The Express.
London, England, 1854-01-14 00:00:00

jury.
Ht. Ludehip overruled the objection, but took a note

_
_
of it.
Mr. Watson then addressed the jury at considerable
length for the defendant, contendicg that he had had no
transactions with the plaintiff, but with Sir Arthur Rum-
bold, who had promised to pay his I 0 U the following day
after he obtained the cheque for 75/., and on his failing to
do so the payment had been stopped.
Julius CaHeber, the defendan-, was then examined, as
follosse—l advanced to Sir AttilUT Rumbold the sum of
2501. on a bii: of exchange, and received from him as col-
lateral security an opal brooch, surrounded with about 30
diamonds. This was on the Ist of August last year. On
the 30th of thst month Sir Arthur Rumbold. accompanied
by the plaintiff, came and paid me the 2501., and I de-
livered up the brooch on receiving the following receipt:
" Received the within-named brooch, the 30th of August,
18.53. The bill fur 2501. to be returned.—Arthur Rum-
bold." The plaintiff was present when this paper was
written. and it was read over in his presence prior to its
Whig signed. The bill mentioned in the receipt was that
which I had discounted for Sir Arthur Rumbold, and the
reason that I did not return it en this occasion was that I
had myself been obliged to get it discounted on my own ea
count. During this interview something was said about an
opportunity Sir Arthur had of disposing of the brooch to a
lady, and be asked me if I should be inclined to take bask
the brooch in the event of its not being disposed of and to
advance the same sum on it. My reply was, that no doubt
I would do so. The money was Raven to me at this meet-
ing by Sir Arthur. He placed it in my hands and I gave
the brooch to him. The plaintiff asked me what I con-
sidered the value of the brooch, anti I replied it might
be worth 1501., 2001., 2601., or 3001., if sold by
the hammer, but that I could not exactly say.
I had no further conversation with the plaintiff on the
subject at this time. Ile did not ask me if I would ad-
vance 250/. on the brooch, at some future time. Nothing
'of that sort was said on the occasion. Lsdy Alice Peel
was the lady, who, as Sir Arthur expected, would buy the
brooch. On the Ist of Sept. Sir Arthur again came to me
in Norfolk-street, and he was then accompanied by a
person named bomer, whom I had not previously seen.
Sir Arthur offered to deposit the brooch with me, Lad
wanted me to lend 2001. again, taking the brooch, as
before, as additional security. I declined to do this, hut
said I had no objection to lend 2251. Sir Arthur agreed to
this, and I thereupon gave him 1501. in cash and a cheque
foe 751. Sir Arthur then signed this paper in the presence
of Romer. It bears date September lot, 1803. " Sir I
hand you a brooch as a security for a sum of 2401. for money
advanced to me, and unless redeemed within one month I
authorise you to sell the same to the best advantage, end to
repay yourself. Arthur Rumbold." I charged 151. for
discount. At that time I was the holder of an IOU of
Sir Arthur's for 301. I said that 1 must deduct that amount.
but Sir Arther requested me not to do so, for he would
eall the following day and pay that sum. I gave a paper to
Sir Arther, dated Sept. let, 1853 to this effect. ' I hold
an opal brooch, surrounded with thirty diamonds, as colla-
teral security for the sum of '2401., and unless redeemed
within one month from this date. I am at liberty to sell
the same by auction, or by private contract, and to
camyself, and if the sale does not produce sufficient
to cover my debt, then I am liberty to sue the
' acceptor of the bill tor the difference. lithe money is paid
thenm return
hthlevebroonevcehr.'b'
eeTnhpe l
tid? UNfeowrittahei
.30. d/.
Barr codthene
qt.ain whom I drew the cheque, are jewellers in Bit-
Baron Platt—The drawer of that document is liable
W a penalty of 1001. under the last stamp act hut one, sad I
NM only express my hope that proceedings will be taken,
sad the penalty recovered ; and, Mr. James, if you want
the particular section under which to pra:eed, I will tell
you that it is the 13th.
Mr. James was much obliged to his lordship, and could
stats the matter would not be overlooked.
Crosseezamined—l am a money lender. I gave 160/. in
sash, and a cheque for 751. on the lit of September. Not
one farthing of that 751. has beea paid. I had not as much
as 7.51. in the hands of Newstal and Barrett when I drew the
cheque. They are merchants and jewellers in Birmingham.
In truth, I had not any money in their bands at the time.
They would have paid the cheque if I bad not written to
them not to do so. I wrote to them the day after I gave
the cheque to stop the payment, because Sir Arthur had
not performed his promise to pay his I 0 U. The
charge of 151. was for interest on the 1601. cash,
paid, end for the 751. cheque. When the last trans-
action took place, I charged 10 per cent. as discount. The
plaintiff was not the parson who banded me the money,
but I received it from Sir Arthur. Romer called on ma
two or three times for the money for the cheque. I offend
' him 461. and Sir Arthur's I 0 U, because he said he had
called upon that gentleman. The brooch is not in my pee-
' session, bat in that of Newstal and Barrett. 1 parted with
it some few days after the Ist of September, for an advance
of 1601.
Mr. James having replied,
Mr. Baron Platt summed up the evidence, and
The Jury, after a consultation of a few minutes duration,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 7.51. ; the sum
sought to be recovered.
Mr. Hawkins observed the interest must be deducted.
The Jury—We wish to add that we do not believe what
the defendant has said.
A Mr. Hawkins—What is that?
ir Mr. Baroa Platt—The jury say that they do not believe
1. what the defendant humid.
iat Mr. James—My learnedfriend was asking for interest, sad
of he has now go: it. (Laughter.)
by

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—YEstaspay.
1111.011 S ER. 00=1111101(Z1 (Kamm
I RE otasecocx.

The bankrupt was a baker,of New North-road, and other
places. This was the certificate meeting.
Mr. Pennell, the official assignee, reported that the bat-
aoce•eheet commenced on Ist of Much, 1654
deficiency of 497/. He
5961.; liabilities, 391/.
counts were not in any •
were still owing, and fresh
been contracted, of which
Amongst the new creditonfiv,
Jest previous to his petition,
through the Insolvent Court; r-
eome into possession of the
to form an opinion u to v
ran or riot.

-Mr. Mois opposed for
let a shop and fiztutes
pound of complaint was
Auden himself of property,
Mr. Liakistsr, for the

m the Ist of March, 165• i, with a
now owed to unsecured creditors
There were no Resets, and the &a-
way vouched. All the 1d debts
ah ones to the amount EWA.'
h 1931. were without ottnlrdiziati
on five loan sonnies are
petition, the bankrupt Md
:ourt; and aindbookrerpsisetwiti
the official assdpue, ba
whether the balance-SbefE,Wellse-
r Mr. Wright, a ereigher, isiyobli
s to the bankrwist.
is that the baol4upt ketwirAvais-
rty, by assigniatibto=
the bankrupt, rahm lith•