The Express.
London, England, 1864-02-19 00:00:00

for St. Petersburg. The bill was not paid when
Dad never asked Pearson to land him any money, or
cr ao acceptance for his aocommodation. If anyoo• had
so it was wholly untrue. Had never goo* to Pearson
sod he was very hard up, and asked for the Irma of
Tb.,t was wholly untrue. Did not say he wan very
: it money and must have the bankrupt's aecaptemoa
Ms. Lewis—lt was aa ordinary haziness transaction
~ere respect. Had put an execution into Pearson's
hut the bankruptcy stopped it. Shortly after getting
• from Pearson, on the 26th April, witness seat it to
Memrs. Martini, Gassiest, and Co. Did sot
• ,be sent it the same night. Had not brought hia
. I,ok, though he bad had notice to produce it. He
. the bill came from Pearson by pant. 1 his each-book
,etipt of the bill was entered,ibut it did not show what
with it, except by an entry
_of 4/. for discount.
a those entries was on the 28th, the Other on the
lle would now admit that he sent the bill to

1.11 on the same day as he got it from the bankrupt ;
h.. certainly never said that he was short of money
wanted Yearsoo's acceptance. The warrant. for the
*ere nut delivered tall the 22nd of May, nearly a
_ after; but Mr. Pearsoncould have had the wine
• r if be bad wanted it. It was the usual
of bounces for a wine-merchant to take bills before
• ~'lveiv-orilers were banded over. Would swear that
, I door that frequently. It was the course with many
.:Aerehauts. He would swear it was the course with
s •_•.- merchants generally—not the usual course, but it
frequeutly done. It was the usual mums with him at
orate. The wine would have been delivered as soon as
v t'earson sent for the orders. Had witness failed during
•. • .JUtt, bankrupt could have got the wine, because it
'we posed to him in witness's books. Did not know
• Pearson did not part with the 1601111 until September
rti:e bill was due. They were ultimately sold in wit-
... p:ace, and he bought them. Had no reason to doubt
earsou wanted them for
.exportation.
•, Mr. liagley—Had the wines base shipped there would
eon no no:amity for warrants at all.
• ..,ukrupt, re-examined by Mr. Lewis, deposed—l did
• to buy any wine of Mr. Brodrick before giving
MU. He said he particularly wanted some money,
1. to real to London that night. He came to me
• 4 o'clock. said that his bankers were pressing
•and that he must have en acceptanceor 20014
',ill was brought to me shout half-past 5 o'clock in
• , rifing when I was attending a meeting, and I accepted
I never agreed to take any wets of Mr. Brodriek. He
fre,uently premed rite to dose, After giving him the
I agreed to take the wine. He said he must
the acceptance that evening as he was going to Lon.
. I did not get the delivery order of the wine until the
:of Mir. I received the invoice on the 27th of April.
NIL lmgley—After agreeing to give the bill for 240 f.,
• I that he might as well let me have wise to that
Int to make the transaction perfectly regular. Will
•7 that nit.iplee were not sent me on the 24th of April.
e were sent about a math before that. What
Dr drier has sworn about not asking me to lead
:limey is positively untros. It is true that I
daded one of his father's veinal; and we had
oorreL He had not asked me to lend him money
l• • re. lout has often said that Its was by
hankers, and has urged me to bay wine of emed
him.
: : .re done so, but it masons, the left I mean I made
. by it. It is quite untrue what has been said about
sine being sent to St. Petersburg. I did tell Mr.
• .e that my bills were not accommodation bills, and that
no pertain in my steamers. I have no distinct
:i v -,.brance of stating that Briggs's bills were Aramaic.-
, ...,n paper, but it is just possible I may have
• so. as I considered that Briggs was fully
,rod. He declined to register the intereolonial
.•, became he thought there might be a farther call
:osta of the shares was about 13,00 W., bat we both
..:lured them worth 20,000 k, as the company had paid a
...end of 71 per cent. At one time Briggs held security
7 :I.e ..r.tount of 33,C101. It warn Mae that I had no part,
my steam-yawls, except as to 3 out of
T. E. obasou, a clerk of the bankrupt's, was sea-
- nrl to show that the bill was given to Brodrlck on a
••• tualav evening, and that the delivery orders were not
:rreireci toll the 22nd of May.
Mr. Er.ktric?c., recalled, stated that the body of the bill
v it) his son s handwriting.
1.!.o further bearing was then adjourned, his Hooper
4r, iog that the case was a very painful one—two persons
a respectable position having directly called (lad to wit.
to -s to a state of fact, in direct opposition. He natively
t-ivinbered a case where the was such a direct con-
tra 11:tion.
.111 ourned to the sth of March.

(Before Mr. Commissioner Bolroyd.)
IN RI tevocrwr.
The bankrupt was a grocer, of Bedford-street, Covent-
i.-,rarn. The case has been before the court nearly 4 years,
.11,1 the bankrupt now applied fora certtficate cooler the old
act.

Mr. Sergood opposed ; Yr. lletrrough supported. The
rbuge agaiust the bankrupt was that be had lost money by
•• time tamales "is Torkish Buds. His Honour held that
this was not such a description of security as wu contem-
rlated by the petal clauses of the act of 1649, and granted
the certificate.

THE POLICE COURTS.
(THIS DAY.)