The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-11 00:00:00

vient. That recommendation was followed. I believe
Fhs was properly attended to. 1 never saw any
neglect. I ordered wine, porter, and brandy for the
fever. I never heard any complaint till Quelch stated
them before the board.

John George examined—l am surgeon to the Royal
Free Hospital. The appointment is gratuitous. I
saw the plaintiff on two occasions. She appeared to
be properly attended to. I examined her limb. I
found the union was not perfect. I explained to
Quelch how it was the case was not so successful. I
saw placards before the hospital about this case.
Cross-examined—The appointment leads to practice
and great experience.
Sir Benjamin Brodie examined—l have heard the
evidence of Mr. Jackson and Dr. Peacock. In my
opinion up to the time when the child caught the
fever, the treatment was correct, as far as I under-
stand their evidence. It was correct to shift the
splints if they disagreed with the patient, or were in
any way uncomfortable to her. It was right to make
the fracture subordinate to the other disease, when the
patient got (as described) into a low typhoid state.
Upon the whole of the evidence, I see no reason to
doubt that the child was properly treated. Such a
fracture is very difficult to be treated, and it is very
seldom we can make the thigh as long as it was. It
is generally attended with shortening of the limb.
Cross-examined should keep a patient as far as
possible from the influence of fever.
Mr. Bransby Cooper examined—l have heard the
evidence in this case. The fracture is one of a diffi-
cult character to cure. I agree in Coto, from begin-
ning to end, with Mr. Stanley's evidence. I examined
the child on Saturday. I think it was a good union,
and not more deformed than I. have seen in more
favourable circumstances.

Mr. Guthrie was examined, and said that, from the
evidence, he thought the fracture had been properly
treated, but he should be better able to tell if he had
examined the child himself. (The child being in
court, it was arranged that the witness should retire
with her for that purpose. As the child walked across
the court she appeared to limp but slightly.) On his
return into court the witness said the bone was irre-
gularly united, but that could not be otherwise. He
should say it was a good cure.
Mr. Hancock, a surgeon, and Mr. Morgan, the
apothecary, were then called, but their evidence was
not very material.
Mrs. Ann Lord examined—My maiden name was
Parsons. I was a nurse at the Free Hospital, and
four years at St. George's. I saw the limb set.
The child was very dirty when she was brought in.
I washed her twice over. (The witness here gave
evidence of the dirty habits of the patient.) Quvich
was there often. He used to come into our room
when we were undressing. The sores were attended
to with bladders. She would not keep them under
her. I never saw dancing in the ward.
Mrs. Webster examined—l was day-nurse. (The
witness gave evidence similar to that of the last wit-
ness. She said the child was of very dirty habits,
and that she washed and changed her three or four
times a day.)
Cross examined—l was discharged from St. Bar-
tholomew's Hospital. I answered the sister pert. A
child died in the Free Hospital of a burn. Catherine
Connor had typhus fever ; she was at the bottom,
and plaintiff at the top of the ward. There were
syphilis patients in the ward, whom Mr. Marsden
attended. There was a sponge used for those patients.
Mrs. Morgan examined—l was matron of the es
tablishment, I knew the plaintiff had her linen often
changed. The number was unlimited. There were
constant applications. She has used 25 pairs of sheets
in a week. No complaint was made by the father or
by the mother.
Mrs. Jones examined—l was a patient when the
child was there. (This witness confirmed the evi-
dence of the last witnesses; as did Agnes Williams and
Mrs. Weston, two other patients.)
Dr. Rice examined—l am the head master of
Christ's Hospital, and chairman of the weekly board
of the Free Hospital. Our funds were in a depressed
state at that time. We were 5,0001. in debt, in con-
sequence of which two wards were closed. I was in
the chair when the plaintiff's father made his com-
plaint for three hours. He stated everything he
wished to say. I took down everything he said. I
only stopped him to write it down. We were
specially summoned the next night to consider the
matter. The plaintiff's father said nothing of any
private communications a: ith the defendant which
came out to•day. The statement which I took down
was signed by him, and he said that was all he wished
to say.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed to put in the
paper, which was objected to, and rejected.
Witness—At that time we had only one female
ward. They could not have had her removed to
another.

This being the defendant's case,
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS replied, and after
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE had summed up the evi
dente,

jury The gave a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dcc. 10.

(Sitting at Nisi Prius, in Middlesex, before the
LORD CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)
BkTEY V. WATSON AND OTHERS.

(Continued from our Third Edition of l►st night.)
The jury having been absent for upwards of two
hours, sent to know whether, as there was not the
most remote chance of their arriving at a verdict,
they might not come into court to be discharged
without giving a verdict ?
Mr. Pollock, the Marshal, in the absence of the
Lord Chief Baron, who had quitted by the consent of
all parties, said that course could not be adopted.
The jury, in ten minutes afterwards, came into
court, when they gave a verdict for the defendants.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 10.
(Before Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.)
JUDGMENT.—THE SAINT ALBANS BANK.—IN RE J.

5. STORY.

His HoNouß to-day gave judgment upon the bank-
rupt's application for certificate. He said that includ-
ing the 1,5001. which rightly belonged to the repre-
sentatives of Mr. Lomax, there were assets sufficient
to pay Bs. in the pound. In looking into the case, he
was struck with the great amount of personal expen-
diture, which was at the rate of more than 2,0001.
a year, exclusive of the bank and professional ex-
penses. This was a remarkable illustration of the
bad consequences of extravagant expenditure. Had
Mr. Story been content with expending 1,0001. or
1,5001. a year, there would have been enough to pay
everybody. Thus was seen the importance of care-
fully watching personal expenditure, for in this
case the failure was owing to it. Had the case
been unopposed, he should probably have allowed the
certificate, but of the third class. It was with pain
he had adverted to the charge which had been
brought and proved against this gentleman, that being
appointed to receive the tithes of Mr. Lomax, a very
aged gentleman, he did so for many years, and paid
them over with great regularity to the bankers, but
Mr. Lomax being infirm or imbecile, he had ceased
to do so. Mr. Story had introduced thin feature in
the case, without which he would have been in a
much better position. Why should he constitute
himself a trustee for Mr. Lomax, and what was more,
charge 5 per cent. for doing fo ? He ought at all
events have disposed of the money, so that it was
forthcoming when called for. Such was certainly
the duty of one who had taken upon himself the office
of banker and solicitor. His excuses for non-payment
were extremely frivolous. First, that he had no au-
thority for paying the money into Messrs. Fuller's;
why he had been paying it there all along,
and nothing had been done to alter the authority.
Then he asked for an indemnity, and paid 1,0001.
without it. But this excuse was soon removed by the
legal authority of the executor, who had shown the
greatest forbearance and consideration in the matter.
His allegation then was, that the accounts were not
ready; and a worse feature in the transaction was, that
he had subsequently received 491., which he did not
hand over—having no right to touch it. When 21r.
Merratt's patience was exhausted he had recourse to
law, and the bankrupt, instead of at once admitting
the claim, put in a plea that he did not owe the
money—a deliberate falsehood. And his excuse was,
that he did not wish any advantage to be had over his
other creditors by the representatives of Mr. Lomax.
In other words, that this 1,500/. of Mr. Lomax's
should go to swell the dividend under the estate. Such
was the conduct of this said to be respectable
solicitor of long standing, and of good
family. Upon remonstration, he had the cool-
ness to allege that the loss would only be
about 2001 to each cestui que trust, of whom there
was a large number. When the case came on for
trial, he came to the court, alleging that he had
thought himself all along solvent. Ile had clearly
brought himself within the operation of two of the
special clauses of the new Act, to which, however, a
retrospective operation would be given, unless high
authority decided otherwise. The bankrupt came
within the 3d and sth divisions of the 256th section,
having fraudulently obtained the forbearance of his
creditors, and vexatiously defended an action. His
responsibility was by far greater than an ordinary
trader, he being a banker and solicitor, who had
obtained money in confidence, and violated that
confidence. He was a trustee, and had committed
a breach of trust—a steward, and had acted
unjustly. The consideration of the interest of the
public required that such an offence should be very
severely visited. His high character had been urged
in his behalf ; but how easy was it for a man
living in tha country, at the rate of '2,000/. a year, to
ebtein such a character I As the good book told
us, "Only do good to thyself, and all men will
speak well of thee." The offence complained of was
conduct which had been pursued for a course of years,
and not an isolated act. The reputation of his life
was now gone, at the close of it he would have to
feel that his misdeeds had been brought to light, and
exposed in a court of Justice. He trusted that when