The Express.
London, England, 1855-02-08 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 8, 1855.

WOKE all JOHN DODOOP.
HART V. ILIAT.-11114TINCI.
This was • suit of divorce, by reason of cruelty, brought
by Emily Jane Hart against her husband, Francis Hart.
Sir John Dodson, in giving sentence, said, that the mar-
riage had taken place on the 18th of September, 1847, and
that the parties had cohabited together at Tunbridge, Mar-
gate Cheltenham, and other places, until June,lB4B, when
Mr. 'Hart had deserted his wife. A subsequent cohabitation
leek plans in the month of April, 1850, which continued
MAU the following July, when the defendant again dessrUi
lie wife at the White Hart Hotel, Bristol. Siace then they
ind lived apart. It was stated that Mr. Hart lei
Slassealed his residence, and that Mrs. Hart MC
*MOT been prevented from bringing her suit meta
October, 1853. A libel was then given in on her behalf
montaining charges of gross cruelty against her husbaad.
No defensive allegation had been propounded by Mr. Hark I
who had contented himself with merely crostexansialer
the witnesses. Mrs. Hart, in her evidence, had de
strongly in rapport of the circumstances alleged in her
libel ; but the court, without meaning to charge her with
wilful perjury, could not help thinking that she had mach
, too highly coloured some of her statements. For instance,
Ira evidence contained an avercrut to the effect that she
bed been ordered by her husband to write to the trustee
Mader her marriage settlement to send her certain docu.
mints relating to some houses settled upon her ; that she
had written to hien accordingly, and that upon his declining
to forward her the papers, her husband had behaved with
great violence towards her. She stated that he had clutched
her so tightly by the throat that she could not speak, bat
that being near the bell she managed to ring it,
and the servant who came in removed her hus-
band's hands from her, saying that she would call a
policeman if he did not desist. This account, however, was
scarcely consistent with the deposition of the nt her-
self, who stated that upon entering the dressing-room she
found her mistress sitting on the floor, with her back rest-
ing against a chair, from which she appeared to have
slipped off. She was much agitated, and her muter was
stooping over her with a glass tumbler, containing Nate
liquid which smelt like spirits and water. Mrs. Hart ex-
claimed, "Look here, Mary; he wants to strangle me," but
the witness deposed that at that time he was not touching
her. This showed that Mrs. Hart's account could not be
implieitly relied upon. So again in the eighth article, which
referred, to one of the earliest acts or cruelty alleged,
it was stated that Mr. Hart had violently "melted
her in • garden at Margate ; and that Mrs. Killick,
the keeper of the boarding-house where this took place, had
interfered to p t further mischief. But Mrs. Killick
was neither pucluciad 63 a witness in the canoe, nor was it
alleged that she was dead or unable to give evidence. It
was said that she might have forgotten the circumstance,
but surely if it had ever occurred that was not likely to be
the case. The court, however, was bound to say that with
respect to some of the acts of cruelty alleged there woe cor-
roborative evidence. He (Sir J. Dodson) wu alluding to
that which took place at the house of Mrs. Hart's father at
Hereford. Mrs. Hart had deposed to acts of cruelty there,
and she was confirmed by her sister, who was present on
that ocassioe. Indeed, there could be ne doubt that Mr.
Hart had been guilty of gross acts of cruelty towards his
wife—acts that would have entitled her to a sentence of se-
paration from him. So again with respect to the midnight
scene, which was enacted at their howls at Lsdbroke Villas,
Notting-hill. Mrs. Hart deposed that she was obliged to fly
from the house and to take shelter in an outhouse or
shed in the garden of a neighbour, Mr. Hincholiffe;
awl that finally she had obtained admission into Mr. Ricoh.
eliffe's house, where she remained till the morning. la
her account of that transaction she was confirmed by other
witnesses, and the court was constrained to say, that al-
, though she bed gone beyond what the facts would warrant
in some portions of her evidence, she had satisfactorily
proved suck sets of cruelty as would entitle her to a divorce,
unless her remedy was barred by what had subsequently
taken place; more especially as Mr. Hart had not given in
any evidence to rebut the testimony offered on her behalf.
The question, therefore, came to this, namely, whether the
malicious desertion of Mrs. Hart by her husband, at Itristol,
would revive the former acts of cruelty which had been con-
densed by the reconciliation and subsequent cohabitation
which took place shout two months before that event?
That there had been condonation in this case there could
be no doubt whatever. Not only had there been cohabita-
tion, from which condonation might have been presumed,
but there bad been an actual and formal condonation.
There had been a reconciliation at Mrs. Hart's own
solicitation and desire. It appeared that sh." had
sent letter after letter to her husband, I
him to renew the cohabitation, assuring him that it .
give her the greatest pleasure and satisfaction to do so,
telling him how unhappy she was at living separate, and
using strong expreuions of endearment towards him. These
letters failed, however, to answer her purpose, and she
then instituted a suit for a divorce, on the ground of cruelty
and adultery; but subeequently she called at the house
where her husband was living with the lady with whom
she had charged him with committing adultery. She bad
an interview with him, and being smeared that he was not
guilty of that offence, she signed a sort of confession, in
which she admitted her faults of temper, and declared that
she would forgive and forget all that had passed, sad pro-
mised to live with bin in future quietly, soberly, and with
a dewed regent I* Ida comfort. The question then arose
whether do nonlisions desertion subsequently sated as a
review of Itenor malty ? By the law of some coun-
tries solidon• damtios woo of itself a ground of divorce.
Ho (Ur Jobs Doan) borsod hoe the valuable and ex-
abut week of Mr. Bishop, of Belles, that such was the
ono In motel, *mesh net all, of the United States.
Kollions disortion, brawn, was oortoinly not by the law
of Lend a mesa of divans; sad so ow had been
Old OP lIMW that it weeli ma spina os 4 reviver of

former entity. It bad been argued, and no dosbt it was
quite true, that lesser acts would mace to revive
former cruelty, than to establish an original case ; but
then those acts must be Owlets generio—of a nature to
show that the offeodieg party still entertained the setae
cruel disposition towards the party who brought the snit.
In this ease no suck acts bed been proved. It had not been
shown that Mr. Hart, after the reconciliation, did anything
that would tend to establish a reasonable apprehension of
danger to his wife, in life, limit, or health. On the con-
trary. it was clear that be bad throughout manifested the
etsgagest possible anxiety to get awry from her, and that
she bed always been the party who was desirous of fel:sw-
ivels cohabitation. Under these eirmunstances the court
salt pronounce :Mr. Hart to have been guilty in the first
lastaace of such acts of cruelty as would have justified it,
if the suit had thee been brought, in granting a separation
but it must als3 decide that those acts bad been condoned
by Mrs. Hart, and that they bad not been subsequently re-
vived by the defendant's conduct in maliciously deserting
her at the White Hart Inn, at Bristol. He (Sir J. D.rdson)
' felt himself therefore bound to dismiss the parties.
Divorce refused.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-FED. 7.

WOW li. costa...,--
IN RI STIVART.
This was the certificate meeting in the ease of H. J.
Steuart, described air • hotel and tavern-keeper, of the St,
James's Hotel, Jermyn-street. His debts were 1,614 ;
seams between 1,0001. and 1,1001. The profits since Januar/
1853, had been 1,9051. • trade expenses, 1,9581.; household
ditto, 302/. ; losses, 3611. There was no opposition.
Mr. Lawrence, on behalf of the bankrupt, asked for a
first class certificate. The bankrupt bad been left residua
legatee to Mrs. Nash, who bad kept the St. James's SIMI;
he thought to carry it on with advastage, but fund ISM
the bushier was a failing one. There was a pod carts,
the saute having realised, after paying all Auras OM.
sufficient fora dividend of more than 10a. bathe pond.
There had been no preferences, or bills of enamels& •
His Honour said he bed a little doubt in the use, oe the
trade expenses exceeded the profits ; but he would give the
bankrupt the benefit of that doubt, and award him a first
class certificate.
Mr. Lawrence said the bankrupt had omitted to claim the'
201. worth of excepted articles, under the 24th section of
the last statute. He had done this with a view of not dis-
turbing the property in the hotel, sad perhaps lowering the
value of the whole.
His Honour said he was decidedly opposed to allowing •
retrospective operation to this clause; but he would speak
to some of the other commissioners on the subject.
IN RI WI.3II.—DIVIDIND.-4UISTION AS TO COMPOUND
ISO A SIMON!.
The bankrupt, C. J. Webb, poised through the court
some time ago. This wee a dividend meeting.
Mr. Bagley stated that he appeared in support of a proof
tendered by the executors of the late Mr. Bather, silver-
smith, o Leadenhathstreet, to whom the bankrupt had
meted as manger. On the books being examined, the bank-
rupt was found to be indebted in the amount of 8631., for
money which he had not accounted for. He gave security
ter the amount in August, 1851 ; that security had been
mince realised, and there was still due about 3601. A sum of
2001. bad also hem advanced to the bankrupt in January, I
1852, by the executers, making the aggregate claim 6531.
The security given by Webb consisted of a number of,
piano', in which he had dealt on his own account ; and the I
only question was as to the terms on which the pianos were
transferred, Webb coatendicg that they were taken at the
cost price, the executors, that they were only taken for'
what they might realise.
Mr. Lucas opposed the proof on behalf of the coignes,
en the ground that the bankrupt having committed defal-
cations towards his employers, and the executors, instead of
prosecuting, having chosen to take an assignment from him,
they were not now entitled to prove any debt. The assign-
ment had been obtained in • way amounting to durum, ; and
the executors bad taken the pianos at the cost price of each.
There was in reality a balance due to the bankrupt. The
advance of 2001. to Webb was made in the belief that there
would be an excess of that amount due to the bankrupt,
and to p t the assignment being treated as an act of
bankruptcy by Webb's creditors. Webb had stated, in
examination, that the assignment was obtained from him un-
der the threat of prosecution ; that the pianos were regularly
invoiced at cost price; and that there wm a promise that
the surplus, if any, should be banded over to him. The
ease Exp. Elliott (2 Deacon, 179) established the principle
that where a bankrupt committed defalcations the employer
was bound to prosecute, and could not coavert the matter
into one of debt.
The Commissioner—ln the present cue, what evidence
is there of a felony, except that the parties threatened to
prosecute ?
Mr. Lucas—There is the admission of the bankrupt as to
his defalcations.
The Commissioner—There are numerous Met of misap-
plication of money, which do not amount to felony. A man
may be a defsulter in a matter of account, and yet not
guilty of felony.
Mr. Lucas said the bankrupt had candidly admitted
having 'veiled these moneys to his own purpose, and be
eat dqwn and made a list of them. It was then the duty
of his employers to prosecute ; but they had preferred, as a
more advantageous arrangement to themselves, to take the
assignment, leaving not a shilling for the other creditors.
The fact of embezzlement was clearly established here.
Even viewing the matter as a debt, it must be held that
the claim had been satisfied by the transfer of the pianos
taken at cost price.
Mr. Bagley protested against the arrangement between
Webb and his employers being now, for the first time,
treated as a felony. There was no pretence for charging
hint with embezzlement ; the matter was entirely ote of
account.
His Honour said he had no hesitation in saying that if
this transaction had come to the knowledge of the assignees
previous to the bankrupt obtaining his certificate, they
would be stopped from raising this defence, by having
permitted the bankrupt to obtain his certificate without
bringing to the knowledge of the court that he had been
guilty of embezzlement, and of fraudulent transfer of his
property. It would put the administration of the law in
a most anomalous position if he should have granted a man
a second-class certificate, or any certificate at all, after
evidence was given that ie was guilty of embezzlement.
Mr. Stopher, the solicitor to the creditor seeking to prove,
said he had brought forward the matter at the first meeting
under the bankruptcy.
His Honour said there was not sufficient evideace to
enable him to say that the assignees were so stopped ; but
as on other grounds his opinion was in favour of the proof
he would pass that over. It did not appear to be clearly
established that there was any felony ; the loom expressions
in the bankrupt's examination went no further than to
show that he was threatened with prosecution. Where a
proof was resisted on the grouuei that a felony had been
compounded, there ought to be the clearest evidence that a
felony had been committed ; for the principle was not one
that ought to be extended. The court did not feel audio•
rind in coming to the conclusion that there had really been
anremberslement. The proof would be admitted, on the
loot of charging the pianos at the invoice price, and
main such other deductions as might be agreed to. Had
the court felt bound to disallow any portion of the debt as
arising from embezzlement of monies received, ho would
not have extended it to the other items which clearly were
not of that nature.
IN RE CLARKI AND DAVISON.
An adjudication in bankruptcy was made against John
Andrews Clarke and Joseph Devieon, warehousemen, of
156, Chespeide. The petitioning creditors are Messrs.
Thompson and Patterson, warehousemen, of Bread-etvet,
Oheapside. The case came before the court in the first
instance as a petition for arrangement, and the balance-
shut then filed by the petitioners disci oped the following,
Mate of affairs. Amount due to creditoW, 27,6164; liabi-
lities on bills, 11,731/. By good debtors, 6,0344 ; doubt-
ful ditto (estimated 1% realise), 2291. ; property, 9,5091 ;
ditto held by creditors, 7,0561. The baakrnpte appeared
ead surrendered to the adjudication. Mr. Graham is the
official assignee, and Messrs. Reed, Langford, and Marsden
are the solicitors under the proceeding..
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—FEB. 7.
Well ML COIDIVINOPM MURPHY.
IN II JOSLYN WORAKER.—NEW RULE ON COMMITMENTS
BY COUNTY COURTS.
At the rising of the court, an application was made by
Mr. Clark, the Registrar, for the discharge of this insolvent
from Whitecrom-street Prison, where he bad been com-
mitted by the judge of the Clerkenwell County Court. The
insolvent was appointed to be heard for his final order to-
morrow (this day), and whilst under the protection of this
court he was served with a iudgment summons front the
Clerkenwell County Court. He attended on the 30th Ja
nuary, and produced his protectioo, and an extract from his
schedule showing that the debt was inserted therein. He
was however ordered to be committed foe 40 days, and was
taken on Monday to Whitecross-street Prison.
Mr. Commissioner Murphy ordered his disagree, and
stated that it should be known that the three commissioners
had come to a determination to discharge parties who heal
the protection of this court and were committed by County
Courts. The commissioners would not interfere on unto•
tithed judgments under 1 and 2 Vice, as decided by the
case of Abasy and Dale ;" but in cases under the Pro-
tection Act they would continue to act when p ti ar es were
committed, and would do so until a superior court gave s
contrary &Makin.
_ l The discharge in this ease was issued.
betel• woul

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEBIENTS.—Yesterday a
parliamentary document, signed by Sir W. Molesworth,
was printed, containing a statement of the advances out
of the consolidated fund to the commissioners of her
Majesty's works, &c., of the application of the funds en
advanced, and of the moneys paid into the consolidated
fund from lit of January to the 31st of December last. It
appears that the advances out of the consolidated fund
amounted to 207.3281. 13s. 10d. Out of the money so
advanced, the Equitable Assurance Company's loan of
200,0001. wee paid off, end the interest and the lissome-
tax exhausted the remainder of the advance, namely,
7,3281. 13s. 10d. The money paid into the consolidated
fund in the year amounted to 160,1811. As. bd., prineipally
arising from the surplus of the London-bridge approaches.
The total amount adulated under the provisions of the
act 16 Viet., e. 18, was 1,129,3971. Os. 2d., end the total
amount paid into the consolidated fund was 288,2671.61. I Id.
The balance due to the comolidsted fund on the 31st of
Des tuber last wu 841,1291. 14s. 3d.;
CORI AND BANDON RAILWAY.—Return of traffic
for the week ending Feb. 3, 1665. 1671. Bs. Od. Traffic
tee easspoildiag week last year, 2271.6.. 74„

THE POLICE COURTS.
GUILDHALL.
Herbert Hill was charged with the following fraud upon
Messrs. Samuel, Brothers, of Ludgate•hill, M . Morri-
son, Dillon, end Co., of Fore-street, and several others
whose cues were not gene intn. It appeared that the ri-
mier, who presented a mast respectable exterior, ordered a
wit of clothes at Keens. gannet's, on Satarday_week last,
and(paid for them by a cheque, drawn on Mr. Robert
Davis's beak, at Shorediteh. The clothes same to 61. la. 64.,
and the prisoner drew the cheque for 01. ls. 6d , and
received a sovereign in change ; but the cheque, when pre-
sented, was returned endorsed with "no effects." Imme-
diately afterwards the prisoner wrote to say he had just
discovered he had overdrawn his account at the bank, and
requested them not to present the cheque. Evidence was,
however, given to show that the prisoner's account had
been closed since the Bth of last month, and he lied been
apprised of that fact by one of the clerks of the bank prior
to his obtaining the clothes and the sovereign. When the
prisoner was searched, several pawnbrokers' duplicates,
relating to property pledged, to the value of about 401.,
were found upon him. Several witnesses were examined
in other oases, who proved that:the prisoner had obtained
of MOW MOITi171:1, Dillon, and Co., to the value of
scuds of
of Messrs. Burr and Sons to the amount of 111.,
under similar circumstances, the cheques in each cue being
Davis's bank after the prisoner's account ,bad

drawn upon
been closed.
There being a variety of other charges spinet the pri-
soner, he wu remanded for further investigatMn.

THE POISONING CASE AT FINCHLEY.

Yesterday the jury empannelled to inquire into the
death of John Southgate, late a merchant of Old Change,
City, re-assembled for the fifth time before Mr. Wakley,
at Strawberry Vale, Finchley.
As at the earlier stages of the investigation, Mr. Joseph
Payne, the barrister, attended on the part of the family of
the deceased ; Mr. Jarman, from the solicitor's department
of the Treasury, attended by direction of Lord Palmerston;
Mr. Coppock appeared for Dr. Neil, of Aldersgate, and his
two assistants.
The Coroner said it had been communicated to him that
there was an important witness, named Clayton. He re-
petted that that gentleman had written to say he could
not attend to-day, u his solicitor had gone to Brighton.
It was highly improper conduct on the part of Mr. Clay-
ton; he (the coroner) held a report from Professor Tayla,4l
which rendered it absolutely necessary to have Mr. Clayton
examined. The officer must go immediately to town and
inform Mr. Clayton that if ha did not attend a warrant
would be issued.
John White, surgeon, we. then recalled, and said, that
he first saw the packets unopened on the chest of drawers,
on the Sunday night. He suspected there was something
wrong from the sudden death and the symptoms. He took
the packets home, and he wrote to Dr. Neill at about fear
o'clock on Monday.
A report, made by Professor Taylor and Mr. Scanlan.
wee then read, which stated that the specimen of oxalis
acid from Mr. Lucas did not correspond with that found is
the bed-room of the deceased.
Jane Maiden, an intelligent, interesting-looking young
woman (the "A. B." correspondent mentioned at the
former hearing), was then sworn, and said " I reside as
Dorking, and am not married. 1 knew the deceased ; I bee
saw him on the 16th of October, at the Bridge-house Hotel,
in London. I was in the habit of writing to him. The
lettere were addressed A. 8., to the ears of Mr. Barnard,
60, Sermon-lane. The last letter I received from Mr. South-
gate was dated the sth December last. It is signed A.B.
I believe it to be in his handwriting.
[Mr. Turner, foreman to the late Mr. Southgate, proved
the handwriting to be that of his late employer.]
The following is a copy of the letter.
" Jane Marden,—l received your letter yesterday, but
had not time to reply. I have not withdrawn my friendly
feeling or disposition towards you, though you re-
peatedly say I have. That Ido not entertain that high
esteem as I did, I acknowledge, for my estimation of your
character did experience some change on that matter of
deception some time ago. There was no occasion for it,
and I could not help altering my opinion. I could not feel
the same confidence, but yet I felt that I had no desire to
withdraw my friendship or good wishes towards I,
you, and you hare them now and will have. It
has not arisen from these things that I haves
not answered your letter, but I have not had time. I will
write when I am better. Nor is it my desire
to withdraw any little acts of friendship which I may have
evinced towards you.—P.S. I again add, no one tells tales
of you ; if I have hinted anything, it has arisen from my
own observation."
I have lived in the service of Mr. Southgate, and left It
in 1850 or '5l. I have many other letters. The last time
I wrote to him was about three weeks before Christmas. He
had been very indifferent in his correspondence, and I
stated in my last letter that, if he pleased, I would discon-
tinue the correspondence. He never made me a promise of
marriage, nor was he under any engagement to me. I
heard him talk of committing suicide. Two years ago,
while I was ill, I received some money from Mr. South-
gate. I n heard that anyone in the house had
attempted suicide by taking arsenic. Mr. Southgate wished
me to go to a baby-linen warehouse in Dorking.
Another letter, dated June 12, 1851, chiefly containing
religious advice, was also read. Another letter, dated
23rd Sept., 1853, containing a lecture on dress, was also
read.
By the jury—My father and mother live at Dorking. My
friends knew nothing of my correspondence with Mr.
Southgate. He told me if anyone questioned me, that I was
to give the name of Biggs. The friendship began after I
had been in the service about nine months. I left at the
request of the family, who said that I was not strong enough.
It bad been said that I was too familiar with Mr. South-
gate.
Examined by Mr. Payne—There was nothing in any of
the letters to lead me to believe that deceased intended to
destroy himself. When I left his ' I went to another
situation. The day after I went home the first letter reached
tee.
By the Coroner—l met him accidentally in Earl-street.
He said if you will answer my letters I will write to you.
He did write me. At first I did not answer the letter. He
sent me 10 or 12 envelopes, addressed to himself at " Old
Change." I then did write to him.
By Mr. Payne—During my illness I was at home with my
father and mother. There never was anything improper
between myself and the deceased. He gave me a Bible
when 1 left his service.
By the jury—l went up to meet Mr. Southgate to con-
nit him as to my proceedings at the house of business. He
wished me to remain at it. Mr. Southgate had frequently
said he wished to get married to me, but that there was one
obstacle, as he had made a promise to his daughters that
he would not marry while they remained single, but that
if they married he would then make me a home.
Henry Dodson sworn—l am executor to the deceased. I
have not token out probate; his life is insured for 4,5001.
The policies are not here. Ido not know if the police,
would be affected by suicide. I have not seen the policies;
they were not in the hands of deceased. The policies are
effected in the National Provident fur 2,0001 , and. the Royal
Exchange, who insured for their own security.
John Harrison, wine merchant, of 24, Little Knight
Rider-street, deposed that he had frequently discounted
hills for deceased. He last saw him on the 16th December
at about noon. Told him that there was a dishonoured bill
for 901. 10s. 7d. drawn by himself and accepted by J.
Harden, payable in Houndstlitith. He took away the
acceptance ;end said, " I will send you on a cheque very
shortly." I said, " Very well." Mr. Crickman went to
Mr. Southgate, junior; the reply was that Mr. Southgate
had gone home. The money had not been paid, nor had
he seen the ball since.
Jane Marion recalled—l n signed any paper for Mr.
Southgate, nor did he ever ask me to do so.
The Coroner—This bill ought to be produced. I ale
most anxious that this inquiry should terminate, for it te
carried on to the extreme psis and suffering of this family.
But hew are we to be relieved from the difficulty except by
going on with the testimony, to ascertain whether this gen-
tleman had a motive for committingsnicide ? Again, would
it not be necessary to ascertain whether there is such a per-
son in existence as I. Marion.
William Alcoa, one of the executors, recalled—l found
a letter in the pocket-book of deceased on the day after his
death. It stated that he enclosed a cheque fur the amount
of returned bill, and regretted that it had not been posted
in time. There was no cheque in the note, nor have I seen
it since,
Coroner—Were there sufficient assets to meet this demand
in the hands of the bankets ?
Witness—There were not; but I could easily have get
him that amount.
Coroner—There is not a more important feature in the
case than this bill. The bill book sought to be produced.
Examination continued—The bill is not entered In the
book. Mr. Seutligate's affairs were far from being 'fabliau
raised. Every exertion had been made to get in the es-
counts ; deducting these the estate would yield 20,0001. be
felt assured.
Mr. Austin produced the valuation for the probate duty
made by Mans. Fuller and Honey, from which he con-
tended that it was clearly shown that the estate was ample
to meet ell demands.—At this stage of the proceedings the
inquiry was adjourned for an hour.
Mr. Brettingtham, the foreman of the jury, said that in
order to save further pain to the family he would ensure
the use of the board-room of the St. Pancras Burial Board,l
adjoining the new cemetery.
Accordingly, at the appointed hour, the jury reassem-
bled in the hoard-roem of the cemetery.
John Fordthi, the (Arse of the court, sworn, said that
be bad served the summons at the residence of W. Clayton,
68, Wailing-street.
Jesse Machin said that he resided at No. 50, Snow-hill.
He was an accountant. He saw the last withers serve the
summons. He handed in a note from Mr. Clayton, ta-
inting himself from attending on that day; be would be
Meet happy to do si on any future day.
Coroner—Then I tare to say that I fine him 101. for hie
sea-ettendesee. I would not have enforced thts fine, but
I feel tbat the court has heed trilled with.
The witness proceeded—Hs lest saw Mr. Southgate at
the beginning of December last et Mr. Clayton's. He
was there on private bushing. I know that he used to
have transactions in the buithess, but n saw him take
gdiavya-ba:ok"die" kept which will show
astryltimogr.awcaoyp,potorkeLeAn
entries of goods sold on credit. The entries are chiefly made
by the warehouseman and a lad. I never received anyorder
for drugs, nor have I seen any supplied. There is an entry
in my
.handwriting of drugs supplied, it is copied from

another document—to the best of my knowledge it was from
Mr. Southgate's handwriting. I should think it will be
found at Mr. Yate'., a wholesale druggist, of Budge-row,
who supplied the articles.
By the Coroner—l should think that this order was given
about a week or ten days before poor Mr. Southgate'.
death. I left the order myself.
By the jury—Thara were some bill transactions between
Mr. Clayton and the deceased. Mr. Clayton is a perfumer
and general export agent.
The Coroner here remarked that he could not see how
the inquiry could be brought toe close without examining
Mr. Clayton; but above all, I. Mullen, if such a person
existed, coigkt to be produced. There appeared a wish also
to have the books from Mr. Clayton's produced.
The court was again cleared, and the jury consulted for
about half-an-hour, when the investigation was again ad-
journed.