The Sun.
London, England, 1830-07-06 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 6, 1830.

tOUafi Oi? COMPENSATION,

GUILDHALL.

THE LORD MAYOR, ALDERMEN, ANT) COMMONS, AND

JOHN GILBERT.
The COMMON SERGEANT said that this would.litort.
to be a case of gross attetllpt to defraud the. Corpo-
ratioii of London. Mr. Gilbert was a baker without.
an oven, and kept a shop without business. It had
been found necessary to take down his premises at
No. 40, Gracechureh-street, for the purpose of mak-
ing approaches to the new London-bridge, according
to the 10th of Geo. IV., and the following extraor-
dinary terms were proposed by him :
Per my interest in the premises held undo tun X, a. d.
agreement for an unexpired term of three
years from Lady.day next, at the yearly
rent of l6O 0 0
Fixtures, us per valuation 5O 0 0
. . .

After stating that an excellent wholesale and retail
business was established in the oatmeal and pearl-
barley line in the premises, the claimant says—.-
My casual receipts over the counter, and nty
warehouse annexed (a strict account of
which I have always kept), amount upon
an average, after deducting several sums
taken from the till for daily domestic
purposes, to the sum of 11,6001. per annum.
Upon this sum I claim a gross profit of 10/.
per cent., which is £1,160
Deduct rest, taxes, candles, servants'
wages, ike., per annum ' • 450

Leaves a net profit of ' 710
11411' a year's profit ':;)r) 1,065 0 0

Logs by removal of stock, furilitur,, 30 0 0
Expenses paid my surveyor lO 0 0

1,305 0 0

To prove the accuracy of the estimate of the pro-
fits of this trade, the claimant had (the Learned
Common Serjeunt. said) thought proper to produce
no documents whatever, and it appeared that he had
taken the premises in January,. 1829, when it was
obvious to all that they, must be required for the
above-mentioned purpose; but although no satisfac-
tion could be had of the claimant upon the important
subject, the City Solicitor had endeavowred to supply
the deficiency by setting three persons to watch the
customers, and their purchases from morning till night.
Mr. Montague, the city-surveyor, examined by Mr.
MiamtouttE---Had surveyed the house, No. 46,
Gracechurch-street.. The claimant had a lease for
2i years, at 213/. R-year. if that rent. was paid, the
claimant was entitled to nothing, us the rent was
much too high.
Mr. Ilitosimy deposed that the lease was of no
value whatever. He made inquiry as to the trade,
but nothing satisfactory was exhibited from which
he could form an opinion of it. There might have
been, exclusive of the meal and flour, about 30s.
worth of stock in the shop. There was no oven, and
the claimant said that. what was halted was baked in
Tyson-street. Witness did not know what wholesale
business was done on the premises, but if there was
any, it would certainly follow the claimant. Wit-
ness's means of judging were • derived from a large
experience in the trade. He had surveyed some
scores of baker's shops. The amount of the taxes
was 54/. 4s. 9d., and the house was rated at 80/. a
year. He considered the alleged rent of 2131. much
too high.

The ConstoN SERJEANT—The claimant has very
modestly put down his fixtures at 50/. as per valua-
tion, and he has agreed to take for them 17!. 101.—
(Laughter.)--But you will see more by and by.

Samuel Apr, examined by Mr. BURNABY, was
employed to observe the premises, and on Saturday,
June 19, he went to see what business was carried
on from
was
in the morning till nine at night.
There a delivery of loaves to the shop twice a
day (almost twenty each time),
.perhaps also a
dozen penny loaves and some biscuits were also de-
livered. The average customers did not exceed 50
a day, and many of those went in for a halfpenny or
a penny biscuit. Witness considered that no more
than 30s. or 2!. were taken in the course of the day.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bumocic—Witness never
was a sentinel before. He was relieved at meal-
times by another who also kept count.
Mr. BULLOCK, for the claimant, said the case was
of great importance to his client. It was natural
that there should be a great discrepancy between a
claim and an offer on the part of the City.
Mr. MIREIIOUSE—But the City offers nothing.
Mr. BULLOCK continued—lt was admitted that
Mr. Gilbert baked no bread, but then he had a profit
from the sale of bread; and as for the watching, it
happened that that operation only took place on one
day, and nt the least busy period of the year. Ho
(Mr. Bullock) begged that the Jury would consider
that there was no mutuality, no reciprocity between
the corporation and the claimants on occasions of
this description, and no credit ought to be given to
the testimony of persons who let themselves out to
watch for hire.

Miss Gilbert, daughter to the claimant, deposed
that pastry and corn-chandlery were sold in tile
front shop. The wholesale business was carried on
in the warehouse behind. As much as 241. had
been taken in a day ; 41. or 51. were usually taken.
The least that was taken was from 24 to 3/. a-day.
J. Le Croft, warehouseman to the claimant, swore
dust there was a great sale by wholesale. Sacks
and barrels of flour were sold. His master, he ad-
milted, had failed six years ago in George-yard,
14)1°10-lane.
Mr. MIKEHOUSE—Didn't he go abroad at that
time ? Witness—Yes, 1 suppose he did.
Mr. MittEttousE—Pray, what for ? 'Witness---
I can't say ; he never bald why.
Mr. BULLOCK—I beg to state that the line of
approaches to London-bridge was not settled when
Mr. Gilbert took the premises.
William Jameson was assistant clerk to the
claimant, kept an account .of the wholesale busi-
ness for the last six months, and was privy to
most of his transactions. He then read the account.
Some of the numerous items by which the trade
was raised to its alleged importance were as follow:
'Purchased 602 sacks, and 551 barrels of flour, for
2,4.524 19s. 9d„ sold them for 2,610/.
187/. 9s. 3d. Purchased of oatmeal, 43 ton 12 cwt.
:3 quarters, for 6191. 38, sold them for 7161. 13s. 11d.
&c. Mr. Gilbert had a profit on the sale of bread
of a penny a quartets loaf.—(A laugh.)
Mr. Mtuttuousu—Yes, this retail trade produced
him between 3s. 4d. and 4s. 2d. a day-40d. or 50d.
Cross-examined—Had been a clerk in a banking-
house, and an attorney's clerk, and n flour-factor and
corn-dealer, und he acted as agent for millers. Ha
lived in Cambridge-road, Dethnal-green. He did
not exactly know the number, but he would be
found at No. 5.---(Laughter.)
The COMMON BERJEANT—Wera you not under
-acceptances to Mr. Gilbert at the time of his bank-
ruptcy ?—The witness admitted that lie was,
The COMSION SERJEANT—Pray to what amount?
'—Witness—Between 3,0001. and 4,000/.
The CoMMON BitanANT asked the Jury whether
,hey could believe one word the last wit:netts had
'uttered, and whether they did net see the intended
fraud as palpably as they saw the witness The
case was one of demonstrative fraud from top to
bottom, and the Jury would show their opinion by
their verdict.

Instead of 1,3051., the claim of Mr. Gilbert, the
Jury returned the following verdict, the fixtures
Jawing been agreed upon at 174 I2s.
of the trade, Is.; lease, is.; expense of removal, 101.
The verdict gave great satisfaction.

IMPEItiAL PAIiLIAM NT.

HOUSE OF LORDS--(LAST NIGHT.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his Stilt on the
kVoolsack shortly before Five o'clock.
Sit A. aitAktl and tithe!. liiethbeis of the 'Heine
at' Commons brought up the Composition Assessed
Tat Bill, the Insolvent Debtors' (Ireland) Bill,
the 'ounty Rates (Ireland) Bill, wkether with
seve 1 other Private Bills.

The Duke of GRAFTON prevented a petition
from a pariah im the couhty of Norfolk, against the
Beer Bill.

The Earl of ELDON presented a petition horn
Leamington Priors, against the Beer Bill. Also
ono from the Master and Wardens of St. Mary
Magdalen, Dublin, against increase or taxation in
Ireland.

The Duke of BtAUVORT presented a petition
from a parish in Gloucestershire, against the Beer
Bill; also a petition From Preston, against the
Stamp Duties on Medicines.