The Express.
London, England, 1849-11-29 00:00:00

NOVEMBER 29, 1849.

teens already mentioned to Captain Haworth end Lord
Devon. The &Dewar described the trans .ctiou es already
eta ed—namely, that the bowl in question was taken for
400/., although 3001. only had been advanced, to secure or
indemnify the moieties assinat their risk. Mr. PhiDimon's
answer was not put is evidence. The defendant's counsel
then called his witness.
Captain Martin Edward Haworth deposed that he was the
defendant's brother, and the bond in (tassel's was executed
ryins as surety for witness. Is 1336 witnessmanied Lady
Elizaheth Leslie, who wee a niece of Lord Devon's.
The settlement appointing the plaintiffs trustees was then
assaftl. Lard Courtenay, one of the plaintiffs, was the
eldest cm et Lord Devon. There were seven children of
the marriage; the eldest was now about twelve years. In
1841 the trustees received 6101. 16e. 9d., put of the trust
messy. Lord Devon was aware of the trusts of the settle-
ment. He Mad up th- bead. The written part of It we.
ell bin handwriting, except the sig•atures. The plaintiff's
order for the payment of 3001. to witness was also written by
Lewd Devon. Lord Courtenay and Mr. Phillimore, the true.
signed it, and the amount was paid to whom. Before
the Mad was execued by witt.ess sad his brother, there had
bees nu arrangement about tee matter. The trusts. s, Lord
Down, end witness, were all parties to that arrangement.
Wiener was pressing Lord Devon for the payment of inte-
rest, end that led to a meeting with the trustees. Could not
say that the arrangement was nude in presence of the trus-
tees and Lord Devon altogether, but it was made with them
separately. It was agreed that the 8101. should be divided
between Loed Devon and witness equally. Wi new apprised
thedefendant of that arrangement before the bond was ex.
gated ; witness got the boars rom Lord Devon for execution,
land it was exeetitec et witness's motoer's house in Hertford-
shire. No fresh arrangeme at had been come to before it was
executed. It was executed by the defendant and witness
'upon the faith of that arrangemeut,
Cromatexamined—Tee defendant was aware that the plain-'
tiffs were trustees, though he might not knew precisely what
the *UM were. He knew use money in question was part
et the trust money. The arrangement was come to about I
the 18th of June, 1841, the date of the order on Childs,
where the 8101. was lodged. Witless applied for part of it
es an adverse*, and Lord Devon wrote • latter (produced) in I
reply. It was not dated. Before the arrangement that was
/sally NM to that the money should be advanced to Lord
Deves 11•11 witness equally, several sums from 1001. upwards
were prepaid to be lent to witness. (Lord Devon's letter, I
whisk was then read, stated that the witness could have
seem et the money, " suppose 3001, if the trustees would
nos the rick, but the dieculry would be what security wit-
ness coal t give." It also stated that Lerd Devon would do
what he could with the trustees to have the witness's wishes
emptied with.) Witness isstructed the solicitor who filed
the bill in Chancery on behalf of witness's wife and children.
Be-examined—When it was proposed that I should have
an advance of 1001. nothing was said about the remainder,
or whether Lord Deem was to get it. The final arrange-
went was that I should have 4001 and his lordship the re-
mainder. I adhere to that statement. The plaintiffs'
case being elated after formally tendering Lord Courtenay's
answer inCtiancery, and its rejection,
Sir F. Thesiger replied—He submitted that the defend.
ant had completely failed to make out his plea. With
reference to the Interruption of the juryman, he maid that
all who had heard the open, manly, and firm address of the
learned counsel for the defendant, could not fail to ob-
serve that be had discharged his duty, though repugnant to
his feelings, in • fearless manner. No one could reprove
him with deserting his client, or of evincing the least ten-
sible dread of the noble lord who had occupied a seat on the
bench, for the learned °Ghana stigmatised the conduct of
that noble lord in the treat now uured terms, which no
doubt he felt bound by hie instructions to do. The question
was, whether the plea was made out. There was not in
all Capt. Hawerth's evidence anything to show that Lord
Devon or Lord Courtenay had made any representation at
all to the defendant ; on the contrary, it appeared that the
communications had taken place between the defendant and
his brother. The defendant's counsel bad exompted Mr.Philli-
more from all participation in the matter, yet he had signed the
order for the money in conjunction with Lord Courtenay.
Why was not Mr. Phillimcre's answer tendered / If he was
so honourable a man as he was represented—and, no doubt,
he was—surely his version of the ease could be relied no. No.
That would at onoe show that the conduct of Lord Courtenay
aad his father was free from all taint.
Sir F. Pollock interposed, and said there was no evidence
is go to the jury to support the plea.
Sir F. Thesiger only wished to make one romuk. He
wished to call attention to the last answer given by the defen-
dant's brother, who had been examined. He had admittsit
that he had furnished the instructions to the solicitor, Mr.
Robinson, toprepare the bill in Chancery filed on behalf of
the children, the eldest of whom was only 12 years ell, and
could know nothing of the matter. As to Lord Devon, he
was so highly respected and venerated by all who knew hint,
be was beyond the reach of all calumny. It was altogether
111111111110Neary to enter into any yin ication of him. His letter,
d by the defendant's own brother, clearly showed that
was the sum finally agreed on to be advanced, and that
the hood should be given for 4001, as an indemnity agsinst
the probable consequences of the breach of trust committed
by the trustees in lending the money at all.
The foreman having interrupted the learned counsel, and
expressed himself satisfied that the plaintiffs were entitled to
recover,
Sir F. Pollock said his opiniAt was that there wee no evi-
dence whatever to go the jury iu support of the second plea,
and therefore they were hcurid to had fir the plaintiffs.
Verdict for the plaintiffs accordingly.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-VEBTRIDAT.
B/7011 TPIII
IN TR, MATTER OF CHARLES BRACKETT.
CONCEALMENT OP PRuPEETT.

This inselveat, whine cue was before reported, attended
to receive the judgment of the court. Three points of reppoe
sition were urged against him—that he bad fabricated a
cash book of his business tit Spiteltields as a fruit salesman;
soundly, that he had given an undue per rent c to a rela-
tion named Scott ; and, thirdly, hat he had concealed a
large sum of money from his creditors. He made himself a
buskeupt in August, 1848, and his certificate was refused.
He was now in prison, on a friendly suit by his accountant
in bankruptcy, and Mr. De), the opposing creditor, who ►ad
not proved in bankrsptcy, res 1 recently to 'Red a detainer.
His Honour gave a lucid judgment, rec.pitulating the
principal features of the cue, 111.1 i commenting on the evi-
deuce given. He was of opinion that it would be a harsh
coastruction to hold that the ineolvent had fabricated an
account-book, or that he had given an undue prefer nee.
He had anziLusly c neidered the other point respecting the
corcealment of property, and, notwithstanding the contra-
diction given, which no charity c rued reconcile, he had ar-
rived at the coaciusion that on the very eve of bankruptcy
the insolvent had czbibited a beg of money of which no
account had been given, and therefore it was a concealment
of property. The judgment win that he be remanded from
the vesting order for a period of eight calendar months.