The Express.
London, England, 1848-05-11 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 11, 1848

Before the Vice-Chanoenor of England.
ArrottellY• LI IN !VAL C. NV Y lIEWLET'S
C KAU ITY.—This cue has been betore the court upon various
occasions. The following is a short statement of the facts :
In 1701, L icy Hewley, who was a Protestant nonconformist,
conveyed attain estates of greet value, in Yorkshire, to
trustees for the benefit of such poor and godld for y preachsuch poor
ers, tor
the time being. of Christ's holy gospel, an
and godly widows. for the time being, of poor and kindly
preachers of Christ's holy gaped, as the trustees for the time
being should think lit ; fur promoting the preaching oaf
Christ's holy gospel, in such manner arid in such places as
the t.usteee should think tit ; for educating such younganin
designed (or the ministry of Christ's holy gospel, as the trus-
tees should approve and think fit ; and for relieving such
godly persons in distress, being fit objects of her own and the
trustees' charity. as the trustees should think tit ;
provided that the trustees and managers for the time being
should, in their dispositions and distributions of the aforesaid
charities, have a primary respect to such objects thereof to
aforesaid, as were then, or should afterwards be, in York,
Yorkshire, or other northern counties in England, not ex-
cluding those in other places and counties es the trustees
and managers should think tit ; and the trustees were given
power upon the death of any of them to elect new trustees.
13y a deed dated in April, 1707, Lady Hewley conveyed to
the same persons who were trustee* of the deeds of January, I,
1701, a new ly.ere cted house, to used as a hospital or
almshouse fur poor people and by a writing under her
band, dated the 10th of May, 1709, Lady Bewley declared
that the hospital should be manalted according to certain
rules, amongst which were the following tt Let none
of evil fame or repoit be admitted into the
pilaf, but but such as are poor and piously disposed, and
of the Protestant religion. Let every slmsbody
be
one that cen repeat by heart the Lord's prayer the Creed,
and ten commandenenu, and Mr. Edward Bowles's cate-
chism. Let all the almspeople when not disabled by weak-
ness, duly repair to some religious assembly of the pro-
Instant religion every Lord's uay, forenoon and afternoon,
and at other opportunitiee, to attend the ordinances of God."
In the course of time the estates leg by Lady Hewley be-
came vested in trusts el, the majority of whom, though
calling themselves presbyt. rims, professed unitarian prioci-
ples ; and a considerable portion of the rents was for some
years applied by them towards supporting a seminary for
the education of unitarian ministers, and for the beeetit of
poor preachers and other persons of that denomination. In
consequence of this, an information was filed at the relation
of certain members of a sect called independents, against the
trustees and other persons having the management of the
charities, praying a declaration that ministers or preachers
11 of unitarian belfieftheir congregations, and doctrine, and thoreir wipersons
dows
and members o
of unitarian belief and doctrine, were not fit ob-
jects of Lady Hewley's charity, and that it might
be declared that such dissenters alone as were corn-
, monly called orthodox dissenters, end as would have heen
within the protection of the Act of Toleration of the Ist Wm.
& Mary, c. IS, at the time of the foundation of the charity,
and would not have been subject to the penalties of the 9th
and 10th of Wm. 111., c. 32, against blasphemy, could
Le considered as coming within the intent and meaning of
Lady liewley, end as intended to participate in the benefit I
of her charities, and that the defendant', the then trustees I
and managers of the charities, or such of them u the court
should think tit, might be removed, and that other trustees
and managers might he appointed in their place. The c.iuse
was heard before the Vice-Chancellor, in December, 1833,
when his Honour declared that miuisters or preachers of
unitarian belief and doctrine, and their widows and members
of their congregations, were not fit objects of the charity, and
it was ordered that the defendants should be removed from
being unite( a, and that the muter should appoint proper per-
sons in their place, and approve of • sehe me for the future appli
cation of the charity funds, having regard to the above declara-
tion. This deci-ion was appealed from, and on the sth of Feb.,
1836, Lord Lyndhurst, assisted by Mr. Justice rectum anal
Mr. Baron Alderson, affirmed the above decree. Two peti-
tions wereafterwards presented by persons not parties to the
cause, to Lc at liberty to go in before them asorthod ter tooropose
trustees, one on behalf of the whole body of pres-
byterian congregations of the north-west of England, the
other on behalf of the united presbyterians of Lancashire,
Carlisle, and Newcastle. The Lord Chancellor allowed the
petitions, and his decision w: a confirmed by the House of
Lord., after their lordships had taken the opinion of seven
judges of the court* of common law. In December, 1837,
the master made his report in pursuance of the decree, and
thereby certified that he approved of seven gentlemen,
named in the report. as trustees of the charity estates, and
seven others as sub-trustees or managers of the said estates.
All these gentlemen were resident in England ; four of thus
were members of a Presbyterian congregation in connexion
with the established church of Scotland ; four others werem
mbers of a presbyterian congregation in connexion with the
secession church of Scotland, and the rest were independents.
The master's report was subsequently confirmed by the Vice-
Chancellor, in May, 1813, reported in 11 Simone, 592.
and the
The
cast now came on upon supplemental information)
trustees appointed by the master were made parties. The
declaration asked wee, that the charity was founded only
for the benefit of English orthodox dissenters, who were of
three classes—independents, baptists, and English preeby-
Wiens not in connexion with the church of Scotland, and
that no members of the Scotch church or the
_Secession
church were entitled to participate in the charity. A great
quantity of evidence was produced on behalf of the relators,
by which it appeared there; were in England 4,218 congre-
gations of orthodox dissenters, not including the Scotch pres-
byterians. The independents had 2,480 chapels and 12 col-
leges and other remit arms for the education of preachers.
The baptists had 1,733 chapels. The English presbymoat terians
were but few in number, and it was. supposed that of
the persons of that sect hadl joined the independents. On
the other hand, the number of Scotch preabyterians
was
much smaller ; the Scotch kirk had (iS chapels, eight whichfhad no minister, leaving only 47. The Secession church had
62 chapels, and 13 of those had no minister, so that 49 only
could be counted, and neither theLkirk or secession church
had any collage. Among the ministers of the Scotch presby-
terien church now doing duty in England 31 were licensed
in Scotland, and in the secession church 48 out of the 49 were
licensed in Scotland.
Mr. Bothell, Mr. Stuart, Mr. Holt, and Mr. Chandler
appeared fur the relators, and contended that none but ortho-
dox dissenters could benefit by the charity of Lady Howley,
who was beret an orthodox English diss enter; the inde-
pendents, baptists, and English presbyterians were t only
sects coming under this denomination. The English pres-
byterians differed entirely from those of Scotland, and very
few now remained. It had already been decided that the
established church of England could not take—why, there-
fore should the church of Scotland ? Why should preach-
ers 'be benefited by this charity who actually belonged to a
beneficed established church, and had come over to England
at the instigation of various seets of their countrymen /
In this country they appeared to have taken the
name of orthodox English diasenters that they might
claim a portion of Lady liewley's gift. Beth divisions
of the Scotch church had claimed to participate,
but each division claimed for themselves the exclusive right ;
surely there could be no reason whatever why Lady Hewley
should have intended to benefit the free kirk more than the

-----------------
emission kirk ? ch
If the Scot church were included, t
in any
foreigners from any part of the writ Id might as well pu
, their claim. Thee were French nonnformists in Enid and
at the times r Lady llewley died, butt he Scotch isecemion
church was not then in existence. The Danes and the
l)utch and all other dissenters were just as much entitled to
claim as the Scotch presbyterians. It seemed to be atknow-
ledaed that, as Lrdy Hawley wee an English lady, that only
those persons having an English domicile would be
eel entiScottled:
but many of those claiming were preachers licens in -
land, and had come here to be ministers to Teflon' congrega-
tion', and might be sent back at a moment's
theirchearer'.
when-
ever they happened to be displeasing to
In Scotland these very persons gloried in their own church ;
but, the moment they crossed the border, they were willing,
fur the sake of participating in the funds of Lady Ifewley's
charity, to term themselves English nonconformists. It
must be evident to all that the intention of the foueder of
this charity was to benefit those poor persons wilcoe con-
scientious scruples deprived them of the endowments belong-
ing to the English church. In Scotland the endowments of
the episcopal church had been taken from it, and had been
given to the presbyterian church, therefore the pi retina now
claiming belonged as much to an endowed church as those
of the established church of England. The Scotch presbyte-
rians el timed an geosiaphiesl dissenters and would of course
lose their pretended claim as soon as they might think lit to
return to their own country.
Mr. Swanston, Mr. J. I'arker, Mr. Wine, Mr. Lloyd,
I and Mr. Boughton, for the defendants, contended that the
question hail been already concluded by the decisions of the
court under which the trustees had been op" inted.
In 1536 the cue was argued before the LA Chan-
cellor, and the petitioners, who were Scotch prasembyteand the
riene in
1 England were allowed to go in before the mter,
master had appointed a certain number of that persuasi
court
on to
be trustees;t.the question was again aued before the
and the report was confirmed. It bad therefore been, in
fact, decided that the defendants were entitled to part. ipate
in the charity ; but supposing the question was still open, it
was submitted first that the ministers of orthodox presby-
terian coneregations in England were not excluded from the
hens& of the charity by the fact of their being natives of
Scotland who had been licensed, or licensed and ordained in
Scotland, as members of the established preshyterian church.
And it was submitted in the 14 COMI place, that orthodox
presbyterians were the sole objects of the charity, meaning
those who conformed to the Westminster Confession. Beton
the time of Lady Bewley there were two distinct bodies, the
preshyterians and independent.; the preshyterians were
afterwards merged in the Scotch presbyterians, and
as Lady Hawley was herself u presbyterian, they
were the only persons now entitled. A great
number of writings by Mr.ons of various religious
tenets were cited to show the distinction between prerthyte-
nails and independents; that the English preehyterians had
nr TO' joined the independents, hut that a unit•ron
ianshad been
effected between them anti the Scotch preshy, wh
entertained the come opinions as Lady Bewley; that at •s-
-lions times this union had been shown clearly to e xist, and
that Engli.h presbyterian ministers had officiated in the
chapels of Scotch presbyterians, and ministers of the latter
denomination hail taken the pMce of 11,riglish preshy
preachers. The hearing ol the case hail not yet beenterian con-
cluded. -_

COURT OFulars QUEEN'S BENCH.
tit In Itunea.
Itnotwa T. PARIIAM.—Cut'TT COP MTS. ARE !WA-
RATE I ULNAE TU HE APPOINTED )OR EACH DIKTRICT ?
—I ?IVOR CANT CANE.—This was • rule obtained in Michael-
mas term last by Sir I', Kelly. at the instance of Mr. Robert
Hellen (who bad been the asseoor of • small deb:s' court
at Kidderminster before the parsing of the County Courts
Act), calling on Mr. Benjamin Parham to chow cause why
an information in the nature of • quo 'Ferrante should not
be filed against him, to show by what authority he held the
office of judge of the county courts of Worcester and Here-
ford, it Deing contended that the act 9 a
ould nd 10 Vic,
cap. 95, intended that separate judges sh be ap-
nted for each district into which counties might be divided,
whereas the defendant had been appointed judge of twelve
districts in the county of Worcester and two in the county
of Bereford.—The Attorney.lleneral now showed cause
against the rule.—The Coult alter • short discussion de-
termined, in order to have so important a question dent!e d
promptly, and with the authority of a court of error, that
the rule should be made absolute, both pties agreeing to
facilitate the progress ol the case to the superior court.—
Rule absolute accordingly"
IttOINA P. 131.11.111 TM AN AN D 0711 ERA. —T II P. NOR LAW.
—CAUTION to Ovaasreata.— In this case Mr. Pashley f
the
had
°Maine 1 a rule calling on Mr. Brightman, • guardian o
Sheppey union, in the isle of Thanet, the master of the
workhouse, and the relieving officir, to show cause why a
criminal information should not he Will aeainst them to
having induced two paupers to leave the parish of Sheppey,
and go, one to Chatham, and the other to Stonehouse, with-
out any regular order of removal being made. It
appeared that half a crown bad been given to Lucy
Ingram, a pauper of weak intellect, to go from the Sheppey
workhouse to Chatham, where she bad before resided, atter
• vain attempt bad been made to induce the guardians of the
Medway union to take her under their charge • and also,
that the sum of 15s. had been given to Jane Nightingale to
find her way to Stonehuuse, it being stated to her that she
would find • (nip in London for Plymouth. She com-
plained of the amount being too small, and wart obliged to
beg her way there, having been on the road for nearly six
k
wees.—Sir F. Thcer now showed cause a rule,
and contended that the proceeding ought togainst herethe been by
indictment, and that as th
ee alleged offences had takfollenow place
in May, 1547. and o stp was taken until take n°
Michaelmas term, the court would not interfere. It was
also contended that the Medway union had nothing to do
with the case of the pauper who had beeline chargeable to
the parish of Stonehuuse ; that Mr. Brightman, the guar-
dian, was not present when the half-crown was given to
Lucy Ingram; that the other two defendants were not in a
position to bear the expenses of bring proceeded against by
criminal information • and moreover, that they had acted
under the direction of the board of guardians.—Mr. Bonn
followed on the same aide.—Mr. Pashley then, in support
of the rule, contended that all the facts upon which it had
been obtained were (oily made nut. I The Court having con-
sulted for a short time, Lord Denman said that this was a
case of painful interest. the class of perss
were charged
with
hto
the offence had very great power, and they too as
use it with very little attention to the interests or comfort of
the unfortunate beings under their care. To assiat a pauper
with money to go to his proper settlement might be very
desirable ; but to give paupers money in order to cast
them upon the world, and set them 'that with a new
inquiry as to their settlement, was exactly the evil
which the act of parliament was intended to re-
medy. It was right that overseers should understandsl., thto
at
if they committed such an offence the penalty of
which they were liable, was to come out of their own
pockets, and was not to be allowed out of the rates. He
thought, moreover, that if a proper cue were made out,
they might be subjected to • criminal information, and he
also nmeidered there were reasons why. that would be the
hest remedy. The rule had been obtained by a true ex-
planation of the facts, but some statements had now been
made which took part of the sting out; it was nevertheles
that s a e
prima facie case or improper conduct. It appeared th
woman who had been sent to Stonehouse hail made applica-
tion to be removed there ; and taking that fact in connexion
with the explanation of some expressions which had created
suspicion in the mind of the court ; there tieing, moreover,
some doubt as to any legal offence having been in this case
committed, it not being clear how an indictment could he
framed, the rule must be discharged, but, under the circum-
stances, without coats.

BAIL COURT.
Sating* In nano.
Coi'NTY COritia —MA niqi‘tutt.—fdr. Dissent moved for a
rule to show came why a mandamus should not issue, di-
rected to 2''.J. Eagle, Esq., judge of the Suffolk county
court, commanding him to sign the final order of d
that the
an insolv-
ent, whose name wan not mentioned. It appeare
insolvent in question had duly nresented his petition,
obtained his interim order, and pia‘ed the first hearing.
On behalf of the creditors, a solicitor of the name of Church-
yard stated that he did not intend to oppose the insolvent,
but merely wished that some arrangement should be male
eln
after the final order, an
the purpose of paying them.
the present case the insolvent was an officer in the navy on
half pay with a large family, one of his eons having lately
lost a lee, and two other of his children being blind. When
he came up for his final order the judge refused to sign it
unless the insolvent would agree (as we untie rstood the
learned counsel) to set aside, out of nn income of 1091. per
annum, 481. fur the benefit of his creditors. This proposition
WO rejected, on the ground that if it were complied with
it would have the effect of bringing the insolvent again
before the court. Cron this refusal on the part of the in-
solvent the judge declined to sign his final order. The
learned counsel now argued that, by the terms of the 6th
and oth of Victoria, the judge had ne discretion in the
matter, but that it was compulsory on him to sign the order.
The 4th section of the sth and oth Victoria provided that,
after the insolvent had gone through the preliminary inves-
tigations, he should have a day named for his final order,
unless he bad been guilty of some misconduct. The judge
had fired the 21st of March, 1848, fur granting the order,
and on that day Mr. Churchyard did not offer any opposi-
tion, but wished half of the insolvent's income tote b set aside
for his creditors, upon which the judge camedeter-
mination now complained of, 11) the llth of Geo. IV.
c. 20, a. 47, it was enacted that all contrac
nullts
and entvoid. ered
The
into
with naval people on half-pay should be
proposition on the part of the judge be submitted was in
contravention of the terms of the act of parliament —Mr.
Justice Coleridge : Was the order tondered to the judge to
sign I—Mr. Dissent replied in the affirmative.—llis lordship
said he would consider the matter.
GHEVILLit r. STULTZ.—This was a case lately tried in this
court to set aside a wilt of outlawry, in which the plaintiff
was the lion. Mr. Greville and the defendant the well-
known tailor.— Mr. Beavan now moved, in accordance
with the verdict, to set aside the writ` f outlawry whic
trial of
the cause it appeared th.,t at the time of issuing the writ Mr.
Greville was not in hogland—that being the only question
for the jury.—The court granted the application.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings la Banco.
GOODLAKS V. KINO.—ACKNOWLEDOMENT or DRET TO
TAKE IT OUT OF THE STATUTE or
LIMITATIONB.—ea This was
an action on • promissory note for 251. The pl was
Statute of Limitations. The verdict was for the plaintiff.
A rule had been obtained to set aside the verdict and enter it
for the defendant.—Mr. Petersdortf now showed cause
aga;nst the rale, and contended that the following letter was
• sufficient acknowledgment of the debt, to take it out of the
statute :
In reply to your note, just received, it grieves me to my that my
preieut paiition precludes my complying with your reasonable re-
quest. nes fact is that my circumstances are so straitened that I fear
11 my a•diton press me, I shall be obliged to have recourse to the

insolvent Court. This act, however, should not prejudice your claim,
and I hope the time Is sot tar distant when it will he in my power to
return every penny I owe you.
The Court, however, without bearing Mr. Serjeant Tal-
oned and Mr. Parry in support of the rule, was of opinion
that, although this letter held out hopes, it anything but
pointed to a promise to pay presentlyKule absolute.
HOPWOOD V. THORN.—LINCL.—This cue came before
the court on a rule for a new trial. It was an action for
libel and slander, brought by one dissenting minister against
another. It appeared that the plaintiff hail been formerly
in business at Southampton, but having retired from it bad
qualified himself for the ministry of the independent per-
BUSSiOn, and became minister at a place called Meacham.
Thera he had a difference with a Mrs. Barfield, one of his
congregation, who spread reports against him of which he
complained, %paid demanded an Investigation, in the course
of which the defendant became the champion of Mrs. Bar
field. A
unt,esPoen ensued between the deendant and
a Mr. Rnt which contained matter alleged to( be libellous
nn
th tho plain tiff, but h Chief Justice at the trial thought
se
were privilegetde communicatione, and the verdict
pseud for the defendant on that IMO. An investigation
was agreed to, but went off on account of the parties not
being able to agree as to the terms on which it was to bo
held. A meeting of ministers did, however, take place on
the subject at the instigation of the defendant and Mrs.
Barfield, at which resolution's were passed. The defendant
came to Thatcham to attend this meeting, end took that
opportunity of endeavouring to induce the congregation not
to attend the plaintiff's ministry, stating that
th he was " a
rogue,
_and that he could prove him one, and at he had
cheated his brother-in-law, with whom he was in lousiness,
of 2,0;101." There were also alleged libels contained in letters
written to a Mr. Annesley. A verdict passed far the plaintiff
damages, Ilia for the elands r, and 1001 for the labels. A
rule was obtained to show cause why that verdict should not
he act aside, or why there should nut be a new trial, or why
judgment should not be arrested.—Mr. Cockburn, Mr.
James, and ?dr. Lush keno(w, d cause, and contended,
firstly, that the woro's sp the plaintill were not epoken
of him as a minister, but hail such reference to his capacity
in tha office as necessarily to affect hie character in the office,
and imputed to him a present want of woefulness by reason
of his former conauct ; secondly, that the letters which con-
tained the alleged libels were not privilege d
commuuica-
done ; they differed from those written by the defendant to
Bunt, inasmuch as those letters referred to the terms of the
investigation ; but those to Mr. Anneoley were written after
that investigation had coucluded,when the dele tut ant took that
opportunity of wiling the libel% complained of.—Mr. Serjt.
lalfourd and Mr. Atherton were heard in support of the rule,
and contended that on the atehoritiee it was clear that slan-
derous words must be so spoken us to impute misconduct to
a person in the character in which they are alleged to injure
ham.—The case was only part heard when the court ad-
journed.

J DOES' CIEAMBEItS.
Tex Qt.F.RN WII.LIV44.—ATTE \II.T TO DRPRAT THE
END'S OT Just ter --Th a was an application to Mr. Justice
Fade to admit to bail lli my Williams, who is at present in
Neweate, and who stands committed to take his trial at the
he
Central Criminal Court fore plate robbery.—A person
had represented himself as attending on the part of the pro-
mention said it was not his intention to offer any oppinition
to the application for hail, and if his lordship saw no utijeo
•
tins to the prisoner bring liberated on the bail woo were
about to offer themselves he had none.—Mr. Justice Erle
requested tho production of the original depositions, and
they were read by the (dark of the Lambeth Politx-court,
who W2A present. It appeared from part of the evidence
that Williams, during his flight immediately after the rob-
bery, drew his knife from his pocket, deliberately opened it,
and with a desperate oath, threatened to bury it in the abdo-
men of a gentleman's gardener who had attempted to stop him.
On hearing the depositions the judge said there wasquite
sufficient on the Gee of th m to justify the refusal of admit-
ting the prisoner to bail, and he should, therefore, refuse the
application.—The magistrate's clerk remarked that it was
somewhat singular that nu application had been made to the
court fur a copy or • view of the depositions in the
case by any pi rams on behalf of ,lrs. Stevenson, as those
would enable them to form a correct opinion whether the
raw we. one in which hail could lie properly accepted.—Mr.
Justice Erie rem irked that a short time ago an attempt had
been mostimpeoperly made by certain parties to obtain the
liberation of u notoriously bad character, who had since been
transported, and on that occasion tiny would have most
likelt been successful but for the very proper information of
the governor of Newgate prison. Finding that they were
disappointed in their efforts to get the person out on bail,
the parties, on his return to prison, made an attempt to
rescue him. Since that circumstance he Mr. Justice Erle)
was very particular in admitting persons to( bail, particularly
when the sessions were so near at hand, and when sea saw
certain persons mixed up with the a,iplication.—The mgis-
trate', clerk mentioned that the same parties mixed up with
the ease alluded to by his lordship were also concerned in
this.—The parties here alluded to, as well as the person who
bad represented himself as appearing for the prosecution
made an immediate exit. It was afterwards ascertained that
Mrs. Stevenson had not given instructions to any person to
-ar before the judges on behalf of the prosecution.
-

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Bakke Mr. omemiseloner Xmas.
Ctl AROE or RECKLK.OI 'rosins°, &c.— J. Verdi, wool-
len warehouseman, of Cheapside, applied for his certificate.—
The application was supported by Mr. Lawrence.—Mr.
Linklater, fir one of the assignees (Mr. Goad), said
he nth he did
not offer any direct opposition to the cercate, as ter
assignee, Mr. Nerris (of the firm of Norris, Sykes, and
Fisher), had iostructeel his friend Mr. Asharst to do so. lie
would merely call the attention of the court to the fact that
though the profits on the bankrupt's trade only amounted
to 159/., his trade expenses exceeded 1,500/.' and his per.
eons' expenses were nearly 900/. lie had also dealt
largely in accommodation bills, having drawn on ten persons
purely for his own accommodation. The amount of such
hills outstanding at the date of the fiat was 3A51.
lie had clearly been insolvent two years before his bank-
ruptcy, and had sought to relieve himself by large his
mama of goods to particular creditors. In addition to his
own bill transactions, he had become security for other par-
ties, who had since failed, and these claims now fell on the
c.tate. Another feature in the case was that the bankrupt,
on the Ist of October, had transferred his furniture to his
father.holaw, as security for a debt of 3501.—Mr. Adult's%
said he opposed the certificate on the ground of reckless trad-
ing, extravagance in living, administration of his own estate,
and unjust preference to his father. The balance skeet only
comprised 11 months trading, from lit January to 30th No
vember, 1847 ; it COMM. need with a capital of 6441., but it ap-
peared from his books that he was possessed of 1,400/. more,
which he alleged was a deb; due to his father, to whom he
had assigned his furniture as security on the 30th Septem-
ber. Ile had 14,0001. worth ot stock on the lst of
January, and had bought 50,0001. worth more; while
his profits were put down at 1591., and he had only given up
to the assignees about 2,0001. worth of stock. Be explained
his small amount of profit by alleging heavy losses on his
fancy stock; hut this only applied to the old stock with
which he had commenced, and not at all to the 50,000/.
worth of goods, some of which had been purchased so lately
as September. In addition to his expenses of 2,4341., there
was an item ot 1,6611. for interest, discouuts, allowance on
money b irrowed, and allowances to customer for cash paj"
ments—together 4,0951. Ile had kept a country house ann
a horse, and had lived in a most reckless way. In September
he had ceased to buy, and then sold all he could, thus making
preparations for the fiat; and all that was given up to the
assignee, were some bad remnants that could scarce.y be sold
at any price.—Mr. Lawrence admitted that the case was not one
where the certificate could he granted forthwith, but thought
the blame attributable rather to the present system of credit
than to any dishonest intention on the part of the bankrupt.
The best evidence of this was the excel:. nt manner in which
the books had been kept. The sum owing to creditors fur goohile
ds
was 8,111 V.; to creditors holding security, 9,6521.; w
there was en amount of liabilities of 18,711 ~which appeared
on both aides the balance sheet. No imputation could be
founded on the fact of the bankrupt having bought more
largely at one period of the year, and sold more largely at
another; fur every one knew that the course of trade re-
quired this.—The Commissioner said this was a case in
which the bankrupt's conduct had been most extraordinary;
his trading had been reckless, and his expenses most cite,
Tenant. lie had also, when he knew he was insolvent,
allowed creditors to help themselves by taking his goods,
and thus injuring the estate. This was what was celled
administering his own estate ; and if the public had a due
regard fur their own interests, they would discourage all
private arrangements with creditors. The amount of 1,60(.1.
for discounts and other matters was most exorbitant, and
must excite the strong condemnation ot the cre
eir ditorsos . The
assignees had been perfectly justified in e
tc oppition.
Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought it bis
duty to suspend the certificate far two years. Protection to
be granted tar a month, renewable conditionally.
the

POLICE.—YFATERDAT.
CLERKENWELL. Juvareite DELINQUENCY. H. 1
and J. Smith, brothers, the former 14 and the latter 9 years
of age, were charged by Mr. W. Nichols, residing in March-
inete Druwc, with having been concerned
a robbery. The prosecutor was in the habit of going to
church with hit family every Sunday evening, and on
nanTraollrecetdrnghethebiruatetbnceat andhihousesni onc
money
had been
abstractede entered
the desk in the counting.house, which was at the back
part ef the premises. lie did not know whom to
suspect until last Sunday evening, when he resolved to
send his family to church and remain at home himself,
when he concealed himself in the rooting-house, with a
view to discover the thieves. lie had not been there long
before be saw the prisoners on the tiles of an outhouse,
when the elder prisoner, with the assistance of a ladder which
was is the yard, got np to the counting-house window,
which he opened and looked inside. lie returned and
brought the younger prisoner, who got up the ladder, when
he was as.isted through the window into the
I ceunting-houtie, on which he proceeded to the desk,
, from which ho took a quantity. of silver and copper
i money. Witness immediately seized and detained him
until the arrival of a policeman, when he gave both
prisoners into custody. lie recognised them as the
sons of a highly-respectable gentleman residing in the
neighbourhood. —Mr. Sidney, of listen-garden, who at.
tended for the prisoners, said they were the sons of a highly-
respectable gentleman, and they had no cause whatever to
resort to such a disgraceful mode of obtaining money. Their
father was in court, affected to tears—The younger pri-
soner said that he was prompted to the offence by his bro-
ther, which the latter did not denygainsMt r. Nichols said
pr he
ht he on
did not fish to press the charge a theyounger i-
soner, as be thong was led by his brother. They
were both very young, and be considered that some sum-
rimy punishment ought to be inflicted upon the elder
prisoner.— Mr. Tyrwlaitt said that he had only one course
to adopt ; that was, to commit the prisoners for
trial, unless he (Mr. Nichols) prmed for their discharge.—