HC Deb 24 July 1888 vol 329 cc316-7
MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to an apparent miscarriage of justice in the case of William Gordon and Duncan Gordon, convicted at the Old Bailey, on December 21, 1887, for having failed to deliver their books to the Official Receiver; whether a representative of the Official Receiver gave evidence at the trial that only one book had been delivered up; whether, on that evidence, the two Gordons were convicted and imprisoned; whether it has since been ascertained that, at the time of such conviction, the books, for not delivering up which the Gordons were punished, were actually in the custody of the Department of the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy, and that any neglect was on the part of such Official Receiver; and, whether, as there is no appeal in criminal cases, he will advise the grant of a pardon to the two Gordons?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

My attention has been called to this case. These two men were convicted on an indictment containing 16 counts, of which one was failing to deliver up certain books and documents relating to their business at Rangoon. A representative of the Official Receiver gave evidence that only one book had been handed to him; and the other books mentioned in the indictment were never delivered to him. The two Gordons were convicted on all the counts in the indictment, and not on this evidence only. It had not since been ascertained that the books in question were actually in the custody of the Official Receiver. The books in his custody related to a business at Elgin, and were not referred to in the indictment. There was no neglect on the part of the Official Receiver. I cannot ascertain that there has been any miscarriage of justice in the case, nor that there is any reason to advise interference with the sentence.

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that at the trial of this case evidence was given that the books had been kept back, and that only one book had been delivered up; whereas, in point of fact, at that time the whole of the books were in the possession of the Receiver?

MR. MATTHEWS

I have read to the House the Report I received from the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade distinctly contradicts that. I will, however, refer to the depositions, and see whether the Board of Trade has been deceived or not.