The Express.
London, England, 1867-01-18 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 18, 1867.

THE PAUL 04S EXPLOSION IN CLERSEN•

WILL.

Yesterday, Dr. Lankester resumed the inquiry
into the circumstances attending tne deaths of Pietro
Health, Guiseppa Villa, and William Cole, who lost their
lives by the gas explosion which took place in Summers.
street, Leather-lane, on the 22nd ult.
Mr. Humphreys (Humphreys and Morgan) 'gaits ap.
pesred for the Chartered (as Company ; Mr. Compton
Smith for the owner of the houses in which the explosion
occurred ; Mr. Hawkins, Chancery-lane, for Loaigi Harini,
the uncle of the deceased, Pietro ; and Mr. Merri-
man (Merriman and Buckland) for the friends of the de-
ceased Cole.

At the sitting of the court this morning,
Mr. Smith informed the coroner that one of the jury
represented a second person, who was absent.
The Coroner said that a juror in that position could not
serve, and he should therefore request the gentleman re-
ferred to to retire,

The juror accordingly withdrew.
The Coroner said that the man Scartassa, who was
seriously injured by the explosion, was lying out of his
district, and therefore he could not take his evidence.
He might saT that the purport of Scartassali evidence was
that he was in the house No. 4 at the time of the explo-
sion. and that the gas was not then lighted, but that there
was a fire in the house. If the jury considered that they
could not come to a verdict without the evidence of Bear-
taws be would adjourn, and procure his testimony legally.
The jury considered it was better to proceed with the
he.iring of the other evidence.
Mr Humphreys stated that the meter had been found,
a fact which gave the Chartered Gas Company much satis-
faction, inasmuch as it had been suggested that they bad
mule away with it.
...

Frederick William Porter, district surveyor for Holborn
and East Strand, was examined. He said his attention
bail not been drawn to the house in Summers•street before
the explosion took place. He had seen the ruins, and he
was of opinion that the houses were not in an unsafe eon-
dition before the explosion. The houses in Summers-
street were about 80 or 90 years old.
Mr. Humphreys produced pieces of mortar,which he said
bad heen taken from the ruins of the houses, and asked
the witness if be considered they were good and sound
material.

The witness replied that the mortar was not of the best
description, but it was fair materiaL
In answer to another question lie said if he had not
beard of the explosion be would have entertained the
tame opinion as he did now, namely, that some explosive
force had thrown down the houses.

In reply to Mr. Merriman he said inferior mortar dege-
nerated sith age, but the best mortar hardened with age.
What he called the best mortar was scarce in London,
especially in districts like that in which the explosion
took place.
. . .

In peply to the Coroner, he said the best mortar was
such as that used in former times by the Romans and
Suptuns.
Robert French, of 5, Summers-court, Leather-lane,
deposed to having heard the explosion, and to having seen
No. 4. Sumtners-oourt, falling. The noise he heard re-
sembled a clap of thunder.
In answer to Mr. Merrinutn, he said be was perfectly
certain he heard the explosion before he saw the house
falling.
Mrs. Ellen Mahony Mackay, residing at No. 1, Sum.
mers.street,stated she heard the explosion, and witnessed
the falling of the house No. 4 about four or five minutes
afterwards.

Mr. Humphreys said he had the names of four or five
persons who saw the houses fall before the explosion.
A Juror—Oh, nonsense. (Laughter.)
John Blabony, of lg, Wilmott-street, Tottenham-court.
road. was then examined. He said he was in Ray-street,
Beek-lull, about 6 o'clock on the 22nd of December. He
bawd a dull sound as of some place falling in. He went
to Summers-street, from whence he saw persons running,
and found the deceased Cole lying amongst the ruins in
the street. The fire took plasm afterwards.
In reply to Mr. Hawkins, he saidthe Chartered Gas Com-
pany did not pay him for his evidence.
William Jennings, of 4, James-street, Holloway, said he
was iu Crawford-passage about ten minutes to lion the day
of the explosion. He heard a dull sound, and, on going
to ascertain the cause of it, found two houses in Summers-
street had fallen. One man who was there at the time
had a lighted candle, which was blown out by the wind.
Witness said he would go and see if he could get any
torches, but on leaving the ruins he heard a groan, and
saw a man partly buried in the ruins opposite the houses.
He raised him up, and with assistance took him to a
doctor. He was certain that when he reached the ruins
there was no fire.

John Bartlett, residing in Royal-cottage, Upper-marsh,
said that at the time of the accident he heard a dull sound,
as of something falling. He went to Summersotreet and
saw the ruins of the houses. There was no lire.

Francis Curry, of 25, Little roultney-street, said be saw
the ruins of the houses, but did not see the fire until Ulf
an hour afterwards.

In answer to Mr. Hawkins, he said he was in company
with the three previous witnesses when he heard the noise.
Mary Ann Trevor, of No. 11, Gunmen-street, deposed
that about ten minutes to six o'clock on the day of the
explosion she saw a blue flame, which lighted up the en-
tire street. About five minutes afterwards she heard the
explosion, and immediately the house No. 4 fell, and left
the street in darkness. A second explosion occurred
shortly afterwards, and then the house No. 5 fell.
James Tracy, inspector of mains to the Chartered Gas
Company, was examined by Mr. Humphreys. He said he
inspected the main in Summers-street on the morning of
the •Z,lnd of December. He also inspected the pipes, He
left at two o'clock, and at that time the service in con-
nection with the street and the house No. 4 was complete,
and without any flaw or defect. He detected no escape or
smell of gas, nor did he hear, directly or indirectly, any
complaints of an escape of gas.
In reply to Mr. Smith, the witness said it was the duty
of Damsel', the service layer, to inspect the part of the
service which was laid in the house.

Mr. John Johnson, chief inspector and surveyor of
mains to the Chartered Gas Company, was examined b
Mr. Humphreys. He said that shortly after six o'clock
on the 22nd of December he heard of the explosion. He
went to Summers-street, and on inspection of the service
he found a bole, which must have been caused by the fall-
ing of the house.
Mr. Humphreys asked the witness if there had been an
escape of gas from four o'clock, at which time the gas was
supplied, until six o'clock, when the explosion occurred,
could the inhabitants have failed to smell it?
The witness replied that if there had been an escape of
gas during that time, and that a hole such as that which
was in the pipe produced had existed before the explosion,
the houses would have been blown up in half an hour
after the gas was turned off. The pipes were tested at
two o'clock, and charged with gas, and if an escape
existed it would have been detected at that time.
In answer to Mr. Hawkins the witness said that one of
the plugs of the service was missing, a fact which
favoured the suspicion that some of the gas had
been stolen. If after gas been stolen by MAIM
of what is called a surreptitious pipe belonging to
the consumer, the connection with the outlet pipe of the
main was improperly done, as explosion such as that which
took place would be accounted for.
In reply to Mr. Humphreys, be said the absence of the
plug would have attracted Damsell's attention, so that
the plug must have disappeared after he had tested the
service.

Inspector Potter, of the G division, stated that he was
present when the pipes were taken from the rubbish, and
his impression was that the plug in question had been
aocidentally severed while the pipes were being taken from
the debris. The appearance of the pipe showed that the
disconnection had been recent.

The Coroner here announced that all the evidence had
been gone into. He said there were two inferehees to be
drawn from the evidence—one being that the explosion
had caused the falling of the houses, and the other that
the houses were in a defective condition and bad fallen,
and thus caused the explosion. It was, however, evident
that the weight of evidence was in favour of the former
theory. If the jury were of opinion that any official or
officials had been guilty of a neglect of duty resulting in
the explosion, it would be their duty to return a verdict
of manslaughter against any inch person or persons.
The jury then retired, and after an absence of about
half an hour returned with the following verdict :—" We
find that the deaths of Pietro Basini, Giuseppe Villa,
and William Cole were caused by en explosion of gas,
through a fracture in one of the Chartered Gas Companys
service pipes, which we much regret, knowing that the
company was aware that this service had not been renewed
for many years. We are of opinion that the gas company,
knowing this, should have given special instructions to
their servants to thoroughly examine the whole of their
service, including all the pipes as far as the meter."

The Coroner said the verdict amounted to one of "Acci-
dental Death," accompanied by a resolution relating to the
gas company. . _

The Proenedinp then terminated.

THE COLLIERIES EXPLOSION FUND.—MANSION-
HorsE Comierrrez.—Yesterday the following contribu-
tions were received :—From the Market Harborough Elo-
cution Class, 231. 25.; from V., 21/.; collected at Totney,
Grimsby, per the Rev. F. Hemmans,N. 14a.; from Messrs.
/leeching and Co., of Tunbridge Wells, V. lie.; from C.
Hindley, Req., 61. 6a.; Penny Readings at Cheltenham, per
Mr. James Fallon,'.; collected at St. Jude's, Gray's-inn-
road, per the Rev. J. M. Andrews, 3/. 7a. 6d.,• from
Messrs. W. S. Everett and Sons (in stamps), 4/.; collected
at a Workmen's supper at Wimbledon, U. 4a. 6d.; from
Anonymous, Limington, 21. In addition to the above the
sum of 1661.175. 6d. was transmitted to the committee by
Messrs. Barclays, the bankers.
THE WEATHER IN THE EASTERN COUrfIES.—
IPswICH, JAN. 17.—0 n Wednesday evening several inches
of snow fell, and there being a somewhat strong wind it
drifted, in one instance, seven feet deep. The down line
on the East Suffolk branch of the Great Eastern Railway
was at places blocked up. The first down train to-day was
detained some hours at Westlrfield. On the Aldborough
branch the traffic ham been stopped ; and on the Eastern
Union section the company would nut book beyond Dies.
The up lines have remained open. The frost has been
unusually severe for this district.

Aldo fittellignut.

EQUITY COURTS.-JAN. 17.
(Before the Muter of the Bolls.)
HOARE V. WILSON.

Tn this VW, which came on by adjournment from the
2uth Dec.. Sir Roundell Palmer renewed his motion to re.
strain the defendant, Sir Thomas Mauna Wilson, " from
proceeding with the erection of the measuage and buildings
in the bill mentioned, and now in course of erection
thereon ; and from causing or permitting any fences or en-
closures upon the heath and waste lands in the bill men-
tioned."

Mr. Selwyn asked for further time to answer the plain-
tiffs' affidavits, which was granted until the sittings after
term, on the former condition that Sir Thomas should
stop all building and encroachments in the me►ntime.
The Muter of the Rolls asked whether the plaintiffs
contended that Sir Thomas M. Wilson, the present tenant
for life, was specially prohibited from building, or gene-
rally that no lord of the manor of Hampstead could at any
time legally build on the heath.
Sir Roundel] Palmer said that he contended for the
latter proposition, and he was prepared to show that no
lord of the manor had a right to enclose or build on the
heath without the consent of the copyholders.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Melina.)
BE OCEILMD GCRSZT AND CO.—OAKES AND PEKES'S CASES.

The two motions in this case upon which Vice-Chancellor
Kinder"ley appointed a special examiner and which were
adjourned into court by direction of the present Vice-
Chancellor, stood on the paper for to-day.
Upon the first case, that of Mr. Oakes, being called,
The Attorney-General said he appeared for Mr. Oaken,
who sought to have his name removed from the register of
shareholders of this company, and from the list of con-
tributories in the liquidation, and to be protected Iron, all
proceedings for the enforcement of calls in respect of the
shares held by hint. In pursuance of the arrangement
come to when the matter was before the court in November
last, the cross-examination of Mr. John Henry Gurney had
been completed before the special examiner. The question
which the court was called upon to decide was one of the
greatest importance to all the parties concerned—share-
holders who admitted their liability, shareholders who
held that their names ought to be removed from the
register, and the creditors of the company. The
law sanctioned the establishment of joint stock
companies with limited liability as beneficial
to the community, but the greatest care must
be taken to protect the public from the false
representation' of apparently pros roue concerns. The
firm of Overend Gurney, founded some time in the last
century, was well known as a large financial establishment
carrying on the business of bill brokers and bankers, and
as engaged in transactions of vast magnitude. The part-
nership had existed for many years, beds great reputation,
and was supposed to be in a very flourishing condition.
In the year 1565 it was thought desirable that additional
capital should be introduced, and with that view a joint
stock company was formed to purchase the business. The
prospectus was accordingly issued in July, 11§65, and the
capital was fixed at 5,000,0001., in 100,000 shares of 501.
each, of which 151. only was to be called up. The directors
of the new company were Henry Edmund Gurney, J. IL
Gurney, Robert tirkbeck, Mr. Barclay, Mr. Gill, and Mr.
Gordon ; and the partners in the firm of Overend Gurney
and Co. on the 12th of July, when the articles
of association were drawn up, were Samuel Gur-
ney, H. E. Gurney, D. W. Chapman, and Robert
Birkbeok, who carried on business in London ; but as far
as the public were concerned the partnership included
Daniel Gurney, J. H. Gurney, H. Birkbeck, F. A. Gurney,
and W. Gurney, who carried on the business of bankers
in Norwich and elsewhere. Mr. H. L Gurney and
Mr. Robert Birkbeck were appointed managing directors.
The prospectus, which was issued at the same
date as the articles of association, spoke of a
company then formed. The company was regularly
constituted on that day, and the directors properly ap-
pointed. The question was whether Mr. Oakes wasa
member of that company. Those who induced the public
to take shares in a joint-stock company were bound to set
forth the circumstances of the case, and if those represen-
tations turned out to be false (even though the directors
did not at the time know tSein to be false) the contract to
take shares could not be held to be binding. The firm of
Overend, Gurney, and Co. was represented not only as a
flourishing but as a growing concern, the purchase of the
goodwill of which was well worth 500,0001. The prospectus
stated that the memorandum of agreement and articles of
association might be inspected at the offices of the com-
pany, and the inference was that those documents would
convey all the information that was necessary with respect
to the business, and all arrangements between the vendors
and purchasers. On the 27th of July, 1865, a deed was
executed for completing the transfer, the parties being
the partners in the obi firm, the Norwich banking firm,
and the limited company. By this document it
was provided that of the 500,0001. to be paid
for the business, 250,0001. was to be brought
into account as between the vendors and purchasers,
and the remaining moiety was to be provided for by the
issue of 16,666 shares of 501. each, of which 151. a share
was to be treated as paid up. It also guaranteed that the
assets banded over to the new company should be sufficient
to pay all liabilities, and that all debts due to the old firm
and transferred to the new company were good and re-
coverable in full, and the vendors undertook to make good
any deficiency in this respect. The old firm was also em-
powered to continue for the purpose of winding up cer-
tain excepted accounts. The total assets in this case were
something like 15.000,000/., and in selling these assets to
a new company the parties would, of course, exclude such
debts as were ascertained to be bad, and it would stand as
an account between purchaser and vendor to ascertain
what were realisable. The balance of assets over liabilities
would, therefore, stand as a guarantee against loss in
realising assets, and so also would the money paid for the
goodwill remain as matterof account till theassets bad been
realised. It would not be supposed that the lose on such
an amount of assets would be more than a million and a
half, and these two sums would fully cover that amount.
But supposing it was known that at the time of the
transfer the business was hopelessly insolvent, and that
the assets did not amount to more then 11,000,0001., while
the liebilitiea were 14,000,0004, it would not, of
course, do to tell the public that, and the deed pre-
pared for them must he upon the footing of a surplus of
assets over liabilities. That he submitted was the case
with this partnership, and in order to get over this dif-
ficulty an ingenious subtle scheme was resorted to, and a
secret deed was prepared contemporaneously with that
to which the public was to have access, dealing with an
item of between 4,000,0001. or 5,000,0001., which was not
worth 1,000,000/. He did not complain that the old firm
of Overend. Gurney, and Co. kept back anything from the
limited company ; in fact, they well knew all that
Messrs. Overend and Gurney knew ; but his complaint
was that the limited company, including three members
of the firm of Overend and Gurney, did not tell his
client what were the transactions between them and the
vendors, and he held that in consequence of this conceal-
ment Mr. Oakes was not liable as a partner in the
con' nypa.
The Vice-Chancellor—There were three new directors—
Messrs. Gordon, Rennie, and Barclay. I understand your
contention to be that the company,. composed partly of
old members and partly of new, studiously withheld from
the public facts which had come to their knowledge, and
which it was their business to make the public acquainted
with.

The Attorney-General said it was immaterial whether
the new directors were or were not aware of the second deed,
but he submitted that they could scarcely be ignorant of
it. It was quite clear, however, that it was known to three
of the directors of the new company, and that was suffi-
cient for his client. Mr. Howell, in his affidavit showing
the result of his examination of the books, gave as the
statement of assets and liabilities upon which the business
was transferred the following figures :

1806.
7.31. Cash aecuritSes C 5,507,061 3 4
Ditto advances 1,070,573 0 9
Ditto country banks
Ditto O. L
Ditto WM 1,346,135 4 6
Ditto
Ditto suspense and guarantee
Ditto D. 8
Ditto B. D.

L 15,121,641 17 10
1886. -
7.31. Cash loons L 9,006,422 0 7
Ditto country huh
Ditto D. L
Ditto advances
Ditto O. L.
Ditto rebate oo bills
Ditto B. P.
Ditto P. L
Ditto 8. D 2,875,579 10 8

X15M31,041 17 10
This was the ingenious way in which the statement of the
prospectus was supported, but the fact was that the item
of 4,213,890/. was nearly all due from firms who had
stopped payment or hopelessly insolvent traders, and this
was well known to the vendors, and aleo, as he contended,
to the limited company when the transfer took place. Mr.
J. H. Gurney in his affidavit. in which he endeavoured to
explain the matter, admitted that little more than
1,000,000/. of this amount was realisable. But beyond
this there were liabilities to the amount of 8,000,0001.,
which were not included in the statement of liabilities,
and though no doubt this liability was upon bills some of
which would be paid, there would still be a large amount
which would not be paid. The secret deed stated what
the excepted accounts were, that they were in fact the
rotten Recounts constituting this sum of 4,213,000/. Mr.
Gurney himself admitted that of this amount not more
than 1,060,000/. would be realised, whereas there was
nothing in the documents to which the public
had access to show that the items were not worth
the full amount at which they were stated. By the pnblio
deed the vendors guaranteed the new company that, irre-
spective of any value attributed to the goodwill, the assets
should, after deducting all osses and expenses in realising,
be equal in amount to the aggregate sum to be paid by the
new company ; and further, that all debts due and pay-
able to the old firm, and taken over as of the assets,
were good, and recoverable in full. Why, then, were the
public not told that these debts of 4,000,0001. were not
taken over? The reason was to be found in the fact that
the first deed raised no suspicion that the old firm was in-1

solvent at the time of the transfer, while the second,
which was known only to the members of the old firm and
the directors of the limited company, proved that the con-
cern, so far from being in a flourishing condition, had not
made any profit for years, and was actually in a state of
collapse.
The Vice-Chancellor understood that it was not in con-
troversy that the item of 4,000,0001. was well known not
to be worth more than about 1,000,000/.
'Mr. Roxburgh, who represented the liquidators, said
there was no dispute as regarded the figures.
The Attorney-General said that items had been carried
to profit which ought not to have been so dealt with, and
the question was, whether innocent persons who took
shares upon the false representation as to the business
were to suffer

The Vice-Chancellor said it was clear that one of two
innocent parties would have to suffer, and the question
was, whether it was to be the shareholders or the
red citors?

The Attorney-General observed that some of the greatest
difficulties with which courts of equity had to deal arose
upon questions of that class—namely, which of two inno-
cent parties were to be sufferers In this case his client
had been drawn into taking shares in a business repre-
sented to be sound and prosperous, and upon the faith of
documents purporting to set forth the whole of the ar-
rangements whereas the concern was known to be insol-
vent, and in consequence of its insolvent condition the ar-
rangements placed before the public were supplemented
by a secret deed. He wanted to cross-examine the mem-
bers of the old firm to prove that the business had not
shown a profit for years before the transfer.
The Vice-Chancellor considered that the fact of there
being 3,000,000/. of assets, which were utterly worthless,
was sufficient to show that no profit had been made for •
considerable time.

The Attorney• General said that but for the expression
of the opinion of the court, it might have been urged
that in so large a concern there was no proof that a profit
had not been made within a short time of the transfer. In
his affidavit Mr. John Henry Gurney stated " that the
business carried on by Overend, Gurney, and Co. was
established about the close of the last century, and be-
came of an exceedingly extensive and profitable nature ;
and that for the five years ending on the :31st of Decem-
ber, 1860, after allowing interest upon capital and upon
the balances to the credit of the partners, the profits di-
vided amongst the several partners averaged upwards of
190,00 W. per annum, but that subsequent to that period the
actual net profits have not been ascertained or appropri-
ated, but were reserved to meet the losses consequent upon,
the exceptional transactions hereinafter referred to."
By eras-examination he should probably be able to show
that no profits were made for some time previous to IWO,
and that the losses to which this gentleman referred were
by no means exceptional transactions. Mr. Gurney en-
deavoured to show that the firm was solvent by bringing
into account the private estates of the partners, but the
point for inquiry was the solvency of the firm. But if
they calculated the 500,000/. the old firm was to receive,
and the private estates, the concern in 180.5 would then
appear barely
losses solvent, nnodemdalin beintironlesftinfeLitit: inevit-
able
change, and the realisation of other assets of that descrip-
tion.

Mr. Glasse, who appeared for Mr. Rennie and Mr.
Gordon, two of the directors, wished, before the Attorney.
General proceeded further, to call attention to the position
in which his clients stood before the court. If this had
been a proceeding by summons under the winding up act,
be would have had the right to be heard, but it was by
notice of motion,midhe had not been served with the notice.
Mr. Bristowe, as the representative of a number of
shareholders who did not dispute their liability, and who
opposed these motions, found himself in a similar position.
Mr. Roxburgh, who, with Sir Roundell Palmer and
Mr. Mellish, appeared for the official liquidator, said he
had been served with the notice. The names of Mr. Oakes
and Mr. Peek were on the register of shareholders, and it
would be his duty to contend that they should be made
contributories in the liquidation.
Mr. C. Barber said his client, a creditor, had obtained
liberty to attend these proceedings at his own expense.
Mr. Cole and Mr. L. Webb had also obtained liberty to
appear for Mr. Oppenheim and other creditors.
The Attorney-General said he was personally indifferent
as to the number of counsel who might address the court
against him, but he desired to avoid needless delay and
expense. The official liquidators only had been served
with the notice of motion, because they represented the
company ; and it was the company that was responsible
for placing his client's name upon the list of shareholders.
Even with the separate estates of the partners, the
firm was insolvent at the time tho business
was transferred. The private estates were put down
as follows:—£,150,000 landed estates;, 603,0001. personal
property including chapels ; 92,0001. reversionary inte-
rest ; 970001.
monies in the Norwich Bank ; and 300,0001. share of the
goodwill of the Norwich business, making altogether
2,425,000/. of which 1,000.0001. was said to be in the
Norwich Rank. It was clear that the company was insol-
vent at the time of the transfer, and had been working at a
loge for six, seven, eight, or nine years previously.
The Vice-Chancellor said the misrepresentations to which
attention had been called might form a very strong case as
between Mr. Oakes and those who induced him to take
shares, but the question was whether they could be held as
constituting an answer to the claims of creditors.
The Attorney-General trusted that those who admitted
themselves shareholders would have assets sufficient to
pay all the creditors. If his client were wrongly placed
upon the list, and were held liable to creditors, he was
entitled tobe recouped bytbose shareholders who admitted
their liability. In the case of " The National Exchange
Company of Glasgow v. Drew," fraudulent representation
in a concocted report was held to be 'efficient to free from
liability those persons who had been induced to take shares
in consequence of the statement of the report, and the
same principle had been acted upon in the cases of
" Barnes v. Parnell" and " Nisch v. The Venezuela
Railway Company." As to liability to the creditorsof
the company, it was distinctly stated by Lord Justice
Turner, in giving judgment in Ship's case, that creditors
did not trust individual members of a company otherwise
than as members of the company, and that a person
wrongly placed upon the list of members was not liable for
the debts of the company, and this was confirmed by the
decision in the case of the Russian Ironworks Company.
Mr. Locock Webb observed that Ship's case was at pre-
sent under appeal to the House of Lords.
The Attorney-General said creditors knew that share-
holders were entitled under certain circumstances to have
their names taken off the register . • and it was clear,
therefore, that they must not be regarded as trusting in-
dividual; He asked on the grounds which be had
brought before the court that Mr. Oakes's name might
be taken off the list, not only as whist other share-
holders, but as against the creditors of the company.
Mr. .Swanton, on the same side, read affidavit, of Mr.
Oakes and Mr. Peek, with reference to the circumstances
under which they were induced to take shares, and of Mr.
Rennie and Mr. Gordon, expressing their confidence in the
company at the time the transfer was made, and their
satisfaction with the amount agreed to be paid for the pur-
-1 chase of the goodwilL Mr. Birkbeek, in his examination,
confirmed the statement of Mr. J. H. Gurney, that of the
assets appearing as 4,200,000/. about 1,082,000/. would be
realised, and also stated that an estimate of the private
estates was made and went to show that, with the pur-
chase money, and the goodwill, and the premises in Lom-
bard-street, there would be sufficient to cover all losses in
the realization of assets, and to leave a surplus of 0)81,0001.
to the credit of the firm.
In reply to the Vice-Chancellor,

Mr. gw-anston said he should not think it necessary to
cross-examine any of the other directors. He had not
concluded his reference to the cross-examination before
the special examiner when the court rose.
The case will be resumed after the petitions to-morrow
(this day).

COURT OF CRANCERY.—The Accountant-General
has just appointed two additional clerks in each division
of his department, in consequsnoe of the great increase of
business in the court.

SANITARY ACTION IN ST. JAMES'S.—SMALLPDX
AND FEVER HOSPITALS.—At the usual meeting of the
vestry of the parish of St. James's, Westminster, yester-
day, Mr. Bradshaw moved that, in pursuance of the pro-
visions of the Sanitary Act, lntiri, application be made to
the Secretary of State for the Home Department to declare
the enactment referred to in the 35th section to be in force
within the parish, :-1. For fixing the number of per-
sons who may occupy a house or part of a house which
is let in lodgings, or occupied by members of more than
one family. 2. For the registration of houses thus let or
occupied in lodgings. 3. For the inspection of such houses,
and the keeping the same in a cleanly and wholesome
state. 4. For enforcing therein the provision of privy
sooommodation and other appliances and means of clean.
liming in proportion to the number of lodgings and occu-
piers, and the cleansing and ventilation of the common
passages and staircases. 5. For the cleansing and lime.
whiting. at stated times, of such premises. Mr. Beal
moved that the sanitary committee be authorised to any
out the 24th section of the said act, by providing and
maintaining a carriage or carriages suitable for the con-
veyanceffering under any contagious or
of persons
disease. "The.. were adopted. Mr. Beal
also moved that the sanitary committee be autho-
rised to communicate with the parishes and dia.
trict boards of the metropolis, proposing the erection and
maintenance, at the joint cost, of one or more smallpox and
fever hospitals, for the reception of infected persona. He
oonsideredthatthe time had gone by, torely upon charitable
aid to meet the requirements of London in the matter of
infectious diseases—that society was so deeply interested
that the widest means should be resorted to to control the
pestilence, every now and then claiming notice—that the
only organisation available in London is the vestry or poor.
law machinery. The act of 1866 throws it upon the
vestries, and it seemed to him that the only plan was to
boldly meet it, and provide for, the reception of the afflicted.
Mr. Watkins wished the matter deferred ; and it was
agreed to consider it at the next meeting.
Dv BARRY'S DELICIOUS REVALENTA ARABIC*
FooD corm dyspepala, indigestion, cough, asthma, consumption,
debility, constipation, dia.-rem& palpitation, nervous., bilious,
liver, and stomach complaint& Cure No. 68,413.—" Roma, July
ELMS—The health of the Holy Father Is excellent, hilly
Inc., abandoning all other remedies, be has confined
entirely to De Barry's Food, and Isis Holiness cannot praise
this excellent toed too highly. —dinette du NM Du Barry and
Co., No. 77, Regent-street, London, W. In tins, at Is. lid.;
lib., fa. ed. Iflbe., 24.1ba., its.—alvertleenieut I