Conspiracy to defraud?

BIRMINGHAM PUBLIC OFFICE.

YESTERDAY (TUESDAY).

Magistrates present: Messrs. T. C. S. KYNNERSLEY (Stipendiary), C. STURGE, and H. R. COOKSEY.

ALLEGED CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD. – Patrick Flanagan (42), upholsterer, Livery Street, and Daniel Lowe, an agent, residing at the Castle Inn, Gosta Green, were charged with conspiring to defraud Mr. Reuben Ford, sawyer and timber dealer, 46, Heneage Street, of a quantity of rails and stakes, value £11., for the purpose of fencing, on the 12th of December last. Mr. Maher prosecuted, and Mr. Francis defended the prisoners. From the evidence it appeared that both prisoners had gone to a Mrs. Hudson, in Cato Street, who has a life interest in the Malthouse Inn, in the same street, and Flanagan asked her if she would accept of him as a tenant of the Malthouse, it having been void for some time past; but she told him that he must speak to the agent, Mr. Edwards, who had the letting of the property. Flanagan accordingly after pressing ineffectually upon Mrs. Hudson to let the premises herself, went to the agent, but it was not arranged to let the house. Flanagan, however, proceeded to the prosecutor’s premises in Heneage Street, and stated that he had taken the malthouse in Cato Street, and wanted a quantity of rails and stakes to fence in the premises, and £11. worth were given him. He then went to Mrs. Hudson’s son and obtained leave to place the rails in the malthouse for a few days, so that when they were sent by prosecutor they were allowed to be placed in the house without any hindrance. In about a fortnight afterwards prosecutor, becoming suspicious, went to the malthouse, when he discovered that Flanagan had not taken the house, and that he had taken the rails away after they had been there a short time. Information was then given to the police, and after about three weeks’ time the prisoners were apprehended by Inspector Kelly. The evidence against Lowe was not considered sufficiently strong to warrant the Bench in committing him for trial, and he was discharged. Flanagan was sent for trial at the Sessions.

(Birmingham Daily Gazette, 3rd February 1869)

Castle Inn, Gosta Green

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Daily Gazette.

SIR – In seeing your paper of yesterday here, I notice in your police report a case “Alleged Conspiracy to Defraud,” in which you state Daniel Lowe [his brother-in-law], residing at the Castle Inn, Gosta Green. Permit me to correct this error, as he does not and never has resided there. I shall feel obliged by your correcting the same in your next impression.

I am, Sir, yours respectfully,

ROWLAND HODGES, JUN.

London, February 4th, 1869.

(Birmingham Daily Gazette, 5th February 1869)

Thrice bankrupt

THURSDAY.

BEFORE MR. COMMISSIONER SANDERS.

In re Daniel Lowe, Nechells Green, Birmingham, licensed victualler. – The bankrupt came up for his adjourned last examination and discharge. Mr. Knight appeared for the assignees, and Mr. East for the bankrupt. The balance sheet, prepared by Messrs. Freer and Son, showed – Creditors unsecured, £574. 10s. 1½d.; creditors holding security, £1,367. 15s. 7d.; debts, £76. 18s. 3d.; property in the hands of creditors, £1,700.; and deficiency, £185. 7s. 5½d. The bankrupt, in answer to questions put by Mr. Knight, said he had been twice insolvent, once in 1843, and once in 1858. On neither occasion had he paid a dividend, but the creditors were mostly secured. He got his final order in the early part of 1859, and in May of that year he took the public house he kept at the time of his bankruptcy. He began with £70. lent him by Hipkins. Had very often borrowed money to help him on. Was a sort of speculative builder; that was, he bought a property if he thought he could make anything of it, and then improved it and sold it. Had borrowed money of Herbert Wright and other persons. Had paid five per cent. for money for a month, and had paid on one occasion 20 per cent. for a hundred pounds for a month. Mr. Sing, of Waterloo Street, lent him that sum. He did not care what he paid for the money so long as he could make a profit out of the transaction. The house he was in now came into his possession in 1852, and he mortgaged it. When he passed through the insolvency court in 1859 it was in the hands of the mortgage creditor. After that he bought it of the mortgage creditor for £700. The money was lent him. Had never had any money of his own since the insolvency. Had borrowed £210. of Mr. Cornforth, and gave him a mortgage on four houses in Northumberland Street as security for it. This was to pay out an execution put in by Mr. Sing for the £100. It cost him £148. 5s. for that, including the £100. borrowed. Altogether he had £140., and that cost him £226. Mr. Lowe, an auctioneer, no relation of his, had lent him money, and he gave Lowe a bill of sale over all his furniture and stock-in-trade, in November last. The bill of sale was made to cover £160., the amount borrowed being £100., and Mr. Lowe put a man in directly. Mr. Sing’s bill was overdue at that time, but the bankrupt gave him five pounds to hold it over. Lowe had sold up and realised £82. Bankrupt was still living in the house, lodging with his daughter, who bought in part of the stock-in-trade. The house was bought by some one at Manchester, and his daughter was now waiting to be accepted as tenant. Had been sued frequently since the insolvency of 1859. Generally had a bailiff in the house. Gave Mr. Tarleton a mortgage just before the bankruptcy. That was promised to Tarleton long before. Never talked about being a bankrupt at that time. On the 9th of January, three days after, Mr. Tarleton advised him to come to the Court. – Examined by Mr. East: But for the extraordinary pressure upon him he would have turned over enough money to pay everybody 20s. in the pound. – Mr. Knight then submitted that the bankrupt had brought himself within the 159th section by carrying on his trade by fictitious capital, and by contracting debts without any reasonable expectation of paying them, and that he had brought himself within the eighth definition of a misdemeanour in the 221st section – the section quoted by Mr. Wright in the last case. Applying the evidence to these sections, Mr. Knight characterised the case as one of a man living entirely on the public, and asked the Court either to adjourn the bankruptcy sine die, or to refuse the discharge altogether. – Mr. East having been heard for the bankrupt, the Commissioner gave judgment. It was clear, he said, that a man borrowing money at the enormous rates of interest at which the bankrupt borrowed it, could not suppose that he could go on properly in trade, especially when a bailiff was constantly in his house. Whether came also within the 8th part of the 221st section was another question, but it seemed almost impossible to save him from it, when Tarleton’s mortgage was considered. However, taking the former section, he should refuse his discharge for nine months, and order him to be imprisoned for one month. The bankrupt was given into the custody of the messenger.

(Birmingham Journal, 5th April 1862)