NameLeonard LAIDMAN, 3248, O1445
Birth1829, Southwark, LND
Birth MemoDover Road
Baptism6 Jul 1829, Newington, LND
Bapt MemoHoly Trinity
DeathJ1893, Strand RD, LND
OccupationClerk to Incorporated Law Society, Chancery Lane, London
FatherLeonard LAIDMAN , 3246, O1083 (1806-1872)
MotherPatience FIELD , 3247 (~1800-1872)
Misc. Notes
1841 census return: HO107/662/5 folio 7 page 7
Finsbury, Clerkenwell, 62 Southampton Street
Leonard Laidman, 35, Solicitors Agent, N
Patience Laidman, 35, N
Leonard Laidman, 12, N
Frederick Laidman, 10, N
Charles Laidman, 8, N
Henry Laidman, 5, N
Julia Laidman, 3, Y
Mary Laidman, 2, Y
Eliza Laidman, 4m, Y
Mary Cobb, 15, N
John Thorpe, 25, [illegible word], N

The Times, 1 June 1842, pg. 2, col. A (classified advertising):
TO CHYMISTS and DRUGGISTS.—WANTED, a TURN-OVER APPRENTICE for a retail trade, where there is much counter dispensing. A small premium expected. Apply by letter, post paid, to A. B., at Mr. L. Laidman's, receiver of country solicitors' accoounts, 119 Chancery-lane.

The London Gazette, no. 20522, 31 October 1845, p. 3279:
Notice is hereby given, that the Partnership here-
tofore subsisting and carried on between us the un-
dersigned, Leonard Laidman and Edward Cox, as Law and
General Stationers, Booksellers and Account Book Manu-
facturers, at No. 119, Chancery-lane, in the City of London,
under the firm of Laidman and Cox, is this day dissolved
by mutual consent.—Dated this 31st day of October 1845.
Leonard Laidman
Edwd. Cox

1851 London P.O. (Commercial) Directory
LAIDMAN, Leonard, law & general stationer, 119 Chancery Lane
1851 London P.O. (Commercial) Directory
LAIDMAN, Leonard, receiver of country solicitors' & undersheriffs acounts, negotiator of law partnerships, practices & law stationer, 119 Chancery Lane

The Times contains the accounts of two lawsuits brought by Leonard Laidman on solicitors who had failed to pay him a commission for procuring partners (Laidman v. Hall, 2 July 1851 and Laidman v. Plumbe, 28 Feb 1854. Leonard seems to have been of a considerably litigious nature:


CIVIL ACTIONS Laidman v Bainbrigge



Mr Crowder and Mr Chitty were counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr Pigott for the defendant.

From the statement of the learned counsel for the plaintiff this was an action to recover a sum of 22l.17s.6d. for work and labour done and performed by the plaintiff, a law stationer in Chancery-lane, from the defendant who had been an attorney, but was now a barrister, and was one of the parties in the great cause of "Bainbrigge v Bainbrigge."

There was an immense deal of difficulty in proving the plaintiff's case, it being alleged that the business was done for a person of the name of Salt, but who, it was sworn, although an attorney, had acted as the clerk of Bainbrigge.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount.

1851 census return: HO107/1498 folio 378 page 15
10 [?Sorrano] Avenue, St. Pancras
Leonard Laidman, Head, Mar, 44, Law Stationer, born Southwark
Patience, Wife, Mar, 51 born Wilts Trowbridge
Leonard, Son, U, 22, Clerk in Law Society, born Southwark - Dover Rd.
Frederick William, Son, U, 21, Law Stationer, born London - Bishopgate [sic]
Charles, Son, U, 18, Law Stationer app[rentice], born Surrey - Blackfriars Rd.
Henry, Son, U, 16, Solrs. General Clerk, born London 80 Cheapside
Julia, daur, 14, Scholar, born Middx. Pentonville
Mary Ann, daur, 12, Scholar, born Middx. Pentonville
Eliza Martha, daur, 10, Scholar, born Middx. Pentonville
John, Son, 7, Scholar, born London Chancery Lane
Charles Field, Nephew, 17, Law Stationer App[rentice], born Dorsetshire - Poole
Amelia Hutchinson, Servt., 18, General Servant, born London - Farringdon Str.


(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord Chief Justice JERVIS and Common Juries)


Mr Serjeant Byles and Mr Willes were counsel for this plaintiff, and Mr James and Mr Field for the defendant. The plaintiff in this action is a law stationer in Chancery-lane, and the defendant is a solicitor, and passed his final examinations for that profession in the spring of 1852. He called at that time with a Mr Sayer at the plaintiff's shop to order the necessary stamps and documents for admission as a solicitor. Some conversation then took place about the plaintiff obtaining the defendant a partnership, when the plaintiff said that his usual terms were 5l per cent on the sum paid, and the defendant agreed to give that rate of commission in case he obtained a partnership through the plaintiff's introduction. Nearly a year after this conversation Mr Straford wrote a letter, marked "private" to Mr Bolton, his London agent, stating that he wished the following advertisement to be put in the Law Times of the next Saturday:-
"A solicitor, who for the last 35 years has carried on an extensive and highly respectable practice in a large, healthy and important town, about 100 miles from the metropolis,is, from unexpectd circumstances, induced to receive a partner. Particulars may be known on application to Messrs. Price and Bolton, Lincoln's Inn." A clerk who was then in the employment of those gentlemen, and has since gone to Australia immediately informed the plaintiff of these circumstances, and told him not to mention his source of information, as Mr Straford had not instructed his master to employ an agent. The plaintiff thereupon wrote the following letter to Mr Straford:-
"Sir, - Having heard from a private source that you are desirous of being relieved in part of your arduous duties of your profession, and inasmuch, as that I am in the constant habit of negotiating these private and confidential matters and, moreover, as I have two gentlemen of family of the highest character, and each of whom have the command of ample funds, I have taken the liberty of informing you, in order that you may consider whether you will open a negotiation with either of them (through me). I may add, that one is the nephew of a Queen's counsel of high standing at the Chancery bar, and is a gentleman whom you can introduce anywhere; the other is the son of a rich retired merchant, and has two brothers in good practice at the bar. I am known to your agents and neighbours as a person in whom you may place confidence in such a matter as this, and I shall be very happy to attend to any directions you may think fit to favour me with."
Mr Straford took no notice of this epistle, but wrote to Mr Bolton, expressing his surprise that the plaintiff knew anything about the affair. The plaintiff met the defendant in Chancery-lane the day previous to the publication of the advertisement, and informed him that it would appear the following day, and the plaintiff added, that he did not wish his name to be mentioned, as he was not known to Mr Bolton, to whom he recommended the defendant to apply. The defendant did so, and a negotiation was entered into which ended in his becoming Mr Straford's partner on paying the sum of 1,500l. They have since continued in partnership, mutually pleased with eath other. The plaintiff afters made an application for 75l as commission on 1,500l, which was met with an offered 5l for his trouble. He then brought this action, and the defendant paid 20l into court.
The jury retired for some time, and returned with a verdict for the plaintiff - Damages 17l.10s.

1856: Perry’s Bankrupt Gazette. Bankrupts, Jan. 1st, 1856
LAIDMAN Leonard of Chancery-la, and of Wentworth Lodge,
Coburn New-rd, Bow, co. Middlesex, law stationer, dl. & ch.;
sur. 10th Jan. half-past twelve, 14th Feb. twelve pr. Court—
Basingball-st. Com.—Evans. Off. assig.—Bell. Sols.—
Philpot and Greenhill, of Gracechurch-st.

The London Gazette, no. 21833, 1 January 1856, p. 21:
Whereas a Petition for adjudication of Bankruptcy,
filed the 29th day of December, 1855, hath been
presented against Leonard Laidman, of No. 100, Chancery-
lane, in the County of Middlesex, and of Wentworth-lodge,
Coborn New-road, Bow, in the said County of Middlesex,
Law Stationer, Dealer and Chapman, and he being declared
bankrupt, is hereby required to surrender himself to Joshua
Evans, Esq., one of her Majesty’s Commissioners of the
Court of Bankruptcy, on the 10th day of January instant,
at half past twelve of the clock in the afternoon precisely,
and on the 14th day of February next, at twelve o’clock at
noon precisely, at the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-
street, in the city of London, and make a full discovery
and disclosure of his estate and effects; when and
where the creditors are to come prepared to prove
their debts, and at the first sitting to choose assignees,
and at the last sitting the said bankrupt is required to
finish his examination...

1861 Census Returns RG9/456 folio 24 page 41
Surbiton Park, Surbiton, Surrey
Henry Laidman, head, unm. 26, Articled Clerk to Solicitor, born St. Marylebone, Middx
Leonard Laidman, father married, 52, Stationer, born Borough,Surrey
Patience Laidman, mother, married, born Trowbridge, Wilts.
Leonard Laidman, brother, unm. 32, Clerk to Incorpd. Law Society Chancery Lane London, born St. George, Middx
Frederick Wm. Laidman, brother, unm. 31, Solicitor's Managing Clerk, born Bishopsgate, Middx
Charles Laidman, brother, unm. 27, Stationer, born Blackfriars,Surrey
Mary A. Laidman, sister, unm. 22, born Clerkenwell, Middx
Eliza M. Laidman, sister, unm. 20, born Clerkenwell, Middx
John Laidman, brother, unm. 16, Solicitor's General Clerk, born St. Dunstan's, Middx

1867: 39 Gopsall Street, Hoxton

1871 Census Returns
RG10/368 folio 7 page 12
Law Institution, 103 Chancery Lane, Holborn, Middx
Leonard Laidman, head, married, 43, Resident Clerk, born Surrey
Sarah E. Laidman, wife, married, 44, born Essex
Charles Laidman, brother, married, 38, Attorneys Clerk, born Surrey
Emma Laidman, wife, married, 28, born London
Leonard W. Laidman, nephew, 5, scholar, born Camden Town, London
Charles J. Laidman, nephew, 3, born Finchley
Leonard B. Hamilton, visitor, 11, scholar, born Poplar
+ servants

The “Times” 21 May 1877:
At the GUILDHALL, on Saturday, LEONARD LAIDMAN, clerk at the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-Lane, was charged, on remand, before Sir Robert W. Carden, with embezzling various sums of money, amounting in the aggregate to more than £8,000, the money of his employers. Mr G. O. Humphreys prosecuted; Mr Horace Avory appeared for the prisoner. Mr. Humphreys said that the evidence given on the previous occasion related to three sums which the prisoner was charged with embezzling - one of £45,and two of £29 12s 6d each. They were amounts which the prisoner had received from tenants of the Society. The case of the £45 [...?] has been completed, and he would now complete the charges in the other two cases. Those charges referred to rent received from tenants of the Society which had not been paid over by the prisoner to the treasurer. He would complete those cases and then go into three others, one of which was that of a check for £44 13s 8d, drawn by the Society in favour of Mr. Low, their bookbinder, and dated the 29th September, 1876, for his quarterly account, but not paid to him. On the 18th December, 1876, the prisoner sold, by order of the council, a large quantity of waste paper, which came to £65. The prisoner received a check for the money, but instead of paying it into the fee fund, as he ought to have done he paid it into another account of the institution to make up a defalcation there, and the result was that the Society never had the benefit of that check. When he was about to be given into custody the prisoner made out a list of his defalcations with three blanks which he said he could not fill up without the aid of certain books, but those he did make up amounted to £8,645 19s. Evidence was then given proving the payment of of the money to the prisoner, and his not accounting for it to the Society. At the request of Mr. Avory, a letter was read from the prisoner’s solicitor to Mr. Humpfreys offering to give the prosecutors every information the prisoner could furnish. Sir Robert W. Carden remanded the prisoner.

The Times 28 Jun 1877, pg. 11, col. E (law)
(Before the RECORDER)
Leonard Laidman, who pleaded "Guilty" last Session to an indictment charging him with embezzlement amounting in the aggregate to £12,000 or £13,000 came up for judgement.
Mr. Grain appeared on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-Lane, in whose employ the prisoner was as a confidential clerk, to prosecute; Mr. Besley and Mr. Horace Avory defended.
Mr. BESLEY urged that the prisoner's defalcations were due to that "demon speculation" and not to any dishonest motive with a view to gratifying his own vices. The prisoner most bitterly regretted what had occurred, and deeply felt his position.
Mr. GRAIN remarked that no doubt Mr Besley's statement was correct: Mr Grain thought it, moreover, due to theprisoner that it should be known that ten years ago he became connected with a solicitor in the City named Hodgson, who advanced him £825, and that since that time this man had drawn from him in interest not less than £3,275. This it was, the prosecution believed, led the prisoner to commit the crime he had.
THE RECORDER.- How came it that the prisoner could commit these frauds for so long a period without being found out?
Mr GRAIN, reading from a statement made by the prisoner since his committal, said the prisoner's defalcations had probably been disbursed in interest. At least the greater portion of the money he had obtained was so expended by him. The money he received was from fees paid by members of the Institution, theprisoner from time to time keeping back the books in which the entries should have appeared from going before the Finance Committee.
Mr BESLEY observed that the prisoner had been paying 60 per cent for the money mentioned, the interest being paid at the rate of £25 per month, beside a sums for renewal in addition. Hodgson was not only a solicitor, but a clerk to a City Company.
THE RECORDER said the prisoner had pleaded guilty to a systematic course of robbery, and, considering his position in the Institution and the magnitude of the frauds, his offence was a most serious one. Mr Besley had said that defalcations were due to that "demon speculation," but probably that "demon speculation" was in 19 cases ordinary fraud, and he should not be discharging his duty to the public unless he sentenced the prisoner to five years penal servitude.
Mr Summervill, on behalf of the Union Bank, applied that an order made by the learned Judge with respect to a balance standing at the bank in the name of the prisoner should be set aside, urging that it formed no part of the specific amounts the prisoner had pleaded guilty to embezzling.
After considerable discussion, the Recorded refused the application.

The London Gazette, no. 24480, 10 July 1877, p. 4107:
The Bankruptcy Act, 1869.
In the County Court of Hertfordshire, holden at St. Albans.
In the Matter of Proceedings for Liquidation by Arrange-
ment or Composition with Creditors, instituted by
Leonard Laidman, of Elstree, in the county of Herts, and
late of the Incorporated Law Society’s Hall, Bell-yard,
in the county of Middlesex, late Clerk to the Incorporated
Law Society, now a prisoner in Her Majesty’s Prison,
[Note: A further notice to creditors was published in The London Gazette, no. 24661, 24 December 1878, p. 7370. Leonard was still imprisoned in Newgate. Newgate prison was closed in 1902]

1881 census return: RG11/1148 folio 85 page 11
H M Convict Prison Portsmouth, Portsea, Hants.
Leonard Laidman, convict, married, 53, Clerk (Commercial), born Christchurch, Surrey

1891 census return, RG12/475 folio 103 page 35
35 Lanvanor Road, Peckham, Surrey
Charles Boxall, head, married, 45, Law Barristers Clerk, born Marylebone, Middx + wife and son
Leonard Laidman, boarder, widower, 62, Law Solicitors Clerk, born Surrey.

1893: Witness at his brother John’s marriage to Mary Ann Esther Buchan (née Groves).
Birth1826, Essex, ESS
Deathbef 1891
FatherJohn SLAUGHTER , 19387
Misc. Notes
1871 Census Return: RG10/368 folio 7 page 12
Law Institution, 103 Chancery Lane, Holborn, Middx
Leonard Laidman, head, married, 43, Resident Clerk, born Surrey
Sarah E. Laidman, wife, married, 44, born Essex
Charles Laidman, brother, married, 38, Attorneys Clerk, born Surrey
Emma Laidman, wife, married, 28, born London
Leonard W. Laidman, nephew, 5, scholar, born Camden Town, London
Charles J. Laidman, nephew, 3, born Finchley
Leonard B. Hamilton, visitor, 11, scholar, born Poplar
+ servant

I couldn't find a GRO death for Leonard’s wife Sarah E. but there is a GRO death of a Sarah Laidman M1881 Edmonton RD aged 52 which might be for her; on the other hand she may have left him because of what he did. Interesting that he was still working for solicitors after his prison sentence and that a barrister’s clerk took him in.
Marriage17 Sep 1867, Haggerston, LND
Misc. Notes
1867. Marriage solemnized at the Parish Church in the ^District^Parish of S M Haggerstone in the County of Middlesex
No. 66
When married: Sepr 17th
Leonard Laidman Junr, full, Bachelor, Clerk, 39 Gopsall Str (Hoxton),
[father] Leonard Laidman, Stationer
Sarah Eleanor Slaughter, full, Spinster,
[no profession], 39 Ditto Ditto, [father] John Slaughter, Merchants Captain
Married in the Parish Church according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Established Church, by ______________ or after Banns by me, Edmund Bellman
This marriage was solemnized between us,
Leonard Laidman Jr
Sarah Eleanor Slaughter
in the Presence of us,
John Radford
Charlotte Hall Radford
Last Modified 26 Apr 2011Created 3 Jun 2012 using Reunion for Macintosh