The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-19 00:00:00

SMITH V. SMITH AND RICHARDS.

In this case on the special jury being called only one
answered to his name.
His lordship said some excuse might be made for gentle-
men summoned on account of the manner in which the tw.o
former cases hart gone off.
After waiting a considerable length of time his lordship
asked Mr. Keane, Q.C•, whether he would go on with a
Common Jury. The learned gentleman not being willing
to adopt this course, the case was directed to stand over till
next term.
The Court then rose for the day.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)

RE Z. C. PEARSON.

To-day was appointed for the adjourned last examination
and discharge of this bankrupt, who was a merchant and
shipowner, in London, and at Hull, and whose bankruptcy
is alleged to have been occasioned by the seizure of vessels
by the Federal States of America. The case has been be-
fore the court a considerable time, and the exa-
mination of the bankrupt had concluded when
an application was made for the examination of
witnesses at Hull to contradict the bankrupt's statement,
but cause was shown against it by Mr. C. E. Lewis, and
his Honour decided that the case should be concluded in
London, and consequently Mr. Pearse, the banker of Hull,
and others were in attendance.
Mr. Lawrence appeared for the assignee, Mr, Bazley for
opposing creditors, and Mr, C, E. Lewis for the bankrupt.
Mr. P,arce was first called, and said that he was a
banker at Hull, in partnership with others. In the course
of their transactions they had a customer named Briggs.
who was also connec ed with the bankrupt Pearson. Wit-
ness had frequently taken their bills, and in June, 1862, a dis-
pute arose as to whether it was not accommodation paper.
Bankrupt complained that Mr. Hoare, one of the partners,
had stated that it was, and that it affected his (bankrupt's)
credit. Witness said it had only been stated to Briggs,
who was one of their customers. Pearson said that
they were not accommodation bills, and also that he had no
partners in his ships, and that Briggs held security to the
amount of £20,000, and he (bankrupt) had only drawn to
the extent of £15,000. There were also other bills with the
names of Dobson and Newman. Dobson had since become
,bankrupt; Newman ha knew nothing of. Briggs had also
become bankrupt ; before then he was looked upon as a
man of property. Witness's firm had proved against bank-
rupt's estate for £3,713.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis—Briggs had been a cus-
tomer of the bank for upwards of 25 years before witness
joined, and he was always held in good estimation, and wit-
ness had no reason to doubt he was a man of large property.
After the conversation alluded to, Briggs had been desired
to bring less of that class of paper and bring a conclusion to
the transaction. Brigg's reply was invariably to the same
same effect as Pearson's, that he (Briggs) held security.
He did not know that Briggs held shares as security, but
which had become forfeited through his not hav-
ing had them registered, the larger portion of
the bills discounted since June, 1862, had been paid, but
after the 3d and 12th July they were returned to a large
amount.
Re-examined—Had every reason to believe the bankrupt
a man of property. He (witness) had no reason to believe
that the bills were accommodation bills.
Mr. ldigby then proceeded to call other witnesses, and
the case was proceeding when we went to press.

MARKE T S—T Ws Day.