The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-20 00:00:00

ASSETS.

Cash and ingots
Ditto in branch banks
Bills past due •••
Bills falling due in Paris, of which
18,243,307 f. Oc. are from the branch
banks 46,090,349 25
Bills in the branch banks ... 77,830,244 0
Advances on coins and ingots... ... 5,267,200 0
Ditto by the branch banks ... 463,689 0
Ditto on French public securities ... 21,152,021 10
Ditto by branch banks... ••• ... 1,659,521 0
Ditto to the State on Bons du Tresor... 50,000,000 0
Ditto on the loan of 150 millions 50,000,000 0
Loan of 3,000,000 f. to tho city of Mar-
seilles ••• ••• ••• •••
Advance •to the department of the
••• ••• ••• ••• 3,000,000 0
Seine
Rentes of the reserve fund ... 10,000,000 0
Aentes, disposable funds ... 42,581,488 13
Investments of the new branch banks in
the public funds ...
Hotel and furniture of the Bank
Real property of the branch banks
Interest in National Discount Bank
Ditto branch banks „.
Bills protested at Paris ••• •••
Ditto at the branches ...
Expenses of administration of the Bank
Ditto of the branches ...
Miscellaneous ...

1,075,000 0

.c. 12,779,541 39
4,000,000 0
2,733,765 0
200,000 0
230,000 0
2,879,409 39
1,975,910 0
417,902 85
423,372 0
214,945 30

f. 7•16,904,130 13

horseback, having a groom in livery with him. In
fact he had always borne the appearnce of a man of
property. Thus it had come to pass that the plaintiff
had felt no hesitation in fruiting him. The articles
of clothing which now remained unpaid for were t o
waistcoats, for one of which four guineas, and for tiv?
other two guineas had been charged. It might
chance that his Learned Friend would cavil at the

price charged for the first of these necessary items
of wearing apparel ; but when he came to inform the
jury what had been the precise character of the
article, he was sure they would concur with him in
the opinion that the price was extremely reasonable.
This was the description as set out in the particulars :
—" A rich Persian silk waistcoat, very richly em-
broidered with gold and silver, and lined through
with satinette and satinette back, 4/. 43.," and the

other waistcoat was described as " A fine white
_ .

quilting waistcoat, 21 25." The first of these was
doubtless a dress waistcoat for parties or the opera,
and, like the second, was perfectly suitable and
necessary for a gentleman of the position in society
which the defendant was understood to have held.
That being so, he should contend that the plaintiff
was entitled to a verdict, not only upon the bill of

exchange, but for the goods supplied. -
Evidence was then given to show the delivery of
the goods in question, and it was understood that the
bills had been admitted under a judge's order.

In the cross examination of one of the witnesses
by Mr. CHARNOCK, the witness said that he was not
aware that his master, the plaintiff, was a discounter.
Mr. Baron PLATT—What do you mean, Mr. Char-
nock, by a discounter—a man who takes a good dis-
count off when a customer pays his account ?
Mr. CHARNOCK—Oh, no; not that, my Lord. I
mean a man who is notoriously a discounter of bills
of exchange.—(Laughter.)
The witness then went on to say that the white
waistcoat was not one of those which would, as a
matter of course, be worn under the finer one, for it
had been made to be worn by itself. It was not made
to be "
(pinned" into the other.
Mr. HARNOCK, on behalf of the defendant, said
that the plaintiff was as well known at the west-end
as being what was termed a " bill discounting tailor,"
as was the tailoring shop of " Moses and Son" known
in the eastern portion of the metropolis. In reference
to the plea of infancy, he was in a position to prove,
by the production of the certificate of his christening,
that the delendanttad been christened on the 28th of
August, 1822, so that at any rate he would not be of
age until the 28th of August, 1843, while this second
bill had been made on the 28th of July preceding. It
was clear, therefore, that at the time that bill had
been given the defendant was not of age. In addition
to that documentary evidence he should bring for-
ward the father of the defendant, who would prove
the day of the birth to have been prior to the date of
the last bill, about twenty-one years previously. He
would show,' too, that so far from this young man
having been a man of property, he had at this parti-
cular period been living in a garret in Ryder street,
upon 11. a week, an allowance which was made him
by an aunt, an'l that he had nothing else to exist
upon. The defendant's father ha,l formerly been an
officer in the 6th Dragoons, but owing to various
causes had fallen into difficulties. Now, with respect
to these waistcoats, let him ask who had ever heard of
such a price being paid fora waistcoat as four guineas,
unless it were indeed where a man had to attend a
dinner of the Lord Mayor's in the city of London,
or, perhaps, in the case of a Qaeen's counsel when he
had to be presented at a Drawing Room ? Then, no
doubt, these " parsley and butter" looking waistcoats
might be justifiable.—(Loud laughter.) Then, indeed,
such gewgaws might be regarded as " necessaries,"
these silk or satin waistcoats, sprinkled with flowers
of every colour in the rainbow, variegated with
splashes of "parsley and butter."—(lncreased
laughter.) In such cases these waistcoats might be
allowable. But in the instance of a poor young man
who was existing, or barely existing, upon a weekly
allowance of 1/. from an aunt, it was preposterous to
talk of such articles as "necessaries." At the present
moment the defendant was a purser's clerk on board
of one of her Majesty's vessels which was in China.
Looking at all the features of this case, he was sure
the jury would be of opinion, when he had established
the tact of the defendant having been under age at
the time this second bill was made, that the plaintiff
was not in law entitled to recover upon that docu-
ment ; and, next, that they would agree with him
that these waistcoats were not "necessaries" for a
young man in the defendant's position in life.
A witness then produced the certificate of the de-
fendant's christening in Christ Church, in Newgate-
street, dated on the 28th of August, 1822.
John Ramsden, the father of the defendant, was
then called, when he spoke to the birth of his son on
the 6th of August, 1822, whilst he himself was
living in the_" rules of the Bench." He went on to
say that his soa, until his appointment as clerk on
board of one of her Majesty's vessels, had possessed no
other means of subsistence than an allowance from one
of his aunts of 1/. a week.
Cross-examined—He had himself been a lieutenant
in the 6th Dragoons, and had mixed in good society.
He had inherited a fortune of 20,0001. from his grand-
mother; which had come to him in 1816', but the whole
of that property had been spent be:ore the defendant's
birth. •

Mr. JamEs, in replying, adverting to the " parsley
and butter" waistcoats, as his Learned Friend had
denominated the full dress waistcoat, said it was the
first time he had ever heard such a term applied to a
" court" waistccat, except it might have been applied
in the case of which he had often heard mention—
namely, that a certain gentleman at one of the Lord
Mayor's dinners had put a boiled fowl into his pocket
when at the table; whereupon, the act having been no-
ticediby his next door neighbour, that gentleman, taking
up the parsley and butter tureen, had poured its con-
tents into the pocket upon the fowl, saying " That
having the fowl he might as well have the sauce."—
(Loud laughter.) In that instance, probably, there
had been a "parsley and butter" waistcoat, but in no
other. He contended that the defendant was bound
to have given evidence to show that he had indorsed
the bill to the plaintiff during his infancy.
Mr. Baron PLATT held that the defendant ought to
have produced such evidence, and not having done so
—seeing that the indorsement might have been made
after the attainment of his majority—the verdict upon
that issue must be for the plaintiff.
The Learned BARON then proceeded to sum up
the evidence.
The jury eventually returned a verdict for the
plaintiff, in respect of this second bill—damages
841._125. 6d. They also found that these waistcoats
were not necessaries for a young man situated as the
defendant was, and that the second bill was a substi-
tution for the first.
The verdict was then entered for the plaintiff—
damages 841. 12s. 61, with liberty to the defendant
to move to enter a nonsuit.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
fames, a shirt-cutter in the service of Messrs
Moses, the clothiers in Aldgate, and Lee, who keeps a
piece-broker's shop in Fore-street, Cripplegate, were
brought before the Lord Mayor and Allerman
Carden, charged, the former with having robbed his
employers, and the latter with having received the
stolen property, knowing that it had been dishonestly
obtained. Mr. Hobler attended for Lee.
Storey, of the City police, said—ln consequence of
information which I received on Saturday I watched
James's residence, at No. 14, Oxford-street, Stepney.
Between 11 and 12 o'clock I saw him come out with
a parcel, and I followed him to Lee's house, No. 89,
in Fore-street, where he deposited the parcel on the
counter. He remained there but a few minutes. I
saw Lee take the parcel off the counter, and place it
upon the ground behind the counter, without opening
it. After James came out I went in, and asked Lee
where the parcel was which the man who
had just gone out had brought in. He
said " What parcel ?" I replied " That,"
pointing to it lying on the ground. He then said,
" Oh, yes, a man did bring it me—this is it." I
asked him what he gave for it, and hg told me eight
shillings. I asked him whether he had bought any
more. He said "No." I said, "Are you sure of
that ?" He replied that he had bought a little more
calico. I said I should search the place, and I did so,
and found altogether 285 yards of it, which he admit-
ted he had bought of -James. I took Lee to the
station-house, and I found upon him 10s. in silver. I
then went in pursuit of James in company with
Barnes, a brother officer, and we apprehended him
near his house, told him we were officers, and that
we took him into custody for robbing his employers
of a parcel which he had taken from his house to
Lee's in Fore-street. He said, " Some kind friend,
I suppose, has put you on to me," and I took him to
the station- house.
Barnes, the officer, produced some calico shirting,
which he had found in James's house.
Storey, in his cross•examination by Mr. Hobler,
said that Lee produced every article which he said he
had purchased of James, but not until he was told
that the place would be searched.
Mr. Samuel Moses, one of the partners in the esta-
blishment in Aldgate, said—James has been in our
employment about two years, as a shirt-cutter, and
taker in of shirts from the persons employed to make
them, and is the foreman in that department. He had
no right to take any portion of the work home. A.
parcel which had been given to his wife to make was
found on his premises. That had not, of course, been
illegally taken. 1 saw James at the station, and,
without making him any promise whatever, I asked
him some questions, to, which he answered that he
knew nothing about the stolen goods, and that he had
never sold any to Leer but he subsequently stated
that he had sent his boy on Wednesday last with the
bundle which the officer had seen him deposit at Lee's,
for the purpose of making it up to sell, being short of
money. The articles which the officer saw James
deposit at Lee's are '?urs. I see our private mark