeur on Trial. CO-DIRECTORS ARRAIGNED. LONDON, Monday.—In the Queen's Bench Division to-day the trial was resumed of Jabez Spencer Balfour, George Edward Brock, Morrell Theobald, and George Dibley, chaiged with various frauds in connection with the Liberator Group of Companies. The case against one other director, Major Wright, is nob being taken at present,and therefore he is relieved from attendance at this stage. The first of the defendants to put in an appearance was Mr Brock, who took a seat at the solicitors table as on Friday. Mr Dibley, warmly muffled up, for the morning was very cold, came next, quickly followed by Mr Theobald. The rush for seats which marked the first day's proceedings was not repeated. There were a few ladies in court, including one or two in the Judge's gallery. BALFOUR'S APPEARANCE. Jabez Balfour was escorted into court between two warders about 25 minutes past 10. He did not look qnite so well as on Friday. There was an absence of the customary smile, and when he took his seat next to the other defendants with a warder by his side be com- menoed to nervously bite his nails and next fidgetted uneasily with a quill pen on the table before him. Mr John O'Connor, Balfour's leading counsel, then came into court, and turning in his seat the prisoner entered into close conversation with him. SUFFERERS FROM THE FAILURE. Mr Justice Bruce took his seat at half-past 10. By this time the Attorney-General (Sir Richard Webster) had entered the court, and Mr Wheeler (the official receiver) with his stuff of assistants was already present. Amongst those in court were several gentlemen whose losses in the various companies are known to have been considerable. THE FIRST WITNESS. Mr John Pitman was the first witness put in tbe box. Ke was a clerk in the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. He produced the file of the Lands Company, which was incorporated in November, 1867, the original capital being j350 000 rmsed at different times, till in 1887 it reached £ 1,000,000. The artiolea of association showed the object of the company to be the purchase of and dealing in land, the erection of buildings, and raising and lending money. The original articles of association were superseded by a fresh set in 1883, which provided that the directors' remuneration was to be 50 guineas per annum and a share of certain surplus profits. In June, 1888, the articles were amended to provide that the amount to be distributed between the directors in any one year should not exceed £ 5 000. He also produced the tile of the House and Land Investment Trust, which was incor- porated in June. 1875, with an original capital of £100,000. In 1891 it was inoreased to £ 500.000. He also produced the file of T. W. Hobbs 1 JABEZ SPKNCKR BALFOUR ON HIS TFILAL. and Co., Limited, incorporated on the 15th AprIl, 1885, with a capital of £250,000; the file of George Newman and Co., Limited, incorporated in January, 1876, with a capital of B50000; the file ot the Building Securities pomDanv. Limited, incorporated on the 25th November, 1885, with a capital of £ 500,000 the filfi of the Real E-it-ates Co., Limited, mcorpor- ted on April 13, 1888, with a capItal of £100,000. The share list showed that 12 persons held 837 shares in the company at £ 5 each. He also pro- duced the file of the London and Gener 1 Bank, incorporated in November, 1882, with a capital of £100,000. which by 1889 was increased to a million. The offices were at the same place as the Lands Allotment Company's offices. PRIORITY IN EXAMINATION. At the conclusion of witness's evidence-in-chief Mr Atherley Jones (for Theobald) asked the Judge to determine the question of the priority ot counsel in cross-examining, mentioning that counsel had met in a friendly spirit to arrange the matter themselves, but failed to come to an agreement. He submitted that the counsel who were senior should have precedence in cross- examining and addressing the jury. The Judge rather thought that the order of the indictment should be followed. He gathered that Balfour was the principal defendant. Mr A. Jones replied that there was a larger number of counts against Balfour than the other defendants. He questioned whether it would be to the interest of the other defendants to have Balfour's case in the front. The Attorney.General (speaking for the Bar rather than as proseouting counsel) protested against there being any arbitrary rule as to seniority of counsel. He submitted that the order of the indictment should be followed. Mr John O'Connor (for Balfour) said it would save the time of the Court if Mr A. Jones were allowed to cross-examine first. The Judge said he could not accede to Mr Jones's contention that seniority should prevail. Mr O'Connor represented the principal defendant, and he (his Lordship) should have ruled that he should cross-examine first, counsel failing to agree, but if Mr O'Connor was willing to waive his rights all well and good. Mr O'Connor applied that witnesses might leave the Court,and the Judge said he thought be was entitled to have his application granted In reply to Mr Woodfall (for Dibley). the witness Pitman said that the name of the defend- ant did not appear as a subscriber to the ljamds Allotment Company nor in connection with the first proceedings of the company. WITNESSES ORDERED OUT OF COURT. William Brigham, chief clerk in the office of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, deposed that the Liberator was registered in 1868, and was incorporated under the Building Societies Act in 1874. The witness also gave the dates at which the defendants were connected with the various compames of thA Balfour Gruup. The Attorney-General, referring to Mr O'Connor's application to have all the witnesses out of court, asked that there should be excepted from the decision Mr Millen, Mr Browell, and Mr Johns, as it would be much more convenient to have them in court. Mr O'Connor said these were juab the very gentlemen to whom he objected. These were clerks connected with the offices, who could do all that was necessary in the way of producing books, etc. He wanted the evidence of each of these witlnessea individually and apart from each other, and any other arrangement would not be faThe Attorney-General said it would be found that it was chiefly formal evidence that would be given by these gentlemen, and he would not ^The witnesses mentioned then left the court. The defendant Balfour here made a communica- tion to his counsel. » Mr O'Connor said Mr Rahn, of the Official Receiver's office, was still in court, and he objected to his presence. The Attorney-General said someone must be in court to produce the documents needed in the ease, and he should therefore not call Mr Rahn as a witness. MR WHEELER UNDER EXAMINATION. Mr Samuel Wheeler was the next witness. He said he was one of the official receivers under the Companies' Winding Up Act of 1890, and in August, 1893, he became liquidator to the Balfour Group of Companies. He investigated the whole of the books of the various companies and con- ducted the examination of the directors and officials, and the evidence he was prepared to trive would be based on his own personal invest!- latkmof matters. The defendant Balfour was, he believed, originally a Parliamentary agent, and was connected with nearly all the Balfour Group of Companies as director, managing director, vice-chairman, or vice-president. Mr Brock was connected with the Liberator, the House and Land Trust the London and Pnneral Bank, Hobbs and Co.. the Building Securities Company, and the Building Estate Brickfields Company, as secretary, director, vice-chairman, chairman, or financial secretary. Mr Brock was auditor of Hobbs Ta™*Co. Mr Theobald was connected with the Liberator, the Building Securities Company, and the House and Land Trust. Mr Dibley was connected with the Liberator, the House and Land Trust, the London and General Bank, Hobbs and Co., Ehe Building Securities Company and the Building Estate Company. The Lands Allot- ? flomDanv t>aid a dividend of 5 per cent. from 1873 September, 1892, on the ordinary from io i f on preference Bhares ST stpSerT « ^v*"4 Kses on the ordinary shares in addition. Th°. C- -5S SSSJV? sassr scr.bed for in 187o, £ 25,000 m 1878, ILrwo«r!i» K ejfooT'm 1886, £ 49,000 -»>d in 1187. £61°00. That made the wbvle of the ordinary capital of £500,000. In addition from 1888 to 1892 a preference capital of £266,000 was publicly subscribed. The total in premiums was £54,692 There were also debentures amounting to £290,000. He had made out what was drawn by the defendants in the shape of fees, bonuses, profits, etc-, from the Lands Allotment Company. Balfour had £13.1i181; Brook had £8.957; Theobald received £4,951; and Dibley had £3,672. Witness bad also trade out what they had received from all the Balfour Companies in respect to fees, &c., and not as shareholders. Mr Marshall Hall (for Brock) objected on the ground that the question was an unfair one. TO LIVE OR DIE TOGETHER. The Attorney-General replied that all the companies were worked as one concern they had to live or die together. His case was that these gentlemen were receiving large sums of money in the shape of surplus profits and fees from all these companies, and the matter was most mate- rial in reference to the intent because ehe prose- cution alleged that these prospectuses and reports were issued to induce the public to subscribe, and so these gentlemen were interested to a far larger extent than merely in the Lands Allotment Company's transactions. The Judge thought he could not exclude the question. Mr Marshall Hall persisted that the defendants were now being charged with making false entries in respect to tbe Lands Allotment Com- pany. How could it be evidence thac they had received money from other companies ? The Judg4 pointed out that they were largely oterested in the other companies. Other learned counsel for defendants supported Mr Marshall Hall's objection, which, however, was disallowed. DEFENDANTS' FEES. Mr Wheeler, continuing his evidence in reply to the Attorney-General, said that the amount of fees received by the four present defendants from the various companies was as follows :—Balfour, £ 36,551 Brock, £ 25,308 Theobald, £ 8,148 and Dibley, £ 12,103, There was also a sum of £ 7,852 in the House and Land Trust Company's aocounts which could not be apportioned to tbe directors. The witness also gave the details of the various sums, to meet the objections made by the defendants' counsel. The Lands Allotment Company began business in 1872, and made various purchases, but he was not aware that any were bought by auction. He found no referenoes in the books or accounts which would show that any independent valuation had been made of these estates as a matter of business. If there had been a valuation he should have expected to find a reference to it in the books of the company. The estates purchased were very largely introduced to the company by Mr Granville Wright, thesolioitor. Witness found from the actual entriesin the books that the officials added interest to the purchase money of the estates from year to year. The Romford Estate of 510 acres was bought in 1883 for JB102,000 from Granville Wright through the Liberator. The original sum paid to the seller of that estate was £32.60&, £30,000 was left on mortgage, £3,263 was paid to Granville Wright, and £37,000 was added to the value of the estate in the books of the company. Do you find anything to justify the profit of JB37,000 ?—Nothing at all. Examination continued The Lands Allotment Company bought the Rom ford Estate for £192,000, but there was absolutely nothing to justify the profit of £30,000 plaoed upon it by the Liberator year by year. Interest was added to the value of that estate in the books of the company, till in 1887 it stood at a book value of £121,000. He believed no building was going on in regard to it till 1887. The income which came from that estate never came to £1.200 a year, so that it did not produce enough to pay interest due on the mortgage. In the great majority of the estates this system of adding interest on the value of the estates in the companyt books was pursued, and in the majority of cases the price of the original purchase was swollen by intermediate profits paid to other persons. It appears to have been the habit of tbe directors to draw up a rough profit and loss account. He found one dated February, 1887, in the handwriting of McMillan, a olerk in the company, that corresponded with the accounts in the books of the company up to 1887, and showed a loss on 11 months' trading of £13.500. There were differences between that balance sheet and the one issued by the company a month later. It appeared from the minute book of the compnny that similar rough accounts were prepared in previous years. He had found another rough balance sheet dated 1892, showing a loss on tbe year of £23,259. The Court here adjourned for lunch. REFRESHMENTS FOR THE DEFEND- ANTS. During the luncheon interval Balfour was supplied with refreshments in one of the consulta- tion rooms, the warders keeping guard while he partook of tbe meal. The other defendants being on bail were free to take tbeir luncheon where they chose. After the midday meal Balfour appeared to recover his spirits somewhat, and smiled frequently as he chatted with his counsel, solicitors, and others. MR WHEELER'S EXAMINATION CON- TINUED. The evidence of Mr Wheeler being con- tinued, his attention was directed to the shares the defendants held at the date of the winding-up. Balfour held 47 ordinary and 50 preference £10 shares. He had previously held 41 other shares, but dis- posed of them in 1883 and 1887. Brock at thA winding up held 25 ordinary shares and 28 preference shares. He had previously held five additional ordinary shares and 17 preference shares, which he had disposed of. Theobald did not hold any shares at the time of the liquidation, having disposed of them. Dibley had no shares at the date of the winding-up. At one time he had 100 ordinary shares. The nominal capital of George Newman apd Co. was £50,000. of which half was issued as fully paid up shares. In March, 1886, Newman & Co. owed the Land Allot- ments Co. £105.700. In 1887 he owed them £150,000, of which £7,000 was arrears of interest. A WICKED WORLD." Witness next went on to give particulars of the valuation of the property. Messrs Bird and Driver's was jB560,000, Newman's £472.000, and Bird's separate valuation subsequently £514.000. There was no traoe, however, of any inspection of the property by Bird other than that with Mr Driver. Witnessquoted from speeches delivered by Dibley and Balfour at meetings of the board. The former announced that the same dividend ati in previous years would be paid, as the property and estates were well worth it. Mr Balfour said he would not have been a party to declaring any dividend at all until the whole of the assets had been verified. They would naturally have reverted to their surveyor, an honest, straightforward, and capable man, but this was a wicked world. (Laughter in court.) People were always willing to impute motives, and therefore they had gone to another surveyor (Mr Bird), with the result that the valuation had come out £50,000 better. This was a very great pleasure, though hardly a surprise. (Laughter in court.) This report, however, had been corrected, and the words referring to wicked world" and to "people being always ready to impute evil motives" wete struok out. The words which were written \in with regard to these erasures were in Mr Brook's writing. The amount paid or Messrs Driver and Bird's valuation was £9iO, and that amount was broken up and appor- tioned to the various estates, increasing their apparent book value. Mr Binfield Bird was paid 200 guineas for his report. In the profit and loss account for the quarter ending 31st March, 1887, tbe last item in the balanoe sheet was— balance profit and loss, £23,818 12s 3d. Instead of a loss being shown of £ 13,000, as was shown in the rouRh balance sheet of Mr Millen, that profit of £ 23,818 12s 3d appeared. AN OBJECTION OVERRULED, Mr O'Connor contended that this rough balance sheet could not be admitted. It was in the band of Mr Millen, and in a criminal case the master could not be held to be answerable for the act of his servants. The Judge said he understood it was admitted that the rough balance sheets tallied with the aocounts in the books, and the directors might surely be supposed to be aware of the contents of their own books. He could not exclude the evidflnce. Mr Wheeler, continuing his evidence, ex- plained how in the balance sheets issued the loss of BIS 000 had been turned into an apparent profit of £23,000. There was added to the accounts ;-Profit on Chingford propertv No. 2, £5,259; on sale to Mr Newman of Meersbrook estate, &22,500; and other sums, "interest up to date." As a matter of fact, sometimes the interest added in the books was not only on the original amount, but sometimes on the accrued interest. In the same report the directors made an allusion to all the profits of the company having arisen from actual sales, and recommended that the capital of company should be inoreased to £1,000,000. Between that time,1887 and 1894, the publio subscribed nearly £300.000 more to the company. The £5,259 which was added to the balance sheet was arrived at in this WAV The Chingford estate purchase money for Newman was £ 33,000, while the book value was £ 27,740.. which left some JB5000 odd, which was carried forward in the published accounts as if it really consisted of sovereigns in the till of tbe company. Mr Newman, however, carried out his contract to buy this estate for £33,000. Did Newman or Newman and Company ever mv anything to the oompany on account of SJe S»l» !-No, but » £ 13,000 m paid to the Lands Allotment Company by Newman and was raised on mortgages on the Chinrford properties. This mortgage was given in front of the Lands Allotment Company. UNEARNED INCREMENT. Witness, continuing, said that at the time in question Newman owed the company £150,000. With respect to Meersbrook B15,000 was turned into a profit of £22,500 by means of "in- The Judge What is meant by interest ? Witness: I really do not understand it, my T.nrd. (Laughter.) The Attorney-General: My friend Mr O'Con- nor suggests it is unearned increment, and I think that is a very good name for it. (Laughter, in which Balfour joined). Witness went into five other instances in which the book value of property had been swollen by charges such as that of interest and increased value." The latter amounted in one case to £ 23,872. The valuation placed upon the estate by the company was £1,250 an acre, the property standing in the books as worth £132,000. He put it up to auction on May. 1894. The greater part of the lots was sold for ±.A/,»uu, and the remainder was likely to produce £ 10,000, The Court then adjourned.

TUESDAY'S PROCEEDINGS,

News

Cite

Share

TUESDAY'S PROCEEDINGS, LOMMN, Tuesday. — In the Queen's Bench Brucv-«1 snecfal I Jury resumed the hearing of the obarges against Jabez Spencer Balfour and Messrs Brook, Dibley, and Theobald, directors of the Liberator Group of Companies, who are accused of fraud in connec- tion with the management of those concerns. THE PRINCIPAL DEFENDANT." Jabez Balfour was brought into court unusually early—a few minutes after ten. He was seated at the solicitors' table, in earnest conversation with Brock and other defendants. Before them was a capacious brown leather bag from which Balfour took a batch of documents, books, minutes of proceedings, &c., which he proceeded to peruse. There was not a numerous gathering of the general publio in the early part of the day. Amongst these m pretty constant attendance is Inapeotor Freest, who brought Baltour baok from abroad. The warders who are responsible for his safe custody now appear to have somewhat relaxed their vigilance. One of them sits by Balfour's side, but the other no longer keeps guard over the private entrance, though he remains within oall. The principal defendant, as he has been called, seemed to have quite recovered bis spirits to-day. The dejection in the early part of yesterday was evidently only a passing despondency, for this morning he chatted in an animated way with his counsel, his solicitor, and even his gaoler. The court was this morning enveloped in semi- darkness, and the electric light had to ba brought into requisition to dispel the prevailing gloom. The Judge took his seat at the usual hour, but the proceedings were delayed for a few moments by the absence of one of the jurymen. He soon appeared, however, and then Mr Wheeler entered the witness-box. MR WHEELER'S FACTS AND FIGURES. In further examination by the Attorney- General, he stated that in the balance sheet of the Lands Allotment Company of 1887 the sum of £429,000. at which the estates were valued, ) included the inoreased value of the Meersbrook Estate, Sheffield, £ 114,325. This last amount comprised thfi original purchase money and comprised the original purchase money and interest added at various pariods of £140,000. £ 3,000, £18,600,. and JB22500. lu 1887 witness found in the minute book the following note 14th December.—Finance.— The chairman, vice-chairman, and Mr Balfotir were requested to investigate 'and oonsider and report on the financial position of the company." That minute was subsequently expunged, and a note added to it to the effect that it was expunged as it was incorrect. This was sIgned" G. D." Mr Dibley was present at the meeting at which the erasure took plaoe. Witness's attention was next directed to the minute book of the 20th April, 1888. At a meeting on that day Dibley was in the chair. Brock and Theobald were present, but not Balfour. In that book was the record, Rom- ford Estate—Resolved to sell to James Newman and Co., Limited, 67 acres of land at B700 per acre." It had been altered to read, Romford Estate—Resolved that thesale to George Newman and Co. of 67 acres of land on this estate, at JB700 per acre, be and the same is hereby confirmed." The alteration was initialed G. D." Witness, continuing, said the whole of the 67 acres were sold for j6700 an acre the land having been bought at JS200 per acre Including the sale to Newman the value of the estate on the 31st March, 1888, as entered in the books of the company, was £149,000. Newman was supposed to pay £46.900 for his 67 acres but in the books of the company on 26th February. 1887, he had valued the whole estate at £109.000, or about B220 an acre. This purchase of Newman's was supposed to have been paid for about the 27th of April, but as a matter of fact there was nothing in the books of the company exoept the payment of a cheque to Newman by the Liberator for £4,750, which cheque Newman passed into the hands of the Lands Allotment Company. Was there any other tiansaction in tbe books of the company which you have been able to find in regard to this sale except the circulation of these cheques ?—No. This interchange of cheques took place between the 27th and the 30rh March ?—Yes. Newman agreed to pay JM6,900 for the land, but no money passed at all. Did any money ever pass from Newman to the Lands Allotment Company under the contract that he was to buy this estate ?—No. What was supposed to be the profit on this transaction ?-£26,800. That was really the difference between £210 per acre and B700 per acre?—Yes. Was that item of £26,800 included in the 1888 balance sheet ?—Yes it was put in under the head of profit on sales." That one item would more than account for the total profit on the profit, and loss side?—Yes. For the purpo-e of dividend and bonus was this £26.800 treated as oash in the till of the com- pany 1—Yes; it was treated as profit and was divided. Was that always continued as an asset 'Yes. What was Newman's indebtedness to the Lands Allotment Company on the 31st March, 1888 ?— It was £230.000. What did he owe the Liberator 1-£71,000. Was interest in arrear added in that JB2M. 000 ? —Yes. The witness further stated that these transac- tions began with the minute of the 20th April, 1888, at a special board and ended with the inter- change of cheques between the 27th and the 30th April. The matter was put in the Lands Allotment ledgers under date of the 31st March. The jBt.695, whioh was the result of the cheque transaction, was entered in the books of 31st March as a receipt of that date fQII sales to Messrs G. Newman and Co. 011 8th March, 1888, a man named Fleck offered £115.000 for some land at Tilbury. Fleck was afterwards the secretary of the Real Estates Company, as was shown by the books of that company. The Real Estates Company was incorporated in April, 1888. THE TILBURY ESTATE. Attention was next called to a minute of the 9th May, 1888, of the Real Estate Company, with respect to the Tilbury Estate. It was resolved to accept W. Fleck's offer of a certain portion for £45,000, The Real Estates Company drew a cheque in favour of Fleck, and the Lands Allotment Company drew a cheque in favour of the Real Estates Company, but no money passed. The profit on the sale was assumed to be £14,746. The Real Estates Company was incorporated on the 3rd April, 1888, Geo. Newman being chairman. The nominal capital was £100,000, There were 47 shares of £5 each paid up. Of these shares 37 were held by directors. At the end of 1892 the obligation of this oompany amounted to £700,000. APPLICATIONS FOR MONEY. Witness next dealt with Newman's applications for money. He found a record that the application of Geo. Newman and Co. for an advanoe In respect of their proposed outlay of £220,000 at K^n^itig- ton Gore be agreed to, the amount being £150,000, It was also resolved to grant the application of J. W. Hubbs and Co. for an advanoe of SllO.OOO in respect to the Salisbury-street property, and the chairman was authorised to apply to the House and Land Investment Trust to make such advance. The result would be an advance of £260,000, to be made by the House and Land Investment Trust to Newman and Hobbs re- spectively. There was to be a premium of j350,000 in respect to Newman's grant, and 0820,000 with regard to that of Hobbs. the total being £50.000, and the House and Land Investment Trust were to get £ 15,000 for the accommodation. The sum of £ 35,000 was supposed to be the premium to the Lands Allotment Company. A number of cheques were drawn in connection with this transaction. On the 31st March, 1890. the Lands Allotment Company drew cheques for £30.000 and jB20,000, and handed them to New- mitn and Hobbs. Newman and Co. drew cheques for the same amount and paid them to the House and Land Investment Trust, and the House and Land Investment Trust paid them back to the Lands Allotment Company- So that the £50,000 simply passea round by these cheques ?—Yes. And not one farthing of money was paid ? -No. All the oheques were of the same date and were drawn on the same bank. Were there any entries in the books of the two oomnanies with regard to this matter ? —Yes £35,000 was put in the books of the Lands Allotment Company, and BIS.OOOin those of the House and Lands Investment Trust. What were the bank acoounts of the parties at this period, when they were drawing cheques for these large sums?—Messrs Newman and Com- Sany's accounts were overdrawn by £ 4,500, lessrs J. W. Hobbs and Company were over- drawn by £12,300, the Lands Allotment were in credit by £1,340, and the House and Lands Investment were in credit to the extent of £1,500. At this period it was stated by Mr Hall that the figures now to be dealt with did not interest Mr Dibley, and he asked that that gentleman should be allowed to withdraw. The Attorney-General made no objection, and Mr Dibley accordingly left the court. Mr Wheeler next produced the letter written by Mr Burns, a director of the House and Land Investment Trust, to Jabez Balfour, stating that he could no longer approve of the dangerous polioy of swelling the value of the estates by adding interest to them m the books of the company, and resigning his post as director. Mr O'Connor objected that this letter did not apply to the present indiotment, whioh only dealt with the Lands Allotment Company. The Judge held that the letter might be put in as evidence against Balfour. After some conversation between the counsel it was understood that this letter did not affect the other defendants, Messrs Dibley, Theobald, and Brock, as it was addressed to Balfour only, and there was some dispute as to how much of it was communicated to the other defendants. The Court adjourned for lunoh. THE COURT RESUMES. On the Court resuming after luncheon, Mr Wheeler continued his evidence. He said that the 1891 accounts included £47,931 as profits ou sales, contract concessions, &o. This included £25,000 premium in respect to Newman and Co. That amount paid by Newman was met by a payment to Newman by the Lands Allotment Company.. The Attorney-General: Without that £25,000 there would not have been money enough to pay a dividend and bonus 1—No. Was any money at all paid under the reported advance of £150,000 to Newman t-There was an advance of £12000 on the 31st December, 1891. Except by the exchange of cheques and this £ 12,000 did any money pass from one party to the other ?—No. Was the £ 25,000 ever written back or did it continue till the liquidation ?~It continued till the liquidation. When the Lands Allotment',Co.was supposed to be lending money what was the condition of that company and Newman with the London and General B:mk ?—Both of their accounts were overdrawn. Was money due to the Liberator by Newman and Co. at this tune in front of the Lands Allotment Company 1—Yes, £123,000. Ic April, 1891, Newman's indebtedness to the Lands I Allotment Oompany was 3349,000, to tbe ) I liberator 1111.000. and to the London and i General Bank a4." Tbw iteclot* aocoed in January, 1891, to purohase a property at Queen's Park, Brighton, for £ 35,000, and he believed there was an intermediate profit to Steere of B5.000 on that businoss. A sale was attempted of this property soon after, but was not effected. No money had been spent on the estate so far as the books showed. three months afterwards witness found in the books of the company a sum of :£10,000 entered u profits 08 contracts. Queen's Park, Brighton, in respect of Dudell Villa, stabling, &o. not taken into account in the purchase price. That villa was he believed one which bad been in existence for many years. Have you found any independent valuation in the books ot this property including the villa which would show it to be worth £4-5.000 ?—No. Examination continued Dudell Villa was an imply house which was on the Brighton property, out be believed no money was spent on it. The profit" of £10,000 in question was kept in the looks till the end. Mr Theobald resigned in April, 1892, before the accounts for the year were )aased. Mr Reid then read the letters which had passed between Mr Theobald and Mr Brock. The :hairman of the company, Mr Theobald, in his etter suggested that the board should adopt a lew policy, that no profits should be anticipated or division, but the profit and loss account carefully considered ana no dividend paid till :hese acoounts were approved. He also suggested I hat they should writedown the value of theestates to their actual value, to be asoertamed by a fresh survey and report, and that no new directors I should be elected but such as would agree I ;0 that policy. Mr Brock replied that the policy adopted by the board was no new one, but tad been generally accepted, and he also said I >hat as the company wanted new capital that would be most easily raised on maintained dividends or on a profit and loss account propor- tionate to that of the year before, which was jased on the system always adopted and stated in ihe accounts. Mr Theobald replied that he could lot be a party to the issue of more capital at a premium, and accordingly be resigned. Mr O'Connor observed that although he had no jreat objection to the letters, for they merely ihowed a difference of opinion as to polioy, there vas nothing to connect Balfour frith them. Witness replied that Balfour afltf Brock were present at a meeting when one of the letters was •ead. Replying to questions, be proceeded to deal vith 1892 accounts, upon which counsel for Theobald asked that he might be allowed to eave the court, as the evidence related to transac- iiQns after he had resigned. The Judge acceded to the application, and Mr Lheobald left the court. Witness went on to speak of a loss of £23,259 ihowed by the accounts which was converted into i profit of j646,000 odd. Some property at Clap- lam was bought for £75,000. but 12 months )efoto the purchase money was £56,500. The Attorney-General Was any money paid ? Witness ? No two bills were given for the leposit. Examination continued Tbe Lands Allotment Company nevei received in cash a farthing in espect of this transaction. Bills of £5,000 were fiven by the Real Estates Company, but were lishonoured after the failure of the Balfour Companies. The amount of indebtedness on the )art of the Real Estates Company to the Lands Ulotment Company in regard to the Clapham Estate was £74,000, and their total indebtedness vas £384,579. That was the company who had 279 £5 shares paid up ?—Yes. Examination continued: The Brighton pro- Mrty was bought in 1891, and in March, 1892, the building Securities Company made an offer to jurohtMo the estate for £60,000, subsequently proposing to buy that and a propertv it Cheltenham for £87,500. On the sale of the Brighton property there was an assumed profit )f £14,805 in the books of the company, [n June, 1890, the Cheltenham pro- perty was bought for £16.000, but was charged £22.000 to the company, the £6,000 difference between the sums being divided between Balfour and a Mr Broad. The book ralue of the estate was inoreased by various items :o £27,000. Half the property belonged to the Lands Allotment Company and.the remainder to jheBuildings Securities Company. Thelatter com- pany offered £27,500 for the Lands Allotment naif in March, 1892. Assuming that the total ?alue of the estate was, according to these transactions, £55,000, he found no trace of any such valuation upon the date. The assumed profits carried to the account was £11.949, Cheques for the amounts in question were passed round among the three companies, but no money passed. What was the date of these cheques ?—First of April, 1892. The Attorney General: A most appropriate 3 ate. (Laughter.) Examinatiou continued: The total indebted. ness of these companies to the public was 68.363,000. Their mutual indebtedness to each jther was about 4% millions. The Lands Allot- ment Company owed the other companies £19.900. The Liberator owed £45.000; J. W. Hobbs owed £2.523 664 the Real Estates Company owed £1.143,022; the Build- ing Securities Company owed £25.700; George Newman owed £65,700; and the House and Land Investment Trust owed £648,780. The London and General Bank first went into liquidation in September, 1892, and the other companies all followed within a twelvemonth. He believed that the failure of one of the companies must have brought down the whole of them, as they were so dependent on one another. The first persons oharged were Hobbs and Wright. Mr Balfour was summoned to the investigation of the companies affairs, but did not attend, as he had left the country. He was brought back to England under extradition in May of the present year. The Court adjourned at 4- o'clock.

WEDNESDAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

News

Cite

Share

WEDNESDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. LONDON, Wednesday.—In the Queen's Bench Division to-day Mr Justioe Bruce and a special jury resumed the bearing of charges of fraud in connection with the Lands Allotment Company preferred against Jabez Spencer Balfour and ather directors of the Liberator Group ot Com- panies, Jabez Balfour occupied his oustomary plaoe next to his solicitor and immediately in front of his leading counsel. Some time before the Judge took his seat Balfour was busy with bis papers, holding between his lips a qUIll pen ready for use. Near him sat Messrs Urock, Dibley, and Theobald, the other defend- ants, who ocoupied themselves with reading the manuscript of the shorthand writer's notes of the previous day's proceedings. A COMPLAINT. Upon his Lordship taking his seat, Mr Wood- fall (for Dibley) complained that although be yesterday pointed out that Dibley was not associated with the Queen's Park and other transactions in 1889 the fact was only noticed in one or two newspapers. The Attorney-General: It isdifficult to mention everything in an abbreviated report. The Judge Mr Woodfall having called atten. tion to it that is enough. OFFICIAL RECEIVER'S EXAMINATION CONTINUED. The Attorney-General, in continuing the ex- amination of Mr Wheeler, said as some question bad arisen about the handwriting of Mr Dibley he did not propose to read the iiiiuutes in tbe books that morning, but would simply put the books in and supply copies to bis learned friends, Subsequently Mr Wheeler produoed copies of the minute b >oks ol the defendants. In cross-examination by Mr Atherley Jones (for Mr Theobald), Mr Wheeler said the whole of the remuneration received by Mr Theobald from the companies during his connection with them amounted to £8,148. He had no reason to suppose that Mr Theobald reoeived pecuniary benefit in any other way. Mr Jabez Balfour also was the principal mover in the Balfour Companies, was also he believed director, and was otherwise connected with such companies as the Debenture Corporation, the London and Edinburgh and Glasgow Assurance Oompany, the Mersey Railway Company, the Assets Realisation Com- pany, the London and Lancashire Insurance Company, and others. He waa also at the time Mayor of Croydon, a member of Parlia- ment, and a justioe of the peaoe, and there was nothing at the time when the Balfour Companies were running that would tend to inspire Mr Theobald with anything bat confidence in him. When the Lands Allotment Company was first started it was stated in a prospectus that the company was to be worked with tbe Liberator Building Society, having the use of its offioes and staff, and with a directorate practically similar. A prospectus stating those facts was, be believed, issued to the public at large. Witness admitted that to a great extent the Lands Allotment Company, the House and Land Company, and the London and General Bank were put forward to the publio all inter-associated oompanies. It was upon his (witness's) informa- tion the prosecution in the case of the Lands Allotment Company was instituted. He believed it to be the practice of tbe Land Companies to add interest to the estates lying in their hands, and he did not consider that 3 per oent. was excessive. It was only in respect to four estates, but they were the principal ones, namely, Sheffield, Hull, Romford, and Tilbury, that there was any very marked difference between Driver's valuation and the balance sheet of 1887. Counsel next suggested that in estimating tbe value of an estate for the purpose of forthwith raising money by debentures a valuer would go upon a different basis to that upon whioh he would proceed, having regard to what the ultimate value of the property would be in the hands of a speculative land oompany. The witness rephed that he did not think so. Mr Newman's valuation. He gave the present value of the estates and also their prospective ( value in view of their complete development. At the time of this valuation in 1887 Mr Binfield Bird was not in the employ of any of the Balfour Companies, though he had been employed to value some of the estates. Mr Bird had been in Messrs Driver's office, was in an extensive way-of business, and was a Fellow of the Surveyors' Institute. Witness believed Mr Bird had made a considerable number of extensive valuations. Messrs Bird and Driver valued together, and the sum of £ 990 was to be paid for the report. There was a second valuation made by Mr Bird, for which JB210 was paid. Can you find anything whioh shows that Mr Theobald was aware that a subsequent and second valuation was made of the estates?—I think he must have been aware of it, as he signed the cheque to J. G. Wright whioh paid for M. But can you find anything wbioh ahews that Mr Theobald knew Mr Bird made a subsequen t and independent valuation ?—There is the letter of the lat !\hy..1887, which* was read when Mr Theobald was present and was entered in the minute-books, in which Newman referred to a proposed second valuation by Mr Bird. Mr Bird is unfortunately dead—I mean unfor- tunately for the interests of this case ? (Laughter.) —Yes, be is dead. Cross-examination continued: There was nothingexfuwcrdiijaryi».Aq estateAsamnRujr^ I :4tu.1.Y' I value as it was developed by building, but if he was a director he should require proof of the increased value before be allowed it to be taken in a balance sheet. He had stated that the rough balance sheet prepared in the office in February, 1887, was a correct repre- sentation ot the affairs of the company up to that date, and that was the balance sheet I which should have been issued to the shareholders. He admitted, however, that there were other items of business transaobed later which might have been properly included in that sheet. What he had said was that the provisional balance sheet properly represented the affairs of the company at that date as they stood in the books. Are you not aware that there was not included in that sheet fees on premiums received in March, dividends for three months on building securities shares, no interest on any estate in course of development, only half year's interest on loan and mortgage account, &c. 1-1 believe that is so. Then you admit that there were certain items of interest which it was legitimate to add to the balance sbeet 1-1 am quite ready to admit that there were certain legitimate items of expenditure and receipts to add, but there were also many illegitimate items added. Witness had com- plained that some £ 22,000 was improperly added to the Meersbook Estate in the balance sheet of 1887. Counsel read a letter from Dibley to Brock I describing the estate as of 130 acres ,and adding that its purchase would prove one of the most judicious enterprises the board had undertaken. £85.000 was the price, and Dibley recommended the board to negotiate at a price not exceeding £ 75,000. Asked whether there was anything to which he could take exception in this letter, witness replied that it was drafted by Wright. Mr A. Jones I am not asking that. Witness Wright got £10,000. Mr Jones It was not known to my client. The Attorney-General, interposing, said on the contrary Theobald was present at the meeting of the board when the resolution to purchase was adopted. Witness admitted that there was reasonable grounds for the company coming to the conclusion before the end of March, 1886, that the estate would be sold to the Corporation. Thirty-seven acres were sold to the Corporation for £ 7,500, and they agreed to spend £ 1,300 on roads. The Lands Allotment Company, he admitted, spenb about £7,000 on the estate, and the making of this park, he agreed, would tend to materially improve its value. Mr Newman's first valuation of Meersbrook was £139,000, and his second one of £130,000. Mr Bird valued it at £144,000, and Mr Driver ab £ 65,000. It was placed in the balance sheet at £ 114,000. In May, 1894, the estate was broken up and sold by auction, the reserve price being placed by the witness at about £50,000. If the I estate had been kept for many years and sold in small lots no doubt it would have realised more than it did About £ 48,000 worth was sold, and about J610,000 worth left. That had been handed over to a reconstructed company, and be believed some parts had been sold, but he did not know how much. No doubt the fact of the liquidation bad more or less depreciated the value of the land. What do you suggest was fraudulent on the part of Theobald in dealing with this estate ?—I say there was no justification for adding this large sum to the value of the estate and dividing it by way of dividend. What do you say was fraudulent on Theobald's part ?—The addition of a profit and its distribu- tion. Witness was next cross-examined at length on the question of the scheme which was proposed to fill up certain dams on the property, and he con. tended that the company had no right to take credit for any profit in that respect until the work was actually completed and the profit earned. The Court here adjourned for lunch. THE COURT RESUMES. On the Court resuming after luncheon, Mr Wheeler, continuing his evidence, said that the Chingford No. 2 Estate was sold to Newman for j633,000, which sale was agreed upon by the board. Newman prior to the sale (in December, 1886), made a valuation of the estate, £ 40,336 being the first valuation and £ 31,300 the second. The Lands Allotment Company received in cash £13,000 in respect of the Chingford property a year and a half after the date of the sale. Newman was turned into a limited liability company. It was a one-man company, and all the shares were allotted to Newman himself, no application being made to the public. Mr A. Jones You might regard Newman as the developer of the estates of the company. Witness He purchased estates from the Lands Allotment Company, borrowed money from the Liberator, and with the money developed the estates of this company. When the buildings were developed the Lands Allotment or the Liberator or both would par- ticipate in the profits derived from the estate ?- Ye<s. if there were any profits. The relation of Hobbs to the Land Company and subsequent realisation of profits by them would be carried on on tho same principle ?— Very much the same, except that Newman pur- chased the estates, and Hobbs did not do 1<0. Witness next dealt with the Romford E-itate, which, in reply to Mr Atherley Jones, he said which, in reply to Mr Atherley Jones, he said was sold for £ 102,000 by the Liberator to the Lands Allotment Co. The money was actually advanced to Wright in January, 1883. Mr Driver valued thisestateat £ 100,000, Newman at £109.000, Bird at £ 130,000, and it stood in the books at £la.ooO, and a portion of it was sold to Newman for JB700 an acre. It was frontage, and was the crean) of the land for building purposes. Mr A. Jones: I think something was said about dating back, and a transaction brought into the financial year as profits ending 31st March, 1888, whereas in fact it was after that financial year the transaction was made. Witness j626,000 was carried on as profit in March of that year. You say the transaction was not complete till after that time ?-I say the minute authorising that entry was not made till afterwards. Witness could not remember what was the reserve price he had put on the Romford estate, which was valued by Driver at £100,000, I suggest you put the reserve at £40,000 ?—I can't say. I only know there were no bids at the auction for it. (Laughter.) Examination continued The land which the company owned at Tilbury was near the new docks, and he admitted it was only reasonable. in view of the success of the docks, that it should be supposed that land would increase in value. The docks, however, were a failure, and the builders who had agreed with the company to pur- ohaseand build on land theremadedefault. To meet this a sum of £15,000 was written off the reserve fund. This fund was applicable to the general purposes of the company. Subsequently another £ 1,500 was written off the same estate. You say the premiums paid by the company ot £20,000 on one advance to Hobbs of £ 110,000, and of £ 30,000 on the advanoe to Newman of £ 150,000, are-exoessive ?—Yes. You borrowed money from the Debenture Corporation in respect of the completion of the Hotel Cecil Yes. What was the amount and what did you pay fur it ?—They agreed to advance £350,000 at 6 per cent. and a commission of 10 per cent. on the amount ultimately paid to the creditors of the company. The security given was the equity on the estates mortgaged in front. The Debenture Corporation was to be entitled to a minimum sum of £ 15,000. Can you form any idea of the amount the Debenture Corporation will receive ?-They have advanced upwards of a million. They have re- ceived 6 per cent, up to date, and will probably receive about £50,000 bonus, partly in cash and partly in shares. Examination continued The total amount of the charges on the Cecil Hotel property when he took it up was £ 365,000, and debentures to £ 90,000. The property was not yet completed, though he had spent about half a million upon it. He thought before it was complete £ 600,000 more would have to be spent on it. That was for the hotel only, so that it would have cost nearly a million to carry out the original construction of the hotel as planned by the Balfour directors. The building would then, he estimated, be worth about £1,100.000. The Court adjourned. STUBBORN ATTITUDE OF WRIGHT. DECLINES TO GIVE EVIDENCE. The Press Association states that, contrary to expectations, the oonvicb Wright will not appear as a witness against his old colleagues in the present Liberator trial. He absolutely refuses to render the Treasury any assistance in the matter, and for this reason he has been removed from London to Parkhursc convict establishment, Isle of Wight, where, it is expeoted, he will spend the major portion of the unexpired period of 12 years' penal servitude.

A SREAT MUSIOIAN.

BETROTHAL OF PRINOESS I.MAUD…

Advertising

CARDIFF.

News

Cite

Share

CARDIFF. ACCIDENTS.—A lad named Kendal Rowe, aged 16, who resided at Harpur-street, Penarth- I road, and who was deaf and dumb, dted at the Cardiff Infirmary on Saturday morning as a result of injuries he received on Thursday in Castle-road, he being run over by a cart.— William Matthews (25), of 112. Carlisle-street, a labourer, was admitted to the Cardiff Infirmary on Saturday morning suffering from a severe wound in his head, caused by a fall while follow- ing his occupation.—On Saturday Wm. Martin, 7, Fiehguard-Btreet, was conveyed to the Infirmary by Dock-constable George Seddon in an ex- hausted condition, he having been severely orushed between a railway truck and a pillar at the East Dock. He now lies in a critical con- dition. ACCIDENT ON A TOO.-—On Tuesday morning about 7.30 an accident betel John Martin, a fireman on board the Bute Docks Company's II tug Earl, who received severe injury to his arm through a large piece of coal falling upon it while the tug was coaling at the Channel tip. The captam of the tug rendered first aid, and the man was taken to the Hamadryad Hospital Ship and attended to. AN OBJECTIONABLE HOARDING.—TO the Cardiff Council, at its sitting on Monday, Councillor Good introduced a deputation of businessmenoonoemed "in the very important import centre" around the Custom House Bridge, who were desirous of hastening on action by the Council towards tbe removal of the unsightly hoarding on the wall between New-street and the Glamorganshire Canal. There seemed to prevail an impression that the Council had power to remove the inconvenience structure, but Alderman David Jones showed this to be erroneous, and said that this hoarding had been specially exempted in the new Bill.—The Mayor informed the deputation that the Council had by no means lost sipht of the matter, and that Sir Wm. Thomas Lewis bad promised last week at an early date to meet Alderman David Jones, who was representing the'Corporation.

SWANSEA.

NEWPORT.

HAVERFORDWEST.

PEMBROKE DOCK.

COWBRIDGE.

YNYSYBWL.

CWMTAFF.

News

Cite

Share

CWMTAFF. PRESENTATION TO A CARDIFF CORPORATION Orrl- CIAL.—Mr E. J. Hillier, who has been employed as chief timekeeper on the Cardiff Corporation Watir Works for the past three years, was waited on last Saturday evening at the Story Arms, Cwmtaff, by a deputation, representing the staff and workmen at the water works, and presented with a gold watch, on the occasion of his leaving to take up a more important position on the Birmingham Corporation Water Works in the Elan Valley.—Mr J. Sutherland, oasbier, in making the presentation on behalf of the work- men, spoke of Mr Hillier as a young man of great promise and ability, who by his sterling qualities had made himself very popular with all classes during the time he was employed at Cwmtaff. They all wished him success in his new sphere, and he would be followed by the good wisnes of every man on the works.—Mr Hillier suitably and feelingly replied, thanking them one and all for their great kindness, which was totally unexpected by him. The watch, which was supplied by the well-known firm of Kendal and Dent, London, bore the following inscription :—" Presented to Mr E. J. Hillier by Ins fellow-workmen at Cwm- taff as a token of esteem and respect. October, 1895."

ABERSYCHAN.

CROSS KEYS.

BASSALEG.

ABERTILLERY.

SUICIDE AT AIERAYRON.

[No title]

THE POLICE COURTS. .

News

Cite

Share

THE POLICE COURTS. Sunday Fight at Newport. At Newport County Police Court on Saturday, Frank Jones, John Newick, John Tugley, and Harry Bishop, belonging to Newport, were 1 summoned for committing a breach of the peace 4 in a field in St. Woolos on Sunday afternoon lasll. Evidence was given to tbe effect that a crowd of men went from Commercial. street on Sunday afternoon to a held near Mr O. D. Phillips' farm to see a dispute fought out between Jones and Newick. Tugley and Bishop were the seconds. They fell out, and Tugley struck Bishop and he rolled over the embankment, fracturing his leg.—The Bench thought Bishop had been amply punished by the fractured leg, and bound over the other defend- ants to keep the peace and ordered them to p»v the costs. A Contumacious Road Surveyor. Mr Horace Lyne, solicitor, made application te the magistrates at Newport County Police Court on Saturday, for the committal of Mr Thomas Davies, late road surveyor for the Newport Highway District, who, he explained, had been contumacious in the matter of attending the audit, and had not produced his books. On the 5th inst. the magistrates fined defendant 10s for each of four offences, and the costs, but there were no effects on which a distress could be levied, and Mr Lyne asked for defendant's com- mittal to gaol. The Magistrates' Clerk read a 'j1Í letter from defendant's sister, residing at Aber- gavenny, in which she promised to raise the money (£7 13s) if given time.—Mr Lyne said the defendant could dress well and get drink, and was not a person entitled to sympathy.—Tbe Bench made an order committing defendant for 14 days. but desired tbe police to suspend their action for a week.—Mr Lyne, replying to the magistrates, said further proceedings would have to be taken against defendant, as the audit could not be completed without the production of the books. Cruel Fraud on a Cerdiff Woman. Amy Edith Hale, alias Scott or Pritohard, was charged at the Cardiff Police Court on Monday with oommittmg a cruel fraud upon Mary Williams. The actual charge was for obtaining 5s from tbe prosecutrix by means of false pre- tences on April 24th last. It seems that Mrs Williams, who resides at the Old Sea Look, Oar- diff, was in indifferent health in April last, and was medically attended by Dr. Reece. Whilst she was ill prisoner is alleged to have come to the house saying she was ordered there by Dr. Reeoe, that she was almost a doctor herself, and that she wished to talk to Mrs Williams. Prisoner further said if prosecutrix would give her £2 she would cure her in her own bouse. The reply of Mrs Williams was that she had no money, and prisoner thereupon came down to J61, but Mrs Williams still per- sisted that she had no money. Prisoner there- upon threatened to take Mrs Williams to an asylum, having previously asked if she had had any relations in a similar institution. This threat frightened the poor woman, who gave prisoner 5s because she was afraid of her. Otner witnesses spoke to seeing prisoner there, they having been sent for by Mrs Williams, and one ofthem positively identified Hale. Detective Gretton apprehended prisoner at Worcester. Dr. Reeoe said he did not know the woman, and one witness, who identified the prisoner in court, said in answer to the latter's questions that she failed to recognise prisoner when confronted with her in the cells that morning. Prisoner, who said she had nob be in Cardiff for six years, was committed to take ber trial at the next quarter sessions. Street Betting at Newport, At the Newport Police Court on Monday Wm. Chambers, who was stated to be a book- maker, resident in Dean-street, was summoned for frequenting Griffin-street for the purpose of betting. Mr A. A. Newman (town clerk) ap- peared to prosecute, and Mr L. Moore, solicitor, represented the defendant. Mr Newman ex- plained that the prosecution was taken under a new bye law which had been recently sanctioned by the Home Secretary. Under this bye law it was only necessary to prove that a person was in the street for the purpose of betting. P.C. Friend stated that on Thursday, 17th inst., h<? saw Chas, Bright, a railway employee, of 7, West-street, go to the defendant in Griffin-street and give him a paper. In answer to Mr Moore, witness said that no one was obstructed by defendant, be made no noise, and he was only in the street foe a minute. Chas. Bright stated that he gave the defendant a paper and a sovereign which he received from a man named Smith, who asked him to give it to Chambers. He did not know what was on the paper. Mr Moore took the objection that the bye law had not been proved. The magistrates, however, deoided that if necessary they would adjourn the case for a week in order that the bye law might be proved. Mr Moore said that the case for the prosecution had closed, and pointed out that in a case under the Cardiff Bye Laws the Deputy Stipendiary upheld a similar objection. Mr Moore then contended that the bye law Wall bad, and pointed out that the bye law must not only be for the good government of the town but also for the suppression of a nuisance, and that it must be t legal nuisance. If the Bench held the bye law to be good, Mr Moore contended that there had been no breach in the case in question. If th< magistrates held the case proved candidates at at election, if they wagered in the street a pair df gloves or a new hat on the result, might hi. brought before the Court.—The Bench held that the evidence was insufficient, and therefore dismissed the case. Caution to Milk Sellers. On Tuesday, at the Cardiff Police Court, a new departure was made by the sanitary authorities. Elizabeth Thole, of 206, Bute-street, was summoned by Inspector Vaugban (on behalf of the Corporation) for unlawfully carrying on within the borough the trade of a milk purveyor, without being registered as such, on October lOtb. Mr Andrew (deputy town clerk), who prosecuted, said the summons was taken out under the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops Order of 1881 and the amending order of 1886. Defendant sa.ič she was unaware of the necessity for registration. The Stipendiary impoeed a tine of J33 and costs, or in default a month's imprisonment. The distress warrant will not be issued for a month. Serious Wounding at Aberdare. Lot Lake was brought up in oustody before the Aberdare Police Court on Tuesday charged with having done grievous bodily harm to Patrick Smith on the evening of the 19th inst. Dr. Trevor Jones deposed that the prosecutor, who has been detained at the Aberdare Cottage Hospital since he reoeived the injuries, was still unable to attend, and was not out of danger. Th( Bench decided to remand the prisoner for anothet week, but on the application of Mr J. W. Evans, who defended, agreed to admit him to bent. A Neat Capture. Before Mr J. Williams and Counoillor F J. Beavan at Cardiff Police Court on Wednesdat Wm. John (40) was committed to take his trial a1 the next Borough Quarter Sessions on a charge o- stfMing a cloak, valued at 6s, the property «y .Murphy, from 17, Bute-terraoe on the 29th inst. Prosecutrix deposed to seeinf the cloak in the shop in the morning, but at 6.a4 p.m. she missed it. Subsequently P.O. Greer saw prisoner going in the direction of Mary Ann- street with a bundle under his arm and stopped him. Prisoner then produoed the oloak, whict he said had been given him to pledge b, a woman. Shebeening at Cardiff, At Cardiff Pohce C .urt on Wednesday Jnlt Tracey (26) was brought up before Mr K. W, Williams and Councillor F. J. Beavan charged ot a. warrant with selling beer without a lioeno. at 18, Bute-terrace, on the 13th instant Prisoner had been previously convicted for a like offence, and was now fined £25 and costs, or il default two months' imprisonment with hard labour. Police-constables Thomas Maxwell and John Male proved the case.—Thomas Jonei (25) was charged on the icformatiou ot Police-constables Arthur Wheeler and Frederic! Dredge with illicitly selling beer at 13, Peel-streei on the 20th inst., and a previous conviction altw being proved by Inspector George Durston in thif 0ftse', Magistrates mulcted prisoner in r penalty of £ 25 and costs, or two months, Shoplifting at Newport. John Foley, who was described as a tramp, made a call at Newport on Monday and reusing down High-street in the evening he took a pair ol boots trom outside the shop of Messr* Stead and Simpson, and walked 011 with them. This action was witnessed by a child named Edith Dart, who at onct informed the manager, and tbe latter followed. Foley, overtook him, and handed him to the polioe, and he appeared in the dock at Wednes- day's court, having spent the interval in the celie. Foley now told the Oourt that he was in drink, and condemned the practice of hanging gooda outside ahops, declaring that it was a direoi inoentive to steal and a great temptation to thost in drink. The Court listened to his dictuma. and then sentenced him to 21 days' imprisonment Alleged Theft of a Horse. Thomas Williams, a labourer, hailing fron Trealaw, was brought up on remand—before the Pontypridd stipendiary, Alderman Mathias, atx £ Mr James Roberts—on Wednesday, charged witl stealing a horse, the property of Mr David John, farmer, Tydraw. Pontypridd with cbtainkig t saddle on false pretences from D. W. Evans farmer, Porth; and with stealing 17s, the pro. perfcy of John Jones, » stonemason, of Ponfcy* gwaitn. lor the tliird-named offence he war sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment with hare labour. On the two first-named charges the defendant was oommitted for trial. Breach tf the Expitsives Act atvSwanse& At the Swansea Police Court, on Wednesday, Mr Philip Richard, colliery proprietor, wai, summoned for keeping a quantity of dynamite in an unregistered place. Inspector Davies said ha visited defendant's oolliery at the Dunvant, and fwnd 75lbs. of dynamite in an old engine-shed, The offence was admitted, but ignorance of thf law was pleaded. A fine of £3 158 and costs was imposed.

Welsh Newspapers

The Cardiff Times

41 articles on this Page