Tweet
Excerpts from the trial of Springmuhl on a charge of libeling one Flaxman, a clerk for George Hendry's solicitors. Springmuhl had claimed that Flaxman had indicated a willingness to act against his client's interest in exchange for a consideration of £10.
George Samuel Flaxman testifies about Hendry's dealings with Springmuhl and the bankruptcy proceedings. Note that he says Springmuhl spoke of going to San Francisco.
Springmuhl testifies in his own defense. Note that he claims to be an M.D.
GEORGE FERDINAND VON WEISSENFELD, Breaking Peace > libel, 4th April 1892.
Reference Number: t18920404-445
Offence: Breaking Peace > libel
Verdict: Guilty > no_subcategory
445. GEORGE FERDINAND VON WEISSENFELD was indicted for unlawfully writing and publishing a libel of and concerning Samuel George Flaxman, to which a justification was pleaded, and a replication put in (see page 623).
MR. GEOGHEGAN Prosecuted, and MR. HODSON Defended.
SAMUEL GEORGE FLAXMAN . I am managing clerk and cashier to Mr. C. T. Birchall, solicitor, of 5, Mark Lane—I have been in that service about fourteen years—in the early part of 1890 Mr. Birchall was solicitor for Mr. Hendry in an action brought by him against the defendant to recover an amount for machinery made by order of the defendant—that action was tried before Mr. Justice Charles on the 7th and 8th of November, 1890—Mr. Davis, his present solicitor, was his solicitor in that action, and Mr. Ellis J. Davis his counsel—it resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, Mr. Hendry, for £124, and the taxed costs came to £97—Mr. Justice Charles refused to stay execution—on 13th November the defendant called on me at the office—prior to that I had made inquiries about his financial position—I was not alone in the outer office—I saw him alone in the inner office—I said, "Permit me, Mr. Springmuhl"—Springmuhl was the name I knew him by; that was the name under which the machinery was made for him, and under which we sued him—the first action was brought in the name of Springmuhl, and then he entered appearance to that in the name of You Weissenfeld—I said, "Permit me to point out, before you make any statement, that you are legally represented, and that it is contrary to professional etiquette that I should hear what you have to say without your solicitor; let me see your solicitor, and any terms you have to offer let them come through him"—he said, "I have just come from my solicitor, and I have his approval"—I said, "If you say that that alters the case; what do you offer?"—he said, "£ 100; I am to have the machinery; half the balance to be paid on 1st March, and the balance on 1st April"—I said, "I could not advise Mr. Hendry to do that, to part with £150 worth of machinery for £100"—he said, "If you don't take this you will get nothing; I have not £100 myself, but some friends of mine would Day it if they could get the machine"—I replied, "I have no doubt they would be pleased to take it at that price"—he said, "I have not anything myself; I have got a bill of sale on my furniture, so I am secured"—I said, "I know that; I found that out some time back, and it is all the more reason why I should advise Mr. Hendy that he has security for the due payment of the balance"—I told him that I had instructions to take proceedings in bankrupcy, that I was in the act of preparing the papers as he came into the office—the papers were before me, and I was preparing them—I did not point them out to him, because we were in the inner room at the time—I said, "I cannot,"or" will not take the responsibility of refusing your offer myself, and with a view of saving time I will write to Mr. Hendry to see Mr. Birchall, my principal, at his private house the first thing in the morning, and in the meantime I shall complete the papers in bankruptcy;"as I told him if the offer was accepted I would let him know—I said I should not hold out any hopes of its being accepted—it was only in the event of Mr. Hendry accepting his offer that I should write to him—that ended the interview—I have told the Jury all that took place—there is no truth in the suggestion that I said to the defendant that if he gave me a £10 note I would induce Hendry to accept a small amount in settlement; it is absolutely untrue—I communicated with Mr. Hendry, and received certain instructions from him—I mentioned to Mr. Birchall the defendant's call—on 27th November notice of appeal in the action was given; no notice had been given when he called—on 8th December the defendant's solicitors were told that bankruptcy proceedings would be taken, and on the 12th the petition was filed—the matter was adjourned till 1st January, and then till the 15th, and on the 19th I ascertained that the prisoner had gone before another Registrar, Mr. Registrar Hazlitt, on his own petition—I then went before the Registrar, and got his petition made the petition of Mr. Hendry—the prisoner in his own petition had omitted the name of Springmuhl on which he had got credit, and had gone by the name of Weissenfeld—on 1st January, I think, the Registrar agreed for adjournment till the 15th, provided two sufficient sureties were given to secure to Hendry any sum of money that should be found due to him—two such names were given to me—it was my duty to make inquiries as to their solvency, and I was not satisfied, and reported the matter to the Registrar—the prisoner and his advisers were very angry—the Registrar did not blame me, but said I had done my duty, and did not accept the sureties—the appeal from Mr. Justice Charles's judgment in the High Court was dismissed; on 4th March, I think, that was—there was an appeal from Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams to the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed against the prisoner on 25th March—in every legal proceeding taken by the prisoner he has always been defeated, and Mr. Hendry's representatives have been successful—on 10th February Mr. Burchall showed me these documents—the letter and envelope addressed to Mr. Burchall are in the prisoner's writing—the document containing the libel is printed. (The libel was put in and read; it stated that when he, the prisoner, went to Messrs. Burchall and Wood's and offered to pay the invoice price and taxed costs on delivery of the machine the prosecutor said that if Von Weissenfeld would pay him privately £10, he would induce their client to accept a small sum in settlement, but otherwise they would at once take proceedings in bankruptcy against him.)—Mr. Burchall showed me those—I communicated with Mr. Waddy, and showed him the correspondence and the libel—he was our counsel in the action before Mr. Justice Charles—in consequence of the advice he gave me, the first criminal proceedings I took against the prisoner were on 28th February, 1891, when I swore an information, and a summons for libel was granted—I could not serve that summons; the prisoner had disappeared—the bankruptcy proceedings were adjourned till a warrant was issued for him in the Court of Bankruptcy in July, 1891,1 think, but we did not see anything of him till January this year; he did not surrender to pass his public examination in bankruptcy, and the warrant was not served on him till then—we were unable to find him during the whole of 1891—then, in January, 1892, an application was made that the warrant should be suspended that he might give evidence, and Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams suspended it, and he came and gave evidence—Mr. Justice Charles refused to stay execution, and it was my duty, as clerk to the plaintiff's solicitor, to inquire what goods could be realised—I found the prisoner had a bill of sale and practically no assets—it was my duty to take action against him at the instance of Mr. Hendry; if he had satisfied the Registrar that he was solvent, the bankruptcy proceedings would have been stopped; the Registrar adjourned it on the last occasion for four days for him to bring money into court, and then he filed his own petition the next day—he says in the libel that he at once appealed against the judgment, but he did not appeal till the 27th—I heard the prisoner give evidence on the last occasion, when the Jury disagreed; he then said he offered £100 and the balance in two bills, at one or two, and two or three months; in the libel he said that he offered to pay the invoice price and the taxed costs on the delivery of the machine.
Cross-examined. My client, in addition to his judgment and taxed costs, still has the machine; an allowance was made for it in Mr. Justice Charles's judgment—the prisoner has had opportunities to have it, but he never has had it—I do not think that we commenced these bankruptcy proceedings against him after he had commenced his appeal—the file of bankruptcy proceedings is here—the notice of appeal was served on 27th November—we could not serve that notice, we had to get substituted service; we could not find the prisoner; he was denied to us at his house—we filed the bankruptcy petition on 12th December—we knew then that he was appealing from Mr. Justice Charles's decision, and in the face of that we proceeded in bankruptcy, because we did not feel it was a bond fide appeal, and we notified him to that effect—Mr. Justice Charles's judgment was not varied by the Court of Appeal; it' was an absolute dismissal—he did not after that ask us to hand up the machine, or complain of our keeping the machine and having judgment at the same time—the evidence in the action was that the prisoner used the machine and approved of it; Mr. Justice Charles found that—the conversation which resulted in the alleged libel might have lasted five, ten, or fifteen minutes; I cannot say—I did not say that my client was a "pig-headed Scotchman"—there is not a word of truth in the suggestion that I said I thought he was pig-headed; that he would not accede to the terms which the prisoner proposed to me, but that if he made me a present of £101 might be able to induce Hendry to accept the offer—the prisoner was abroad for some time—he said at the Bankruptcy Court that he had been abroad partly on business and partly to have an operation performed on his eye; he also said we could all go to the devil—on one adjournment he wrote to the Registrar that we could all go to the devil—he said he was going to San Francisco—we believe he had an operation performed on his eye years ago, and I don't think he went to have another—after the libel was published, in commenting on it I might have said Mr. Hendry was pig-headed.
Re-examined. This machinery was made for a patent taken out by the prisoner, and was useless except for that purpose—Mr. Hendry dare not sell it—Mr. Justice Charles treated it according to its value as old iron, and allowed £20, as its value, out of a judgment for £144—when that went to the Court of Appeal our side was not called on to argue, but the appeal was dismissed—the Master of the Bolls asked us whether we would deliver the machine on the money being paid, and we said, "Decidedly"; and that was added as an addenda to the order, but was no part of the order—the money has not been paid for the machinery—we were not going to give a machine to a man with a bill of sale on his furniture without having the money down; if we did agree to it Mr. Hendry would not do it, and perhaps an action would be brought against us.
[...]
GEORGE FERDINAND SPRINGMUHL VON WEISSENFELD (the prisoner). I now reside at Stanley [Stoneleigh?] House, Paradise Road [Row?]—I am M. D. and M. A. of Leipsic—I take great interest in scientific matters—at the time I gave this order to Mr. Hendry I was consulting chemist to the Concentrated Produce Company and to the Californian Company—when I called at Mr. Burchall's office in November and saw Flaxman, I said, "I come here to settle this matter; I offer £100 in cash and the balance, for costs and so on, in two bills, "one, I believe, the 1st March, and the other the 1st April," and I want the delivery of the machine"—Flaxman said his client would not deliver the machine under any circumstances, because he had received judgment for damages; that I must go to the Court of Appeal; and he added, "I have very good means to prevent you succeeding in the Court of Appeal"—I did not ask what the means were, but he said there were two means to prevent me succeeding with the appeal; one was bankruptcy and the other was a prosecution for perjury—I said that was somewhat in the Dodson and Fogg line in "Pickwick Papers"—then Flaxman tapped me on the shoulder and winked with his eye, and said, "Well, if you can find a £10 note I shall settle the matter; our client is a pig-headed Scotchman"—he said he had plenty of bankruptcy forms in his desk—I had to deliver the machine to other parties, and I had not the money to pay for it without getting it—Flaxman said, "Oh! you have property"—I answered, "No, I have two houses, but there is a mortgage on them, and I have furniture, but there is a bill of sale on it"—I dont remember that anything else was said—I was there less than half an hour—no one was present but myself and Flaxman—subsequently, I instructed my solicitor to repeat the offer, and he did so—I went to his office, saw his clerk, and made a communication to him—I have written books under the name of Springmuhl—I have never, in any shape or form, attempted to conceal my right name as Von Weissenfeld—my right name is Springmuhl von Weissenfeld.
Cross-examined. I believe I had 200 of these publications printed; I don't know when, in 1891 very likely; in January or February—besides the three I sent out I have shown them to many persons—I don't remember if I have sent them to others—I have shown them to my solicitor—I believe I showed them to Messrs. Ashurst, Morris and Crisp, or their clerk; he was acting at the time as my solicitor—he was not acting for any one of my debtors—Mr. Davis was my solicitor in the action before Mr. Justice Charles—Ashurst, Morris and Crisp were solicitors in a sale of property to Mr. Willis and others; they acted for Mr. Willis, not for Mr. Dowden, who was nobody; he was nominally the purchaser—I may have shown the publications to other solicitors; very likely I have shown them to a number of people—a petition was presented against me by Mr. Hendry before one Registrar, and my solicitor went, with my sanction, to another Registrar and got me declared bankrupt on my own petition—my name was always Springmuhl von Weissenfeld, and I should sign a document in that name—when I went before the second Registrar I put George Ferdinand von Weissenfeld—I omitted the Springmuhl because I did not want to damage my name under which I wrote books—I slept last Saturday at a friend's, not at Stanley House—I was at Stanley House on Saturday; I left it as soon as I got a telegram from Mr. Davis to come here—I bought Stanley House in 1889—when I presented my own petition in bankruptcy I gave my address as 97, Portland Road, which is Nelson's Hotel—Mr. Hendry, in his petition, put me as residing at Stanley House—this petition is in my writing—I say, "Lately residing at Paris and at 5, Glebe Terrace"—5, Glebe Terrace is Stanley House—letters are addressed to both; 5, Glebe Terrace is the official name—I generally date my letters from "Stanley House"—I do not know if I gave this card to the Registrar—I have been unsuccessful in my principal action—I had no action in bankruptcy—I swore in the witness-box that Stanley House and Grafton House belonged to the Concentrated Produce Company—I think Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams said he could not believe that—in the Court of Appeal Mr. Justice Fry said he believed it—they did not upset the judgment of the Court below—I did not also say that certain furniture over which I had given a bill of sale was the property of the Concentrated Produce Company; there was a bill of sale on it, the bill of sale was with the Company—I said the Concentrated Produce Company had found the money for the fresh bill of sale; and so they did—the Court decided they did not—all the money of the Company was in my wife's banking account—I had no furniture or property to hand over to the trustee; I have not handed it over—I wanted the machine to be given to me on payment of the £100 and bills; on the £100 and two bills being given I expected to get the machine—my solicitor offered to secure the payment of the two bills, I believe—I told Mr. Flaxman I would give him the houses as security for the bills—he did not say, "Could you give me any security for the payment of those bills"; he only spoke about the houses—I believe he said, "If you don't pay us, and have got no security, we know you have a bill of sale on your furniture"—I told him my two houses were mortgaged; but the property was worth £450 more than the mortgage—the mortgagees were not actually in possession at that time.
[...]
GUILTY .—The JURY added that they found the plea of justification woe not true— Two Month' Imprisonment.
--end
Resolution of another case against Betts and Springmuhl:
ROBERT BETTS, Deception > bankrupcy, 17th October 1892.
Reference Number: t18921017-958
Offence: Deception > bankrupcy
Verdict: Guilty > pleaded guilty
Punishment: Miscellaneous > sureties
958. ROBERT BETTS PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully aiding and assisting Von Weissenfeld (not in custody), a bankrupt, in attempting to defraud his creditors.— Discharged on recognisances.
George Samuel Flaxman testifies about Hendry's dealings with Springmuhl and the bankruptcy proceedings. Note that he says Springmuhl spoke of going to San Francisco.
Springmuhl testifies in his own defense. Note that he claims to be an M.D.
GEORGE FERDINAND VON WEISSENFELD, Breaking Peace > libel, 4th April 1892.
Reference Number: t18920404-445
Offence: Breaking Peace > libel
Verdict: Guilty > no_subcategory
445. GEORGE FERDINAND VON WEISSENFELD was indicted for unlawfully writing and publishing a libel of and concerning Samuel George Flaxman, to which a justification was pleaded, and a replication put in (see page 623).
MR. GEOGHEGAN Prosecuted, and MR. HODSON Defended.
SAMUEL GEORGE FLAXMAN . I am managing clerk and cashier to Mr. C. T. Birchall, solicitor, of 5, Mark Lane—I have been in that service about fourteen years—in the early part of 1890 Mr. Birchall was solicitor for Mr. Hendry in an action brought by him against the defendant to recover an amount for machinery made by order of the defendant—that action was tried before Mr. Justice Charles on the 7th and 8th of November, 1890—Mr. Davis, his present solicitor, was his solicitor in that action, and Mr. Ellis J. Davis his counsel—it resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, Mr. Hendry, for £124, and the taxed costs came to £97—Mr. Justice Charles refused to stay execution—on 13th November the defendant called on me at the office—prior to that I had made inquiries about his financial position—I was not alone in the outer office—I saw him alone in the inner office—I said, "Permit me, Mr. Springmuhl"—Springmuhl was the name I knew him by; that was the name under which the machinery was made for him, and under which we sued him—the first action was brought in the name of Springmuhl, and then he entered appearance to that in the name of You Weissenfeld—I said, "Permit me to point out, before you make any statement, that you are legally represented, and that it is contrary to professional etiquette that I should hear what you have to say without your solicitor; let me see your solicitor, and any terms you have to offer let them come through him"—he said, "I have just come from my solicitor, and I have his approval"—I said, "If you say that that alters the case; what do you offer?"—he said, "£ 100; I am to have the machinery; half the balance to be paid on 1st March, and the balance on 1st April"—I said, "I could not advise Mr. Hendry to do that, to part with £150 worth of machinery for £100"—he said, "If you don't take this you will get nothing; I have not £100 myself, but some friends of mine would Day it if they could get the machine"—I replied, "I have no doubt they would be pleased to take it at that price"—he said, "I have not anything myself; I have got a bill of sale on my furniture, so I am secured"—I said, "I know that; I found that out some time back, and it is all the more reason why I should advise Mr. Hendy that he has security for the due payment of the balance"—I told him that I had instructions to take proceedings in bankrupcy, that I was in the act of preparing the papers as he came into the office—the papers were before me, and I was preparing them—I did not point them out to him, because we were in the inner room at the time—I said, "I cannot,"or" will not take the responsibility of refusing your offer myself, and with a view of saving time I will write to Mr. Hendry to see Mr. Birchall, my principal, at his private house the first thing in the morning, and in the meantime I shall complete the papers in bankruptcy;"as I told him if the offer was accepted I would let him know—I said I should not hold out any hopes of its being accepted—it was only in the event of Mr. Hendry accepting his offer that I should write to him—that ended the interview—I have told the Jury all that took place—there is no truth in the suggestion that I said to the defendant that if he gave me a £10 note I would induce Hendry to accept a small amount in settlement; it is absolutely untrue—I communicated with Mr. Hendry, and received certain instructions from him—I mentioned to Mr. Birchall the defendant's call—on 27th November notice of appeal in the action was given; no notice had been given when he called—on 8th December the defendant's solicitors were told that bankruptcy proceedings would be taken, and on the 12th the petition was filed—the matter was adjourned till 1st January, and then till the 15th, and on the 19th I ascertained that the prisoner had gone before another Registrar, Mr. Registrar Hazlitt, on his own petition—I then went before the Registrar, and got his petition made the petition of Mr. Hendry—the prisoner in his own petition had omitted the name of Springmuhl on which he had got credit, and had gone by the name of Weissenfeld—on 1st January, I think, the Registrar agreed for adjournment till the 15th, provided two sufficient sureties were given to secure to Hendry any sum of money that should be found due to him—two such names were given to me—it was my duty to make inquiries as to their solvency, and I was not satisfied, and reported the matter to the Registrar—the prisoner and his advisers were very angry—the Registrar did not blame me, but said I had done my duty, and did not accept the sureties—the appeal from Mr. Justice Charles's judgment in the High Court was dismissed; on 4th March, I think, that was—there was an appeal from Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams to the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed against the prisoner on 25th March—in every legal proceeding taken by the prisoner he has always been defeated, and Mr. Hendry's representatives have been successful—on 10th February Mr. Burchall showed me these documents—the letter and envelope addressed to Mr. Burchall are in the prisoner's writing—the document containing the libel is printed. (The libel was put in and read; it stated that when he, the prisoner, went to Messrs. Burchall and Wood's and offered to pay the invoice price and taxed costs on delivery of the machine the prosecutor said that if Von Weissenfeld would pay him privately £10, he would induce their client to accept a small sum in settlement, but otherwise they would at once take proceedings in bankruptcy against him.)—Mr. Burchall showed me those—I communicated with Mr. Waddy, and showed him the correspondence and the libel—he was our counsel in the action before Mr. Justice Charles—in consequence of the advice he gave me, the first criminal proceedings I took against the prisoner were on 28th February, 1891, when I swore an information, and a summons for libel was granted—I could not serve that summons; the prisoner had disappeared—the bankruptcy proceedings were adjourned till a warrant was issued for him in the Court of Bankruptcy in July, 1891,1 think, but we did not see anything of him till January this year; he did not surrender to pass his public examination in bankruptcy, and the warrant was not served on him till then—we were unable to find him during the whole of 1891—then, in January, 1892, an application was made that the warrant should be suspended that he might give evidence, and Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams suspended it, and he came and gave evidence—Mr. Justice Charles refused to stay execution, and it was my duty, as clerk to the plaintiff's solicitor, to inquire what goods could be realised—I found the prisoner had a bill of sale and practically no assets—it was my duty to take action against him at the instance of Mr. Hendry; if he had satisfied the Registrar that he was solvent, the bankruptcy proceedings would have been stopped; the Registrar adjourned it on the last occasion for four days for him to bring money into court, and then he filed his own petition the next day—he says in the libel that he at once appealed against the judgment, but he did not appeal till the 27th—I heard the prisoner give evidence on the last occasion, when the Jury disagreed; he then said he offered £100 and the balance in two bills, at one or two, and two or three months; in the libel he said that he offered to pay the invoice price and the taxed costs on the delivery of the machine.
Cross-examined. My client, in addition to his judgment and taxed costs, still has the machine; an allowance was made for it in Mr. Justice Charles's judgment—the prisoner has had opportunities to have it, but he never has had it—I do not think that we commenced these bankruptcy proceedings against him after he had commenced his appeal—the file of bankruptcy proceedings is here—the notice of appeal was served on 27th November—we could not serve that notice, we had to get substituted service; we could not find the prisoner; he was denied to us at his house—we filed the bankruptcy petition on 12th December—we knew then that he was appealing from Mr. Justice Charles's decision, and in the face of that we proceeded in bankruptcy, because we did not feel it was a bond fide appeal, and we notified him to that effect—Mr. Justice Charles's judgment was not varied by the Court of Appeal; it' was an absolute dismissal—he did not after that ask us to hand up the machine, or complain of our keeping the machine and having judgment at the same time—the evidence in the action was that the prisoner used the machine and approved of it; Mr. Justice Charles found that—the conversation which resulted in the alleged libel might have lasted five, ten, or fifteen minutes; I cannot say—I did not say that my client was a "pig-headed Scotchman"—there is not a word of truth in the suggestion that I said I thought he was pig-headed; that he would not accede to the terms which the prisoner proposed to me, but that if he made me a present of £101 might be able to induce Hendry to accept the offer—the prisoner was abroad for some time—he said at the Bankruptcy Court that he had been abroad partly on business and partly to have an operation performed on his eye; he also said we could all go to the devil—on one adjournment he wrote to the Registrar that we could all go to the devil—he said he was going to San Francisco—we believe he had an operation performed on his eye years ago, and I don't think he went to have another—after the libel was published, in commenting on it I might have said Mr. Hendry was pig-headed.
Re-examined. This machinery was made for a patent taken out by the prisoner, and was useless except for that purpose—Mr. Hendry dare not sell it—Mr. Justice Charles treated it according to its value as old iron, and allowed £20, as its value, out of a judgment for £144—when that went to the Court of Appeal our side was not called on to argue, but the appeal was dismissed—the Master of the Bolls asked us whether we would deliver the machine on the money being paid, and we said, "Decidedly"; and that was added as an addenda to the order, but was no part of the order—the money has not been paid for the machinery—we were not going to give a machine to a man with a bill of sale on his furniture without having the money down; if we did agree to it Mr. Hendry would not do it, and perhaps an action would be brought against us.
[...]
GEORGE FERDINAND SPRINGMUHL VON WEISSENFELD (the prisoner). I now reside at Stanley [Stoneleigh?] House, Paradise Road [Row?]—I am M. D. and M. A. of Leipsic—I take great interest in scientific matters—at the time I gave this order to Mr. Hendry I was consulting chemist to the Concentrated Produce Company and to the Californian Company—when I called at Mr. Burchall's office in November and saw Flaxman, I said, "I come here to settle this matter; I offer £100 in cash and the balance, for costs and so on, in two bills, "one, I believe, the 1st March, and the other the 1st April," and I want the delivery of the machine"—Flaxman said his client would not deliver the machine under any circumstances, because he had received judgment for damages; that I must go to the Court of Appeal; and he added, "I have very good means to prevent you succeeding in the Court of Appeal"—I did not ask what the means were, but he said there were two means to prevent me succeeding with the appeal; one was bankruptcy and the other was a prosecution for perjury—I said that was somewhat in the Dodson and Fogg line in "Pickwick Papers"—then Flaxman tapped me on the shoulder and winked with his eye, and said, "Well, if you can find a £10 note I shall settle the matter; our client is a pig-headed Scotchman"—he said he had plenty of bankruptcy forms in his desk—I had to deliver the machine to other parties, and I had not the money to pay for it without getting it—Flaxman said, "Oh! you have property"—I answered, "No, I have two houses, but there is a mortgage on them, and I have furniture, but there is a bill of sale on it"—I dont remember that anything else was said—I was there less than half an hour—no one was present but myself and Flaxman—subsequently, I instructed my solicitor to repeat the offer, and he did so—I went to his office, saw his clerk, and made a communication to him—I have written books under the name of Springmuhl—I have never, in any shape or form, attempted to conceal my right name as Von Weissenfeld—my right name is Springmuhl von Weissenfeld.
Cross-examined. I believe I had 200 of these publications printed; I don't know when, in 1891 very likely; in January or February—besides the three I sent out I have shown them to many persons—I don't remember if I have sent them to others—I have shown them to my solicitor—I believe I showed them to Messrs. Ashurst, Morris and Crisp, or their clerk; he was acting at the time as my solicitor—he was not acting for any one of my debtors—Mr. Davis was my solicitor in the action before Mr. Justice Charles—Ashurst, Morris and Crisp were solicitors in a sale of property to Mr. Willis and others; they acted for Mr. Willis, not for Mr. Dowden, who was nobody; he was nominally the purchaser—I may have shown the publications to other solicitors; very likely I have shown them to a number of people—a petition was presented against me by Mr. Hendry before one Registrar, and my solicitor went, with my sanction, to another Registrar and got me declared bankrupt on my own petition—my name was always Springmuhl von Weissenfeld, and I should sign a document in that name—when I went before the second Registrar I put George Ferdinand von Weissenfeld—I omitted the Springmuhl because I did not want to damage my name under which I wrote books—I slept last Saturday at a friend's, not at Stanley House—I was at Stanley House on Saturday; I left it as soon as I got a telegram from Mr. Davis to come here—I bought Stanley House in 1889—when I presented my own petition in bankruptcy I gave my address as 97, Portland Road, which is Nelson's Hotel—Mr. Hendry, in his petition, put me as residing at Stanley House—this petition is in my writing—I say, "Lately residing at Paris and at 5, Glebe Terrace"—5, Glebe Terrace is Stanley House—letters are addressed to both; 5, Glebe Terrace is the official name—I generally date my letters from "Stanley House"—I do not know if I gave this card to the Registrar—I have been unsuccessful in my principal action—I had no action in bankruptcy—I swore in the witness-box that Stanley House and Grafton House belonged to the Concentrated Produce Company—I think Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams said he could not believe that—in the Court of Appeal Mr. Justice Fry said he believed it—they did not upset the judgment of the Court below—I did not also say that certain furniture over which I had given a bill of sale was the property of the Concentrated Produce Company; there was a bill of sale on it, the bill of sale was with the Company—I said the Concentrated Produce Company had found the money for the fresh bill of sale; and so they did—the Court decided they did not—all the money of the Company was in my wife's banking account—I had no furniture or property to hand over to the trustee; I have not handed it over—I wanted the machine to be given to me on payment of the £100 and bills; on the £100 and two bills being given I expected to get the machine—my solicitor offered to secure the payment of the two bills, I believe—I told Mr. Flaxman I would give him the houses as security for the bills—he did not say, "Could you give me any security for the payment of those bills"; he only spoke about the houses—I believe he said, "If you don't pay us, and have got no security, we know you have a bill of sale on your furniture"—I told him my two houses were mortgaged; but the property was worth £450 more than the mortgage—the mortgagees were not actually in possession at that time.
[...]
GUILTY .—The JURY added that they found the plea of justification woe not true— Two Month' Imprisonment.
--end
Resolution of another case against Betts and Springmuhl:
ROBERT BETTS, Deception > bankrupcy, 17th October 1892.
Reference Number: t18921017-958
Offence: Deception > bankrupcy
Verdict: Guilty > pleaded guilty
Punishment: Miscellaneous > sureties
958. ROBERT BETTS PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully aiding and assisting Von Weissenfeld (not in custody), a bankrupt, in attempting to defraud his creditors.— Discharged on recognisances.
Comment