The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1841.

gent-street, mixed with other moneys, and applied to the
general purposes of the trade, as shown in the cash-book.
Now, as you have sworn that you sent out those goods
for the purpose of being delivered to Cook and Glad-
stone, and as you do not disclose where the goods were,
because Messrs. Cook and Gladstone would not reap any
benefit from it, and as Cook and Gladstone had pre-
viously told you they would give you 2,5001. if you could
get them out, and as that was the reason why you did
not hand them over the money you received for the
goods, what should you do with it?
The bankrupt here stated that Ise did not think he had
made such a statement yesterday, and requested that his
examination of that day might be read.
Mr. ASHURST having read the examination--
The bankrupt said, my reason for not paying the cash
to Cook and Gladstone was, that it was a part of the ar-
rangement not to pay any cash, as I was requiring all
the cash we could get to meet other engagements which
were more pressing.
Now state when that arrangement was made with them,
and what passed ?—Early in July, at one of the meetings
in the library or drawing-room.
Who was present ?—Messrs. Cook and Gladstone.
Both ?—I believe so.
Will you swear they were both present ?—I will.
Now state what was said. —At that meeting, during
the conversation relating to the 19,000/. I told them it
would not be desirable for me to pay them any money,
and that I could get them out better without it, to which
they assented.
Now tell me what they said ?—Very well, or words to
that effect ; or we think so.
Was that in the presence or hearing of the other ?
Yes. I never did pay them any money subsequent to
that understanding, although I was in business two
months afterwards.
Now you have stated that you began to dishonour
your bills in July, and this conversation took place in
July. Now did you not early in July receive several
lawyers' letter threatening proceedings ?—Yes.
Did you not dishonour your bills in August?—A part.
State what part. Did you dishonour your bills on the
4th ?—I think not all.
State what you paid and what you dishonoured on the
4th ?—The bankrupt said (after looking at the cash-
book), I am unable to state without the assistance of my
clerk, what bills were paider what dishonoured, without
having further time, and the clerk's assistance. As 1
perceive from my books that on the 4th of August I had
paid an acceptance drawn by Johnson and Balmer for
64/. 145., and also an acceptance in favour of Landon for
141. 13s. 4d. Now lam not sure, without further in-
quiry and reference, whether we did not borrow apart
of those monies wherewith to pay them. We paid an
acceptance in favour of Wheeler and Co., on the 10th of
August, for 161. ss. Our settling day was August 12th,
and we paid most of our accounts then due, being in
number twelve.
Mr. ASHURST—Now just state the proportion that
bears to the portion you dishonoured ?—A very small
proportion. We paid as far as we had the funds to pay.
During both months ?—Yes.
Was not your brother George at this time liable for
you to Mr. Pritchard, the brother of your solicitor ?
What time do you refer to ?
In July and August.—l think not. Not in both
months ; I am not certain, but I can tell by reference to
my books.
Will not your cash-book enable you to state what
sams you paid, and when, to Mr. Pritchard?—Yes, I am
now looking for them. On the 9th of August we paid
to Marsden and Pritchard 100/. ; on the 10th, 200 L to
R. Pritchard; on the 18th, 2001. to R. Pritchard; on the
21st, 600/. to R. Pritchard, and interest, 3/. 175.; on the
24th to Marsden and Pritchard, under the name of
Gandell, 3101. 19s. 2d. ; on the 28th, to R. Pritchard,
590/.; on the 31st, 412 L 6s. id., and 140/. to Marsden and
Pritchard ; on the Ist September, W. Marsden, Si. Bs.
That, I believe, is all ; no, I see that on the 24th of July
there is 5201. paid to Marsden and Pritchard for Coster.
Mr. ASHURST—GO back to the Ist of July.
I see there are two sums paid to them of 301.
and 701. The amount paid to Marsden and Pritchard
on the 24th of July, per Coster, was paid to them, as
my solicitors, to settle a debt with Mr. Burt, the solici-
tor of Coster. I think the 70/. and the 301. were given
to them for the same purpose. I had given a Judge's
order. which will account for my paying them in pre-
ference to other parties. That was to pay Coster. The
next sum, August 9, is 1001., that was for Williams and
Mottram's bill of costs. The balance in my favour, a
small amount, was placed to my credit.
What was the amount of that bill ?—I don't recollect,
it was near 1001 The next item, August 10th, is a pay-
ment of 2001. made to R. Pritchard, gentleman, Syden-
ham, being a part payment on account of a bill which
was over-due. The amount paid on the 18th was for
the same purpose.
Mr. AsuußsT—Did you pay it to Pritchard him-
self, or to Marsden and Pritchard ?—To Marsden
and Pritchard. I am not quite sure whether all
the payments were made to Marsden and Pritchard.
The next sum, 6301., on the 23d of August, was also on
account of a former bill, and another, both of which
were over-due. August the 24th, 3101. 19s. 2d.

was the amount which Marsden and Pritchard paid to
Gandell and Co., bill-brokers. I think I had been
obliged to give them also a Judge's order. On the 28th
of August 5901. to R. Pritchard, as in part payment of
two over-due bills before alluded to. August 31st 4121.
Cs. 6d., that was for the same purpose. On the same day
there was 1401. paid to Marsden andPritchard on account of
law proceedings and debt to them. On the Ist Septem-
ber William Marsden, 8/. Ss.; that was on account of law
costs to him on his separate account prior to the part-
nership of Marsden and Pritchard. That, I believe, ex-
plains all those amounts.
Was not your brother George Hitchcock liable on your
account to B. P. Pritchard for the money you say you
paid to him' on the dates last mentioned ?—He was.
When was the first demand in bankruptcy made upon
you ?—I think it was made on July 29, by Ellis and
Everington, for one hundred and odd pounds.
The bankrupt, before making the above reply, said
he did not understand what a demand in bankruptcy
meant, and Mr. Ashurst said he would take that down,
but he hoped the Commissioner would remember the
statement of the bankrupt of his ignorance. Mr.
Ashurst having explained the meaning of a demand in
bankruptcy, the bankrupt gave the answer above reported.
Did you pay that sum or bail it ?—Bailed it.
On the examination being read, the bankrupt stated
that although he could not explain the affair relating to
the bill in Court, he thought he might be able to do so
to his assignees.
Did Ellis and Everington ultimately get paid ?—I
think not.

Do you not know they did :not ?—I believe not. I
recollect, they were hot paid.
Was not another similar demand made upon you by
Cheaper, Watson. and Jackson, on the .sth of August ?
—I think there was.
Is it not a fact ?—I do not recollect that individual
demand, but I have no doubt but it is.

Did you pay that, or bail it ?—As far as my recol-
lection serves, we paid them a part, and should have paid
them the remainder, but for the steps they took.
Did you pay any part of that demand?—l believe we
paid a part out of the sum demanded in bankruptcy.
We did not pay any part of that. We bailed it.
Who was your bail ?—My brother and Mr. Chris-
topher Leaf.

Had Mr. C. Leaf also joined in bailing the first?—Yes.
Is C. Leaf, of whom you are now speaking, the same
Christopher Leaf to whom you invoiced goods 2,8001.,
and who sold them as you have stated for less than
1,800/ —Yes. I applied to Mr. Groucoff to become my
bail hefore Mr. Leaf, not from any particular preference.
Was not the next demand on the following day, Aug.
6, by Strutt and Sharp ?--I have no doubt of it.
For how much ?—I do not recollect. I can see by
my books.—(Having referred he answered)-1791. 15s.
Did you pay that or bail it 7 —Bail it by the same
parties, my brother and Christopher Leaf.
Did not Feller and Co. make another demand in
bankruptcy, August 9 ?—I have no doubt did they did.
Was that bailed by the same parties ?—Yes.
Did not Sheriff and Co. also demand ?—They did ; but
to what amount or what date I do not recollect.

Was that also bailed by the same parties ?—lt was, if
it were bailed.

You do not recollect how many bail bonds you signed?
—I do not.
Did Messrs. Rand and Co. make a deed about 14th
August for 104/. or thereabouts ?—I believe they did,
and that also, if bailed, was bailed by the same parties.
Did not Cougton and Wild make a similar demand
about 16th August ?—I think they did, and that was
bailed, if bailed, by the same parties.
1)o you believe Sheriff and Co.'s was about the 7th of
August ?—I have no recollection of dates.

The bankrupt here explained that when he said part
of Cheaper's debt was paid, he meant part of the origi-
nal debt, and not part of the sum demanded in bank-

raptcy.
Do you think that Sheriff and Gillett's demand was
about 7th August?—l think it might have been.
Were any of the sums so demanded paid by you ?—No.
Have you any doubt they were all bailed by your
brother and Christopher Leaf ?—I have none.
Did not they and you go on bailing their demands,
until Gth September last ?—I do not recollect the date.
Do you not believe that the bails were put in on days
ranging between 18th August and Gth September, both
inclusive ?—I hare no recollection about it, but I think

it will be easily seen by a reference to the Court of
Bankruptcy.
Where are those demands in bankruptcy ?—I should
think they are with Marsden and Pritchard, or with my
papers at the Official Assignee's.
Have you no belief about the time you ceased to give
bail ?—I have none. Ido not recollect to a month. _

Turn to-i-oti-r-i;OOk,-ana ;lien you received
the proceeds of the goods sold by Christopher Leaf.—
Aug. 21, 500/. ; 24th, 2501. ; 28th, 5001. ; 31st, 5001.
Mr. Sole stated that the assignees were perfectly aware
of these facts, and had consulted counsel upon them.
He had, however, no wish to stop Mr. Ashurst.
Mr. ASHURST then resumed the examination.—You
have stated that on the 21st of August you received 5001.
from C. Leaf, and that on the same day you paid R.
Pritchard 600/. Did not the money received from C.
Leaf go in part payment of that debt to Pritchard, for
which your brother was liable ?—I should think it did.
Was it or not ?—A part of the 500/. was used, the
other part was paid to other creditors.
How much was paid to other creditors ?-461. Us. Ed.,
or it might have been 1561. 12s. It is impossible to OS-
certain the exact disposal of the money, as a balance of
1101. Os. 4d. was in the hands of the clerk at night.
You have stated that on or about the 28th August,
you received 5001., and stated on same day paid 290/.7
R. P. Pritchard did not supply
the money so last men-

- The bankrupt made the following explanation :
Aug. 24. I received 250/. for C. Leaf, which went in
part payment to Gandell.
Mr. ASHURST here interfered, and said that the ex-
planation might be an answer to his next question,
but the bankrupt had been looking over what he had
been writing, and was anticipating him.

The bankrupt—Mr. Ashurst had originally written
down 24th August, and finding that went elsewhere, he
struck it out.(Applause and hissing.)
Mr. ASHURST—None but linenrdrapers' apprentices
would be guilty of such impropriety. Now, Sir, answer
my question. You have stated that on or about the 28th
of August you received 5001. for C. Leaf, and that on the
same day you paid R. P. Pritchard, to whom your bro-
ther was liable, 590/. Did not the money received from
C. Leaf supply a part of the money so mentioned. 3401
of the 500/. appears to have been part of the 590/.
Was it a part of the 5901.?—1 should think it was. I
have no doubt it was. I wish to add in explanation,
Aug. 24, we received 2501 of C. Leaf and Co., which was
disposed of in the payment of Gandell's bill and costs,
on the same day, amount 310/. 19s. 2d.
You have said that the 5001. received from C. Leaf on
Aug. 28, appears to have been a part of the 5901. paid to
R. P. Prichard was it a part of the 590/. paid to him ?
I should think 3401 of the 5001. was.
You believe it was a part ?—I do.
You have said that in August 31, a sum of 3001 was
received from C. Leaf, and that on the same day you
paid R. P. Pritchard a sum of 412/. 6s. 6d. Was not
that last sum paid to R. P. Pritchard out of the money
last mentioned as on the same day received from C.
Leaf ?—A part of it.
How much ?—I should think about 340/. The rest
was paid to others.
Was not the whole amount paid to R. P. Pritchard bo-
tween Aug. 9 and 31, about 2,1061 ?—I think not.
How much ?—About 2,0001., being the amount of the
two dishonoured bills before alluded to.
Did not that 2,000/. go to discharge a debt for which
your brother George, who:gave the bill, was liable ?—Yes.
Did you receive money for any of the goods which
were sent from your premises from any other person
except from C. Leaf ?—No, except a small amount from
Shoolbred and Co., which I have before explained.
Was not Messrs. Marsden and Pritchard the solicitors to
your brother George 2—Yes, and to all my friends
in town.

Were they not also solicitors to the R. P. Pritchard,
whose debt you were thus discharging ?—Yes.
Were they not also your solicitors ?—Yes.
Did not R. I'. Pritchard hold other securities than your
brother's for the payment of his debt?—None, except in
the bills of exchange. I swear that I recollect.
Had he not at any time held any other securities for
his debt?—Yes.
What security had he held?—The lease of No. 116
house, being part of my premises in Regent-street.
Anything else?—Nothing that I recollect or believe.
When did that lease pass from him to your brother
George?—Early in July, I think. It was previous to a
bill becoming due.
State when.—l cannot give a better answer than early
in July. It was the same day on which the deeds-are
dated.

Were these deeds prepared ?—Yes.
By whom?—Marsden and Pritchard.
State when you arranged with R. P. Pritchard and
your brother George to transfer those securities from
Pritchard to your brother George?—l do not recollect
the date, but I should think the latter end of June or
the beginning of July.
Which of them did you first see on the subject?—l
do not recollect.
Will you swear you do not remember ?—I will.
Did you see them both in reference to transferring the
lease from one to another ?—Yes.
Where did you see your brother George on the sub-
ject ?—I should think in his country house.
What did you say to him, or he to you on this subject,
when you first saw him?—l told him that Mr. R. P.
Pritchard had advanced to me the sum of 2,0004 and
for which I had accepted two bills of exchange ; that
one of them was coming due shortly, and that
I had applied to Mr. R. P. Pritchard . for a re-
newal of them ; I had told Mr. R. P. Pritchard that
I should be unable to pay it when it became ',due.
I also told him that the second bill I should not be able
to pay, and requested him to give me time to pay them.
He declined to renew the first bill, or to wait for payment
of either, and threatened to make me a bankrupt unless
I paid the bills as they became due, or gave further
security. I think I told him also that I had told Mr.
R. P. Pritchard that I would ask my brother to be such
security.
What did you say respecting the debt of Mr. Pritch-
ard ?—I told him that Mr. Pritchard would not renew
the bill, and threatened to make me a bankrupt. My
brother refused to become my guarantee at first, but
he did agree afterwards to guarantee the payment of
the 2,0001. The lease was then given back to me, and I
assigned it to my brother in consideration of his respon-
sibility to Cook and Pritchard.
Now, when was this first interview ?—I have no re-
collection of the date, except that it was perhaps a fort-
night before the first bill which became due, which was
July 22. The second was due Aug. 13.
Then the first interview would be about the Bth of
July?—lt was about a fortnight before the 22d July.
Will you swear it was a fortnight before ?—No, I will
not. I think it was so. I will swear it was about a fort-
night before.
Was this all that passed between your brother and you
at this interview?—That is the substance—all that I re-
collect.
You will not swear it is the substance of the whole ?
I will not ; it is all I recollect.
When did you see him a second time on this subject?
—I can scarcely recollect ; it was a day or two.
Where did you see him the second time P—l don't
recollect.
Will you swear it was not at Marsden and Pritchard's?
—I will.
What passed at that interview 7—l do not recollect.
Do you recollect any other interview with your bro-
ther on this subject ?—No.
Will you swear that ?—Yes. Am I not to believe
that I am on my oath in all I am saying.
Mr. AssurisT—Oh yes ; but you are not to suppose
I believe all you are swearing.---(A laugh.)
You have said that at the first interview your brother
refused to become your guarantee, and that you cannot
recollect what took place at any other interview when
the lease was passed to him. Do you mean to adhere to
that statement ?
The bankrupt appealed to the Learned Commissioner.
He had said that at a subsequent interview his brother
had agreed to become security for the 2,0004 but he did
not recollect what passed. The question was an impro-
per one, because it assumed facts opposed to the evi-
dence formerly given.
Mr. ASHURST amended the question. You have said
you cannot recollect what had passed at any other inter-
view than the first, although the leases transferring your
property were signed by you both. Do you adhere to
that statement ?
The bankrupt appealed to the Commmissioner again ;
the question was a most intricate one.
The COMMISSIONER ruled that the question was a pro-
per one, and ought to be answered.
The question was repeated several times.—l do not
recollect anythinc, that occurred at any of these inter-
views be3ond what I have already stated.
Do you adhere to the answers already given ?—I do,
certainly.
When did you afterwards see Mr. Pritchard on the
subject of the transfer of the lease to your brother ?—I
don't recollect.

State as near as you can.—l should think ten days or
a fortnight previous to the first bill arriving at maturity.
'Will you swear it was as long as that ?—I will not ;
but I think it was.

Where did you see him ?—Either in Mr. Pritchard's
room or Mr. Marsden's room ; I don't recollect which.

Was any one present besides you and him?—l do not
recollect, but I think not.

Who proposed the intended arrangement between you?
—I did.

How came you two to meet there, when the room be-
longed to neither of you ?—I had met Mr. 12. P. Prit-
chard there for a twelvemonth previously.
Do you mean that your meeting was accidental?—Oc-
casionally—sometimes on business. On similar business
—on renewing a bill.
Was the meeting between Mr. R. P. Pritchard and
your brother respecting the leases accidental, or the re-
sult of a previous appointment ?—I think of a previous
appointment. When I found I could not pay the bill
when it should become due, I believe I left word at Mars-

den and Pritchard's clerk's office that when Mr. R. I

Pritchard came to town, I wanted to speak to him. I
believe this would be the way in which the first inter-
view was brought about, and which led to the second ;

. ,
bnt I don't recollect distinctly.
What did you say in respect of the proposed arrange-
ment ?—I said I thought 1 could get my brother's gua-
rantee for the payment of the 2,0001., if he would give
me time. He consented, and gave me the time.
Was this all that passed at the first interview be-
tween you and Mr. R. P. Pritchard 7—That is the sub-

stance Of the conversation, and all that I recollect.
Will you swear that that is the substance of all that
passed ?—Yes, or I would not already have sworn it.
Did you meet Mr. R. P. Pritchard again on the sub-
ject ?—I cannot recollect ; I think I did.
Do you remember that there was a second interview i
—Yes.

What passed then ?—I cannot be sure of what took
place at that particular interview, but I believe I told
him that my brother had agreed to guarantee the
2,000 i. ; and I expected, if my brother did so guarantee,
the lease, which he then held, should be given back to
me. He consented to this arrangement.
Who gave the instructions for the preparation of the
deeds P—l did.

When cannot say ; but I should think a few days
prior to the bill becoming due. It might have been a
fortnight.
To whom ?--To Marsden.
Seeing that you were dishonouring all your other
bills, what made you so anxious to save Mr. Pritchard,
you at the time receiving lawyer's letters from all your
other creditors ? —ln order to complete the arrange-
ments entered into with Cook and Gladstone.
Was that your only reason ?—No.
State any other reasons which influenced you ?—lf I
did not pay the bills as they became due, or give security,
I would have been made a bankrupt.
Were these the only reasons inducing you to secure
his debt a fortnight before the first bill became due ?
—No.

State what further reasons you had?—Because I
thought if I got the lease before referred to out of Mr.
B. P. Pritchard's hands, that I should then be able to
assign that lease to my brother, as he had often asked
me, and which I had promised to do. I also thought
that by giving the guarantee of my brother for a sum
which I should be able to pay off;
I might expect my
brother to be a security for me again.
It being now past four o'clock, the further examination
was adjourned till eleven o'clock to-morrow.

A Jos, " FOR A DUCAT 1"-Mr. Bodkin,
M.P. for Rochester, had an interview with Sir James
Graham, at the Home-office, on Saturday.—Court Cir-
cular. Bodkin is a rat, and is therefore sure to find fa-
vour with " brother" Graham.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
OLD COURT.

Susan Hilton, aged 35, was convicted of stealing
5/. Os. 2d., the property of Henry Herring, her master,
in his dwelling-house, and one purse, the property of
Margaret Watkins.
The prisoner had been servant to the prosecutor, who
missed the money named from a drawer in his house.
Several sovereigns were seen in the possession of the
prisoner, and she was given into custody, when she con-
fessed having committed the robbery.
Mr. Ward, R. A., gave the prisoner an excellent cha-
racter for honesty, as she had lived with him as servant
for some time. She was at times singular in her man-
ner, which led to the belief that she was at times flighty.
The brother of the prisoner stated that she had been
afflicted with brain fever.

The sentence was respited till the next Sessions, in
order to make further inquiries respecting the prisoner.
Jose Joetquint Gonzalves Basto, aged 35, and described
as a merchant, was indicted for stealing eight warrants,
or orders, of a Foreign State, the property of Antonio
de Silva, the Financial Agent to the Portuguese Govern-
ment.

Mr, Phillips and Mr. Bodkin were instructed on behalf
of the prosecution, and Mr. Clarkson, with whom was
Mr. Payne, conducted the prisoner's defence.
Mr. PHILLIPS having briefly addressed the Jury, called
witnesses. (It is needless to give the evidence, as it has
already appeared in The Sun in the Mansion-house reports.)
When the case for the prosecution was closed,
Mr. CLARKSON addressed the Jury upon the facts of
the case, and commented upon the absence of the indivi-
dual Campbell, who, he said, could have explained all the
circumstances of the transaction. lie said that he should
satisfy the Jury that the prisoner had borne a most
honourable character, and he trusted that they would not
stamp him as a felon for ever for such a transaction as
had that day been detailed in evidence.
The Portuguese Consul, Mr. Stone, of the firm of
Stone and Co., the bankers, and other highly respectable
witnesses, were then examined, and they gave the pri-
soner an excellent character for respectability and ho-
nourable conduct.

The RECORDER having summed up, the Jury, after
deliberating for a minute, returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
The prisoner was then indicted for stealing two orders
for the delivery of a quantity of wine, the property of
Messrs. Pinto and Co.

A lengthened examination of witnesses followed, bui
it was destitute of public interest, and at last the Re•
corder stopped the case, and said he was of opinion that
the charge had not been made out. -

The Jury expressed their opinion that the circum-
stances of the case only amounted to debt.
Mr. PHILLIPS said that if the Jury entertained this
opinion it would be useless to proceed further.
The Jury then returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Mr. CLARKSON said he felt it due to the prisoner to
state that he had a respectable auctioneer in attendance,
who would have proved that the prisoner had negotiated
a loan with him, and that he would have received money
on the Monday to an amount much more than sufficient
to have enabled him to pay the whole sum due to the pro-
secutor.