The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-01 00:00:00

[MORNING HERALD.]

Wedn'esday's Paris Papers, with the Eloile of
Thursday arrived last night. They are wholly
taken up with the continued debate on the re-
duction of the interest payable on the Rentes.—
It was opened by M. de Girardin, a Liberal,
who took the turn of General Foy, abs'eut from
illness. His speech had some point and per-
sonality, and frequently excited what the French

Journals call a sensation. He touched with some
happiness the impartiality with which the money-
lenders supply their capitals to the Empires of
Russia or Otaheite, the Republic of Colombia,
and the Austrian Monarchy,and called a certain
great banking concern a European Mont de Pick,
or pawnbroking shop to which the Kings of
Europe resorted to in their distress. He was
answered by Mr. Corbiere, the Minister, and
some further speeches of little interest, the de-
bate was adjourned to the following day.

There are, in a recent work of the Abbe de
Pradt, some curious observations on the preva-
lent system of public loans, especially with re
ference to those of the last two years. lie esti-
mates the loans effected in the years 1822 and
1823 at a milliard (of francs)—France alone has
for her share 323 millions ; and, what seems a
prodigy to the Abbe, Mexico and Peru have im-
plored and obtained " the produce of their own
entrails" from the money-lenders of Europe ; or,
in other words, the land of gold did homage
to the land of oredit. This milliard of capital
pays, at six per cent., an annual revenue of sixty
millions. But who are the proprietors of this
revenue---the Aristocracy or Democracy ? The
latter, no doubt, whose skill and industry pro-
duces all this disposable wealth, and to whom,
in its reflux, it brings back new profit and riches.
The increase of wealth obtained by the Demo-
cracy in this way does not, by the Abbe's calcu-
lation, fall short of 500 millions—of francs, be
it understood. This has produced a kind of
social revolution. The Democracy has taken
le haul du pave—or, it may be said, has taken
the wall of the Aristocracy. This revolution is
ingeniously enough indicated in the past and
present state of Paris. Since Paris has become
the first manufacturing town of France, and
the second money market of Europe, the
face of Society has changed. The Aristo-
cracy scarcely holds its footing in one or
two fashionable parts of the capital. The most
splendid, and far greater number are possessed by
the Democracy. It is the Democracy that anides
the fashion, and embellishes the city. Under
Louis XIV. it was asked at Paris," what do they
say of such or such things at Court ?" Under
Louis XV. it was asked at Court, " what do
they say at Paris ?" Then commenced the social
change which has now reached its utmost de-
velopment. The system of public loans has not
only given, according to the Abbe, a social, but
a political supremacy also to the Democracy.—
" I ask," he says, " whether, without the pe-
cuniary assent of a dozen houses exercising a
dictatorship in credit, it would not be easier to
break an armed coalition, than a league between
twelve of the leading European banking-houses?"

INQUEST on REUBEN FLETCHER, ESQ•

Last night an Inquest was held at the Castle
Inn, Brockley, near Lewisham, before JOSEPH CARTTAR,
Esq. Coroner for Kent, on the body of Reuben Fletcher, Esq.
of Camberwell, who for many years filled an important situa-
tion in his Majesty's Mint. The Jury being sworn, took a
view of the body of the deceased, and after returning to the
Jury Room, the Coroner addressed them :--He stated, that their
inquiry upon the present occasion was, first, how the deceased
came to his death, and it would, he understood, be very satiS-
factorily proved, that he was the author of his own death ; in
the second place, they would have to decide upon the state of
the mind of the deceased at the time the melancholy event took
' place....._He (the Coroner) had frequently given it as his opi-
nion, that suicide indicated insanity in the person who com-
mitted the act without any apparent motive ; but in this case
he believed that evidence would be adduced, clearly showing
the disordered condition of the mind of the deceased.
Mr. W. Forbes, a surgeon, of Camberwell, stated that he had
been acquainted with the deceased upwards of twelve years ;
for the last twelve months he had attended him professionally,
his disorder was the stone in the prostrate glands, which is
much more painful than the common disease of stone and
gravel ; the anguish occasioned by the former being constant,
and the latter intermitting. Such a continued state of bodily suf-
fering as the deceased endured was very likely to occasion great
irritation of mind ; and he had observed that the deceased,
when speaking of his disorder, had entertained the most in-
correct and absurd notions on the subject; for instance,
he at times would fancy the stone in his brain, and
at other times in his heart and stomach. Witness's obser-
vations had led him to suspect some disorganization existed
in the mental faculties of the deceased. On Monday wit-
ness saw the deceased at his house at Camberwell, about 11
o'clock in the day, and on the same morning lie saw him again
in Camberwell Grove; but on those occasions he observed no-
thing particular in his conduct. On Tuesday morning, witness
called between 12 and 1 o'clock at the deceased's residence, and
saw Miss Fletcher, who said, that her father left home at 10
o'clock, and expressed great uneasiness lest something should
happen to bins of a calamitous nature. About half-past four
o'clock the same afternoon, witness received a letter from a per-
son named Colly, stating, that a gentleman had been taken
out of the canal, near Brockley, on whose person a note was
found, addressed to witness ;_he therefore took a chaise and
went to identify the body of his friend. On arriving at the place
where the bode was lying, the letter was handed to witness
(which he produced), and he found it was in the hand-writing
of the deceased. It was addressed—" Mr. Win. Forbes, Cam-
berwell-green," and was underwritten--" Reward for carry-
ing this is in my hat," and the contents of the letter were—
" Adieu, my dear Forbes ; I cannot bear with my feelings any
longer. Your's,
The Jury examined the letter, which appeared to be written
in a pretty firm hand.
Thomas Scales, a resident at Camberwell, stated, that on
Tuesday last he was walking along- the bank of the Surrey
Canal, for the purpose of getting work b' unloading some of the
barges, and saw a cane lying on the side of the river, and a
little farther on lie observed the body of the deceased in the
water. A snan named Hawkins came up to him and assisted
him in getting the body out. The deceased had no hat on ;
but witness observed a hat floating on the surface of the water
some distance from him, and near to it a letter was lying upon
the water ; the letter was the one produced by the above wit-
ness. The body appeared to have been but a short time in the
water. There was no money in the hat.
Coroner.—ls it not very probable that the deceased placed
the hat with money in it on the side of the canal, and the wind
blew it in ?_Witness continued—He thought it was very pro-
bable. In the pockets of the deceased were found a purse, con-
taining a sovereign and some silver, and in his fob pocket a
gold watch, Sec., which had stopped at five minutes past one
o'clock, the time, in all probability, when the deceased threw
himself into the water.
Mr. Steel and a Mr. Hawkins who were in the company of
the last witness when the body was found, confirmed his
evidence.
The Coroner said, that there could be no doubt of the de-
ceased having occasioned his own death by drowning himself,
and after the evidence of the Surgeon who attended him, little
doubt could be entertained of his being affected in his mind at
the time. The Jury coincided with the Coroner, and returned
a verdict,—"'That he drowned himself, being insane at the
time."
The body was placed in a hearse, and was conveyed in it last
night to the house of the deceased, at Camberwell, followed by
the deceased's private carriage.

An Inquest was held before THOMAS Gi:LL, -Esq. Co-
roner for Westminster, -at the Feathers public-house, Dean-
street, Westminster, on view of the body of Mr. C. Schmitz, a
Bavarian. The body was found in the Thames. No explana-
tion of the cause or manner of the death of the deceased was
elicited. On his person was found a card with the following
address :—" C. Schmitz, Commissary Inspector of Mines and
Manufactures of Porcelain to his august Majesty the King of
Bavaria, Member of the Royal Accademy of Sciences at Mu-
nich ; Correspondent of the Society of Philomatique and Na-,
tural History at Paris, No. G, Norfolk-street, Strand." The
Jury returned a verdict of—" Found drowned."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Aram 30.

THE OPERA HOUSE.
Mr. HART moved for leave of reference to the Master, to in-
quire whether it would not be for the benefit of the estate to con-
tinue Mr. Croft a trustee, with an allowance of compensation
for his trouble in the management of the estate. This applica-
tion; though relative to a Theatre, was not like those made on
other Theatres ; it had nothing to do with the internal manage-
ment—it was only as to the duty of landlord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I am not aware of the nature of
the theatrical management of those establishments, but I cer-
tainly know that the judicial management of them is a very dif-
ficult affair.
Mr. HART—The case was this: Mr. Croft had been confi-
dential clerk to Mr. Holloway, the proprietor of the Opera
House. Mr. Holloway at his death appointed him a joint
trustee with Mr. Serjeant Marshal and Mr. Serjeant Lawes for
the management of the estate. Mr. Serjeant Marshal is dead.
Mr. Croft cannot give up his time to the management without
compensation. Mr. Serjeant Lawes, the surviving trustee,
cannot manage the estate without the practical assistance of Mr.
Croft, who alone is acquainted with the nature of the business.
Mr. SUGDEN, for the infants, declared his consent to the re-
ference.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—This is a delicate thing ; I don't
know well what to do. Trustees who voluntarily undertake
trust duties cannot get rid of them. A trustee cannot be al-
lowed compensation, except on the principle that it is for the
benefit of the estate. Trustees may employ others and pay
them out of the estate, but cannot take compensation for their
own labour ; and Lord Thurlow was so well aware of this, he
directed by his will, in express terms, a compensation to be
given to his trustees.
Mr. SuoDEX observed that Mr. Croft never accepted the
duty of trustee, or the legacy bequeathed to him by Mr. Hollo-
way for executing the duties.
The LORD CHANCRLLOR said he should have repudiated
the trust by a regular deed.
Mr. HART said that Croft would execute a deed divesting
himself of every right and interest in the trust.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—If he formally divest and dis-
entangle himself from all connection with the trust, he then has
as little to do with it as any man that walks the streets of Lon-
don, and of course is equally eligible, and may be proposed
before the Master.

Mr. BATHEBY could not let this opportunity pass of men-
tioning to his Lordship the charge made to the trustees for the
use of a box in the Opera.
Mr. HART contended that, the charge was enormous-
-678/., as he would prove.
The LORD CHAECELLOR—I believe you have got into the
wrong box there, Mr. Hart.
Mr. BULEELEY said the charge was fair.
Mr. HART asserted that he would not be boxed about so ; he
would defend his assertion. The fact was, Mr. Serjeant Mar-
shal, one of the trustees, occasionally visited a particular box
on a free ticket.
The Lonn CHANcEL Loa—What business has a Serjeant
at Law at such places as theatres
Mr. HART could not deny that Serjeants as well as other
people wereloften found in places where they ought not to be ;
but he might have gone to the box for half a guinea each time,
and yet he was charged the price of an entire box, 5781. This
was most exaggerated ; it was a case of extreme hardship.
The LORD CHANCELLOR could not deny that it was some-
thing too much ; he would look at the papers, and settle the
affair to-morrow. No further business appearing, his Lordship
rose at twelve.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APRIL 30.
GREATII.I3I V. HHITLHEAD.

This was an action brought by a person of the name of Great-
ham, residing in Hertford-street, Fitzroy-square, against a con-
veyancer and annuity-broker of the name of Whitehead, resid-
ing in Boyle-street, Burlington-gardens, to recover a sum of
money which he had intrusted to the defendant's care to be laid
out in the purchase of annuities, of which the interest was to be
regularly paid and properly secured to him. The action arose
out of the two following transactions :—On the 17th of April,
1818, the plaintiff, acting upon the recommendation of the de-
fendant, who received a commission for completing the bargain,
ordered the defendant to pay over 700/. to a clergyman of the
name of Locke, who, in return, secured to the plaintiff an an-
nuity of 961. a-year, which the defendant informed him was
amply secured upon the living of Hilgay, in the counts, of Nor-
folk, which was estimated at the yearly value of 1,500/. About
the same time the plaintiff, upon the same recommendation as
before, ordered 7001. to be paid into the hands of a gentleman
called Hamer, who, in return, granted to the plaintiff a similar
annuity to that granted him by Dr. Locke. On these two annui-
, ties one or two half-yearly payments took place : after which
nothing was received on account of them. Thu plaintiff, not
receiving his annuities, began to inquire into the resources of
the persons who had to pay them. He found them both over-
burdened with annuities, and in a state of the most notorious
pecuniary embarrassment. Ile now came into a Court of Jus-
tice to compel his agent to make good to him the loss which he
had sustained in consequence of his negligence.
Mr. SCARI.ETT, who conducted the case of the plaintiff,
was proceeding to state the notoriety of Mr. Hamer's embarrass-
ments, when, in consequence of an annunciation maf.e to him
by the Attorney-General, who conducted the defence, that Mr.
Hamer had recently had an accession of fortune, and was now
able to pay his annuity, he said that he should give up that
part of his case ; and should proceed to prove, that at the time
when Mr. Whitehead advised his client to purchase an annuity
of Dr. Locke, he either knew, or ought to have known, that
that Gentleman's affairs were in a state of the utmost embar-
rassment. He should call witnesses to prove, that on examin-
ing the judgment-roll of the Court of King's Bench, they found
judgments docketed against Dr. Locke, in April 1818, to the
amount of 39,6451.; and on examining the Register-office they
found he had granted annuities to the amount of 1,21351. ; that
on examining the Filazer's-Office, they found that in the year
and a half previous to that date there had been writs, of which
many were writs of alias and pluries, issued against him for
sums amounting w 3,440/. ; that in the interval between the
years 1812 and 1818, 47 writs against him had been placed in the
roiffifficeofoEf tnligeliSsibiecrojirun°tfieSsu;rtrieY, and 88 in those of the other She-
riffs an officer at Guildford had in the
same period arrested him 60 or 70 times ; that his credit at Farn.
ham was so notoriously bad that nobody would intrust him with
the slightest article ; that he was committed to the Fleet on the
15th May, 1819, upon 4 different actions, and discharged from
it in consequence of superseding some of them and settling
others, on the Bth July, 1819 ; that he was committed on the
11th of July, 1819, to the King's Bench, on three actions,
and discharged from It on the 26th of September, 1819 ; that a
commision of Bankruptcy had been issued against him on the
30th of September in the same year ; that he had since gained
his certificate, but that no dividend had been paid nor was
likely to be paid under his commission. The Learned Counsel
contended that many of these facts must have been known to
Mr. Whitehead. He had himself enrolled several of Dr.
Locke's annuities ; hut even supposing that he had not, he
was bound, as agent for the plaintiff, to take every means
which the law allowed him, to ascertain that gentleman's sol-
vency. He might have gone to the Annuity office, to the judg-
ment roll, and to the Filazer's office. He either had done so,
or he had not. If he had done so, he had erred with his eyes
open in not warning the plaintiff, who had intrusted his money
to his care, against lending it to Dr. Locke. If he had not
done so, lie had been guilty of the grossest negligence in allow-
ing his client to pay away his money to a man so incumbered ;
1 and in either case was bound to make good to the plaintiff the
loss which he had sustained. He, therefore, confidently sub-
mitted, that a verdict must pass in this case for his client.
This case was fully proved on the part of the plaintiff. It
appeared, however, that some of the docketted judgments re-
lated to the same transactions as the annuities, and that the an-
nuities were secured, not on the living of Hilgay, but on the
living of Clutton. There was a covenant in all of them, that
in case Dr. Locke obtained a new living, and vacated his old
one, the annuities should be transferred from the new to the
old living.
The ATTORXEY-GENERAL said, that when the plaintiff
determined to exact 14 per cent. for his money, it was evident
that he did not expect to get it upon security that was altoge-
ther unexceptionable, inasmuch as no person that was not em-
barrassed would consent to allow such exorbitant interest. It
could not, therefore, be fairly charged against his client that he
had misled the plaintiff, even if he had not fully informed him
of the embarrassed circumstances of Dr. Locke. It was true
that he could not controvert various judgments and memorials
which had been produced on the other side. His case, however,
had nothing to do with them. He would prove to them that
his client had done nothing more in this transaction than intro.
duce Dr. Locke to the plaintiff; and that it was dr. Lambe,
Mr. Greatham's attorney, and not his client, who had examined
into the securities, and drawn up the conveyance. Besides
this, he had another defence. At the time this annuity was
granted, there was no other incumbrance than it upon the
living of Hilgay, which was estimated at 2,0001. All the other
annuities were granted on Dr. Locke's other property, which
consisted of farms in various places, the living of Farnham,
worth 3001. a year, and the perpetual curacy of Seale, worth
about 1001. a year. His case rested upon this fact, that the
living of Hilgay was a specified pledge, on which there was no
specific incumbrance. That property had since been forfeited,
not in consequence of any thing that was known to his client at
the time of granting the annuity, but in consequence of some
proceedings which had since taken place between Dr. Locke
and a clergyman of the name of Craddock. Dr. Locke, who

was in possession of the advowson of Hilgay, had sold it (4
Mr. Craddock for 26,0001., to be paid in a certain fixed and de-
finite manner. Dr. Locke, in consequence, resigned the living
in 1816 to Mr. Craddock, but accepted it again in 1817 in sort-
sequence of Mr. Craddock's not being able to ftilfil the terms
61 his agreement. He was again, therefore, in possession of it.
at the time when he granted this annuity. Subsequently he
endeavoured to void it in favour of a clergyman of the name of
Lens. The Bishop of Norwich, however, suspected that some
sitnoniacal practices were carried on between them, and the
consequence was that a writ of quart impedit was issued. The
proceedings on it were protracted for some time, and it was not
till the year 1822 that they were concluded by a decision which
took away the living from Dr. Locke. If that living had not
been forfeited, he contended that the plaintiff would still have
good security; and as it had not been forfeited in consequence.
of any thing which had been done by Dr. Locke previously to .
April, 1818, he maintained that there was not a shadow of
ground upon which the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
Mr. %%. L. Davis deposed, that he had introduced the plain-
tiff to Mr. Whitehead for the purpose of letting that Gentle=
man lay out the plaintiff's money in the purchase of annuities.
Feeling, however, a great respect for the plaintiff, he advised
him to employ a lawyer to examine into the security of any title.
that might be offered to him. The plaintiff accordingly did so.
He employed a Mr. Lambe, who lived in Surrey, and who had
examined and approved Dr. Locke's title.
The Rev. Charles Locke, son of Dr. Locke, deposed to the
extent of his father's property. After describing the farms
which he had at Greenhill, -Kingsdown-hill, Whitmore, Farn-
ham, Headley, and Hilton, but which, upon cross-examination,
were proved to be for the most part only small fields and not
farms, he proceeded to state, that in 1817 his father was Rector
of Hilgay ; that in 1816 he had disposed of the living to a Mr.
Craddock ; that he had retaken it in 1817, and that he had
voided it in the latter part of 1818. It was a valuable living,
extending over 8,000 acres. He knew that his father had pro-
perty in the West Indies, and also in lead-mines ; but he never
recollected his father's receiving any remittances, though he re--
ceived many letters from the agents who managed that pro-
perty for him. He knew that his father was indebted to Dr.
Sorrel 16,0001. for the living of Hilgay. He never saw any of
the tithes of that parish come into his father's hands, nor did.
he receive any rent for the estates which he had mentioned—it
all went to pay off the interest of the mortgages upon them. He
admitted, after many attempts to avoid it, the extreme unbar,
rassment of his father from the year 1812 to 1818.
Dr. Hewlett, the present Rector of Hilgay, said that the esti-
mated value of that living was 1,571/.
The admission and induction of Dr. Locke to the living of
Hilgay were then put in and proved.
Mr. SCARLETT, in reply, called upon the Jury to remark
that there was no proof that any abstracts had ever been sent to
Mr. Lambe to inspect, or even that Mr. Lambe was an attor-
ney. If the defendant had called Mr. Lambe, as he was per-
fectly at liberty to do, the Jury would have known whether he
was the attorney, supposing him to be an attorney, of Mr.
Greetham or of Mr. Whitehead. The first part of his Learned
Friend's defence was perfectly untenable. His Learned Friend
had called evidence from whom he extracted the fact, that Dr.
Locke was indebted at the time when he granted this annuity
to Dr. Sorrell in no less a sum than 16,0081., independently of
the sum of 39,000/. for which he had issued annuities and given
judgments. Now his Learned Friend had told them that this
living was free from any prior incumbrance. His own witness
had proved that statement to be untrue, by stating that there
was an incumbrance of 16,0001. upon it. But even if that had
not been the ease, his Learned Friend well knew that the
judgments then docketted took precedence of all subsequent
securities, and bound every kind of property which Dr. Locke
possessed. Under these circumstances, as the defendant's evi-
dence, instead of contradicting, corroborated the plaintiff's
evidence, he left the case with perfect confidence in the hands
of the Jury.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence to
the Jury, and told them that the first question which they
would have to decide was, whether the plaintiff had relied on
Lambe or on Whitehead for the examination of his security.
If they thought that he had depended upon the former, then
there was an end of the plaintiff's case; but if they thought
that he had depended upon the latter, then it would be their
duty to consider another question also. It was undoubtedly
the duty of an annuity broker to examine into the circum-
stances of the party to whom the money was to be advanced.
It was only charitable in this case to suppose that no inquiry
had been made into the circumstances of Dr. Locke ; for if any
inquiry, however slight, had been made in the neighbourhood
in which he lived, it would have been impossible for the party
making it not to have discovered the, desperate situation of his
fortunes. After it was discovered, it would have been enifi-
cient to put any man of business on his guard, and to prevent
him from lending his money to an individual who was so cer-
tain to give him no remuneration. He should therefore again
press it upon them to consider—first, had the plaintiff intrusted
his money to the care of the defendant to lay out on good secu-
rity ? and secondly, if he had, had the defendant used sufficient
caution ? If they should find a verdict in favour of the plain-
tiff; he thought that they would have but little difficulty in
coming to a similar conclusion on the second ; and in that case,
it would be their duty to give him a verdict for such a stun as
they calculated would (quid the annuity which he had lost.
The Jury deliberated for a few minutes, and then returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1,8921. 10s.

Pries.
34s Od to 40a Od
35s 3d to 403 Od

COAL-MARKET, APRIL 30.
Ships at Market. Ships sold
44 Newcastle . 27i
19 Sunderland - - 12

COURSE OF EXCHANGE, April 30.

Antstei dam
Ditto, at Sight
Rotterdam
Antwerp
Hanilmigh :37 6 Si Us
Altona
Paris,3 Day's sight 2i 40 0 Us.

Ditto
Bourdeaux, ditto
Berlin 7 10
Frankfort on the Main
Petessburgli . 9
Vienna lO S
Trieste lO 3
Madrid
Cadiz
Bilboa..
Barcelona
erille
Gibraltar
•
Leghorn
Genoa 434-Venice, Ital. Lir. 27 0
Malta 45 -Naples 384
Palermo
Lisbon
Oporto
ltioJaneiro
Baltic . 51
Dublin .... 91 Cork 94 pet Cent.
BULLION.

Portugal Gold, n Coin / .0 0 0 petoa.
Foreign Gold, in Bars 3 17 6
New Doubloons 0 U 0

New Dollars 0 4 9i
Silver in Bars, Standard o 5 0