The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-17 00:00:00

THE COURIER BASQUE.

This vessel, a French lugger, came in collision with
the Branken-moor on the 21st July last, off the coast of
Dorchester, while on a voyage from Havre to Bayonne.
The former being very much damaged, and as fears
were entertained that she would soon sink, the collision
taking place in the night, the captain and crew left her
and got on board the Branken-moor, and were taken
into Cowes. The pilot-boat Flora fell in with the Cou-
rier Basque on the following morning, in derelict, and,
after very great difficulty and danger, succeeded in steer-
ing her into Cowes, where she was delivered over to the
Captain. The value of the property thus salved, was
3,2501.

Drs. HAGGARD and JENNER appeared for the salvors,
and contended that a most praiseworthy service had been
rendered by their clients, not only in saving so valuable
a property, but in removing from the Channel a vessel
which, from its not being under control, might, during
the night, have come in collision with other ships. In
the attempt of the salvors to get on board, one of them
was cast into the sea, of the name of Jonas, but he was
fortunately saved. So precipitate was the abandonment
of the Courier Basque, that the crew left their money
and watches on board. The Court would, under these
circumstances, reward the salvors liberally.
Dr. ADDAMS and Dr. PRATT for the owners, did not
deny the salvors had saved the ship and cargo, but it
could not be contended that the vessel was a derelict, as
it had been the intention of the Captain and crew to go
again on board of her. The Learned Advocates com-
plained of the mode in which the suit had been conducted.
Dr LUSHIXGTON said the principal ground upon which
the salvors must rest their claim was the danger incurred
in rendering their services. The ♦essel was run down
by a ship of 300 to 400 tons burtben on the 21st of
July, and it was fortunate that she had not been sunk.
The crew and passengers, thinking their lives were in
peril, immediately got on board the Branken-moor, and
the Courier Basque was left to the mercy of the winds
and waves, without any one on board. The pilot vessel
was the only salvor, and by the exertions of its crew
property of the value of 3,2501. had been saved from de-
struction. The Court must consider this a case of
derelict, but derelicts differed in degrees. The largest
reward ever given under the most perilous circumstances
was a moily of the value of the property saved. In the
present case there had not been any very great peril, and
the Court thought the salvors would be amply rewarded
by receiving 7501.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Dec. 16.
JERRY V. DAVIS.

This was an action to recover the sum of 4001. for work
done and performed, and 331. for goods sold and delivered.
The action was undefended, but from tha statement of
the Counsel, it appeared that the plaintiff is a builder,
and the defendant a gentleman of property, who had re-
cently come to London for the purpose of establishing a
bath-room, and for that purpose had taken two houses in
Grafton-street, and entered into an agreement with the
plaintiff to fit up the houses as a series of baths, and the
agreement stipulated that 1,268/. should be paid by three
instalments for the same. The first instalment was to be
paid when a third of the works had been completed, and
so on in proportion, till the whole was paid. When the
first portion of the works were completed, the plaintiff
applied to the defendant for payment of the first instal-
ment, but could only obtain a very small amount ; the
works were, however, continued till the second instal-
ment became due. As the money due was not forthcom-
ing at this time, the works were stopped, and the present
action instituted.

The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages
to the whole amount claimed.

Several undefended actions were taken, in all which
verdicts were given for the plaintiffs.

TEASDALE V. DUPRE.

This was an action to recover the sum of 51., for work
done and performed.

Mr. Thomas appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C,
Jones for the defendant.

It appeared that the defendant was a milliner and
dress-maker, and had resided in Regent-street. She had
engaged the plaintiff to write her circulars and bills as
she was very proficient in penmanship. One witness
stated that the plaintiff was the best female writer in
London ; so well was it done, that few could tell it from
lithograph productions. She had been engaged at 11. per
week, and had staid five weeks when the defendant gave
up business.

The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the
full amount.

BROOKS V. GUM.

In this action. the plaintiff, who is a baker, had sup-
plied the defendant with bread to the amount of 61., for
which the present action was brought, and a verdict re-
turned for the plaintiff.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 16.
IN RE W. HITCHCOCK'S BANKRUPTCY.
The re-examination of the bankrupt was resumed this
morning amidst apparently increasing interest,.
What was the amount of your debts owing to Cook
and Gladstone, in January 1, 1841 ?—The amount
then owing for goods was 2,6061. ss. 10d.; on cash account,
10,9171. 10s. 7d. ; Mr. Cook, separate account, 3,0001. ;
total 16,5831. 16s. sd. ; liabilities to them 633/. 12s. 6d. ;
total debt and liabilities 17,2191.85. 11d. This I believe
to be as correct as the short time I have been allowed
would enablx me to supply.
What was the total amount of debt and liabilities
owing from you to them at the time of your failure, in-
cluding Mr. Cook's account ?—ln round numbers 19,8001.,
but I would wish to give the particulars debt, goods, and
cash 15,937/. 155.; Mr. Cook, 3,0001; liabilities, 877/. 155.,
total, 19,829/. 10s., and here I wish to explain. I think
Mr. Ashurst will not say I have anticipated him, as I
understood him to say yesterday that the object of this
inquiry was to show the Court that my debt was less in
January than at the period of my failure. I now recol-
lect that about the latter end of December, or the begin-
ning of January, that on one occasion, when I applied
to Messrs. Cook and Gladstone for a renewal
of the sum of about LOON., and not in addition toj the
debt, that they refused such renewal. About this
time Mr. Cook, sen., unknown to me, waited on my bro-
ther, and Mr. Cook has since told me that he told my
brother that I wanted a renewal, but that he would not
give it except upon my brother's security, that security I
believe was obtained; and also at this period, alluding to
the commencement of the year, without being enabled to
be more particular as to dates, I submitted to Cook and
Gladstone. the plan of my alterations for the improve-
ment of my premises, and which cost a very large sum,
and would therefore improve the value of the leases
which they held ; and to which alterations they con-
6dh. 3,4061.A1 143765. Icash
rented and approved. The alterations were proceeded
.;aincreased
and
interestperiodmy
my
goods'accountaccount 301 Os. 5d.; Mr. Cook 3,000/. ; and liabilities 1,3761. 9s. 3d , making a total of 21,743/. 6s
2d. I have before stated
btiesh to th tat in
em the month of .May I reduced my
l andsbout 3,100/.
Ny premises, with
the alterations improvements, had scarcely been
completed, when they pressed me for
money, in proof
of which I refer to the letters which they themselves
have exhibited. I therefore leave the Court to judge of
their motives when the evidence of the different creditors
to whom they gave references, shall have been given.
understood that Mr. Groom said there were no le'
the hands of the official assignee. T
morning • that on one file there were r, •
dred and sixty-two ; and 7 "

...cers in
found this

-•+; t4ep one bun-
.. Ae.,74 reason to believe

NOON, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1841.

there may be 300 or 400. lam anxious that the public
should know that all my letters have not been destroyed.
Was not the 7501. paid to Cook and Gladstone in May,
a payment for which your brother was liable to them ?
Yes, and his security was given in consequence of my
applying to them on or about the 4th May for a loan of
7504 to pay for Fuller's stock, which we bought, and
which loan we only required for fourteen days. They,
however, declined to lend it, or for a shorter period, unless
they had his security.
On the 6th October you swore that the books deli-
vered up by you contained an account of all your trans-
actions to the fullest extent—is not that book your pri-
vate ledger?--It is.
State to the Court how many leaves have been taken
out of that ledger?—l will say a great many. It is im-
possible for me to say how many. Here I wish to explain.
I will swear that I have not cut out, taken out, or caused
to be cut or taken out any part of that ledger now shown,
or any other book relating to my affairs, with the intent
to conceal anything from my assignees, or from this Court,
and further that book has not been injured or lessened
by me or with my knowledge for two or three years. It
is an old book, and, whatever deficiency appears, it is
now in the same state as I believe it to have been for
many years.
Did you take out the leaves which arc taken out of the
book marked H. ?—I don't recollect ; but I have no
doubt I did. The book was not formerly my private
ledger.
When did it become so ?—I don't know to a year or
two, but I should think 1836 or 1837. I now recollect
that the book alluded to contained some accounts between
me and Mr. Hayward, who was my partner in 1832.
For many years we bought our stationery from Eastman,
of 100, Cheapside and I have no doubt, if necessary,
the books can be identified by that house, and the date
of 1832 proved as the time of its purchase.
Do you mean to state that your reason for taking out
those leaves was that it contained Hayward's account ?
—I don't recollect my reason now. I don't recollect my
reason at the time. I know it was from no improper
motive.
Does it not appear from the index, that your own pri-
vate cash account is taken from that book ?—Yes. The
handwriting is that of Mr. Hayward, and refers only to
my account, which might have been for goods and cash
whilst he was my partner. Since the dissolution of that
partnership I have not thought it necessary to enter in
any one book my private expenses ; it therefore cannot
refer to any account Of recent date.
Was not Hayward in your employ at the time of your
failure ?—He was.
Is he not the person who assisted in the removal of
the goods we have heard of ?-I.le was one of the parties
—there were several others.
Is not he the person who went to Paris to buy goods
for you, and who took a quantity of shawls with him
from your stock ?---I object to that question. It implies
that Hayward -did take shawls to Paris from my stock,
which has not been said.
Is he the person who went to Paris to buy goods for
you ?—He is.
Is not his account taken out of that private ledger ?
Am I to understand
Understand nothing, Sir, but give me an answer to
my question. Is his account, whatever it was, taken out of
that book ?—I can show from this ledger —the sold ledger,
that Mr. Hayward's account, as entered by the clerk at
the time, is now in existence, and has been delivered up
to the official assignee. The account of Mr. Hayward,
alluded to in the private ledger, did contain his account
whilst he was my partner.
Does the ledger I, shear what was contained in the
sheet taken out of ledger H ?—No.
Mr. ASRURST (handing up the private ledger)--You
will see, Sir, that there are several accounts of various
Hitchcocks taken out.
Mr. HARDWICK must complain of such insinuations
being thrown out by Mr. Ashurst. He attended for
other Hitchcocks, and trusted his Honour would see that
the case was conducted with justice.—(Applause.)
Mr. MARSDEN, solicitor for the bankrupt, hoped that
after such insinuations had been unfairly thrown out, the
baunkrupt would be allowed to explain, as he could,
most fully, all connected with the book and the accounts.
The bankrupt said, if an opportunity of explaining were
denied him, many days would be consumed in eliciting the
facts by cross •examining other witnesses. He could ex-
plain in such a manner as would astonish Mr. Ashurst
and those who employed him. He then said—The first
mention of Hitchcock in this book (the private ledger) is
that of the firm of Hitchcock and Skinner, of Barnstaple,
now both deceased. This account refers to the year 1832
I think. There is another mention of Jas. Hitchcock; this
also refers to my brother deceased. The second mention
of Hitchcock is an account with one of my sisters of some
monies I held for her in 1835. The next mention re-

- : - -
fers only to that of my mother, a similar account in 1835.
No other Hitchcock was ever referred to by any accounts
contained in this book. There are, however, several ac-
counts of mine with other persons, the explanation of
which I think unimportant, but will give it if your Ho-
nour thinks it necessary.
The Bankrupt—l wish to have it mentioned on the
examinations that Mr. Ashurst alluded to the name of
Hitchcock, as being contained in that book; that that
was the reason I gave the explanation.
This entry was accordingly made, and the examination
resumed.

Were the accounts of which you have been speaking,
the accounts which have been taken out ?—I believe so.
Mr. ASHURST—NOW, I believe is the time for the
official assignee's report to be read.
Mr. SOLE —I wish to know whether Mr. Ashhurst,
having now concluded his examination, it is his inten-
tion to proceed with the examination of his clients,
Messrs. Cook and Gladstone.
Mr. Commissioner Houton) thought it would be better
to finish the examinations before proceeding to take th•
report of the official assignee into consideration.
Mr. MARSDEN said that before he proceeded with
the examination on the part of the bankrupt, he
had to request the indulgence of having copies
of all the examinations which had previously
taken place ; both of those which had taken place
before he had been engaged for his client, and those
since. This investigation had now become of a most
serious nature, and he felt he could not do justice to his
client without those examinations, and also without
having access to all the documents. Mr. Ashurst
had at first, he had understood, been conduct-
ing the examination on behalf of the assignees, but
he had directed it solely to the_ purpose: of exculpating
his clients, Messrs. Cook and Gladstone. He would
not then advert to the particular circumstances
of the case, but he felt he could not do jus-
tice to Mr. Hitchcock unless he had access to the
documents referred to, before the examination was pro-
ceeded with. The bankrupt had voluntarily, before
the production of his balance-sheet, stated cer-
tain facts to his assignes ; on that statement
the recent examinations had been founded;
and facts had been supplied from their not having re-
ference to what appeared in the balance-sheet. Hence
several collateral issues had arisen which must be
tried, not on the evidence of the bankrupt
alone. Mr. Ashurst had with great ability conducted
the examinations, in order, ;as he had stated, to test
the truth of the bankrupt's statements ; but by what
means could those statements be tested except by collate-
ral circumstances —by letters, or by the testimony of per-
sons who could speak to letters which had been destroyed.
It was necessary that he should have access to all these
materials, and he hoped that all the letters exhibited, if
not in the examination of the bankrupt, in the
examination of Messrs. Cook and Gladstone, in
order to show how far they bore out the
testimony of the bankrupt. It was manifest, from the
manner in which the examination bad been conducted
this day, that it was necessary every collateral evidence
should be before the Court. What was the meaning of Mr.
Ashurst's question as to Hayward, but to attempt to throw
a slur upon his character or discredit his testimony—
therefore he asked that all the examinations which had
taken place prior to the present one might be re-
corded in Court, and that he (Mr. Marsden) might
have access to them. He had no end in vie Iv but the
furtherance of the ends of justice. He had not been
permitted to interrupt Mr. Ashurst, on the ground that
he might in his (Mr. M.'s) examination of the bankrupt
elicit any explanations of his former testimony that he
might deem requisite ; and as it was impossible to recol-
lect all that had passed, he urged that as an additional
reason why he ought to be furnished with the examina-
tions. Certain facts went to show that his client had on
some occasions acted very improperly, but the question
arose, had he not been tempted to act so, and who had
been his tempters ?—(Applause.) lie had no wish to
delay the examination of the bankrupt, but only to do
him justice, and in so doing, to do justice to the laws
of his country.
Mr. Aslitrasr said he had consulted with his clients
while Mr. Marsden was addressing the Court ; and
as that gentleman had stated he could not do justice to
the bankrupt without having copies of the examination,
they were willii.g that he should have all such copies as
might enable him to do justice to his client. They had
no desire to keep anything back.
Mr. Commissioner HoLeovD thought it but reason-
able that Mr. Marsden's request should be complied with.
His Honour thought it desirable that they should pro-
ceed with the examination.

Mr. LLOYD on behalf of several creditors, expressed a
desire to put some questions to the bankrupt.
Mr. SOLE submitted that Mr. Ashurst having con-
cluded his examination of the bankrupt, it would per-
haps be as well if that gentleman were to place
Messrs. Cook and Gladstone in the box, to give their
version of the affair. Should he decline doing so, he
(Mr. Sole) should submit that the private examination
of Messrs. Cook and Gladstone ;before the assignees, be
read by the Officer of the Court.
Mr. LLOYD had not interrupted the examinations
of Mr. Ashurst, and when they considered the time
which had already been wasted, he thought even suppos-
ing the questions he(Mr. L.) had to put should be useless,
the wasting one half hour additional (this examination
would not last longer) would be no great object.
The Court assented.
Mr. LLOYD resumed his examination.
How long have you had dealings with Messrs. Cook
and Gladstone ?—Nine or ten years.
What was the average amount of your monthly pur-
chases from them prior to the month of June last ?—I
can scaccely tell without reference to my books. I should
think about 7001.—it may be more.
Can you state what was the amount of your pur-
chases from them in that month ?—About 8001
What was the amountof goods purchased from them in
July last ?—I believe 11. is. 4d.
When did you last purchase any goods of them ?
July 12th. We ceased.to
buy goods of them, as I think,.
June 30th.
Did you in the month of June or July last, receive
,
from-0
-of
or either them, a letter referring to some
',...irchase of silk, which one of your buyers had made
' from them ?—Yes.
Where is such letter 7—l am not sure whether it was,
kept, or whether it
.was one of those which was de-
stroyed subsequently,*but such letter
party now in Court. was seen by a third

Can you state whetherthat letter is inexistence or not?
I —I believe it is not.
Can you state its contents ?—I can. The substance is
as follows :
" Gentlemen,—We find that your buyer, or one of
them, is constantly here, and that he has bought a large
parcel to-day. This is contrary to the understanding
between us, and we will thank you to have it altered.—
Yours, &c. " COOK AND GLAI)STONE."
To whom was it addressed and what was the date ?
—Addressed W. Hitchcock and Co., Regent-street, and
dated I think June 30, that being the day when a parcel
of silks of 125/. 17s. sd. was bought.
And that was the last parcel of goods purchased from
them ?—Except 11. Is. 4d. which was bought without my
knowledge—l think by one of the porters.
State how it came to pass that you purchased no more
goods of Cook and Gladstone than the parcel on 30th June
last?—l was requested by them not to do so.
Did you in the month of June, 1840, borrow from them
a large sum of money?—Yes ; about that time.
State what the sum was.-7,0001.
For how long a period was that sum agreed to be lent
to you ?—For seven or ten years, as will appear by a
bond which was being made at the time in favour of my
brother, but which was never completed, and which bond
contains such recital?—l believe it-was ten years.
With whom did you negotiate that loan?—Messrs.
Cook and Gladstone. •
Then both were present at the time you negotiated
that loan ?—I believe they were.
What rate of interest was it agreed that you should
pay for that loan ?—At the rate of 74 per cent, per an-
num, and that interest was paid for the first year by the
payment of a bill of exchange, June Ist, 1841, amount
525/. 12s. 6d. it being due on that day.
Where is that bill of exchange 7—At the official as-
signee's I have lately seen it.
Did you give them any note or bill on the occasion of
your borrowing such money from them 7—Yes, a
joint and several promissory notes, I think ; which
notes, 'believe, bore interest, without stating at what rate.
.. What date was that note drawn, and for what term ?
—Twelve months, dated from June 1, 1840, I believe.
How came it to happen that that note was
made a twelvemonths date, when the loan to you was
made for a longer ,period?—l forget the object at the
time. but at a meeting in the library or dining-
room, present Messrs. Cook and Gladstone, my
brother, and myself, the arrangement was entered
into. Mr. Cook or Mr. Gladstone, which I do
not recollect, said, E. they would lend me 7,0001.,
for, I believe, ten years, upon the security of my
brother. It was at this, or some other meeting about
the same time, that Mr. Cook or Mr. Gladstone said that
I must understand the interest to be 74 per cent. I ob-
jected to it, but at last finding I could not get it
at a lower rate, and as they were then press-
ing me for the payment of a sum undrawn,
amounting to about 3,800 L, I had no alternative.
I and my brother therefore consented to their advancing
the sum at that rate, although to the best of my recol-
lection the rate of interest was communicated to me
when my brother was not present ; however, on this
point I am not sure.
Mr. Lloyd—That is no answer to my ques-
tion—question repeated.--I do not recollect the reason of
Messrs. Cook and Gladstone's requiring a bill ; but, not-
withstanding such note was given, Mr. Cook or Mr.
Gladstone said (which I do not recollect) they would not
call in the money for seven or ten years, I think. I wish
here to explain that I did not receive 7,0001., but only
the balance, after deducting the amount which I owed
them, and which I have before stated to be about 3,800/.
Was that note. for 7,0001. paid at maturity 7—No, it
was not.
Was it presented for payment to your knowledge ?
It was not presented to me at my house, nor do I be-
lieve it has ever been presented to my brother.
Have you paid any part of that sum of 7,000/. ?—No.
Do you know how it happened that that note was not
presented Jim. payment when it became due ?—Yes ;
Messrs. Cook and Gladstone declined presenting the note,
but drew another, and sent it to me for my signature. I
signed it. I think I paid the clerk the stamp, and re-
turned it by their clerk.
State the particulars of the note so signed by you, the
amount, and date.—June Ist, 1841. We jointly and se-
verally promise to pay, at twelve months after date, the
sum of 7,0001., with interest thereon. Signed, W. Hitch-
cock. I expect also that it was subsequently signed by
my brother. That is all I know of it.
Mr. SOLE having intimated to Mr. Lloyd that he should
have access to the private examinations of the bankrupt,
•and of Messrs. Cook and Gladstone, on that point, said
he should not press it further at present. His ob;ect
was to show that the transaction was usurious, and to
lessen Messrs. Cook and Gladstone's proof by the amount
of 7,0001.
Can you state what references or what houses were
referred by you to Cook and Gladstone after 30th June
last ?—I cannot. I have, however, been since told by
one of the houses.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD—
Do you know of your own knowledge, or have you
heard from Messrs. Cook, Gladstone, or either of
them, that they answered any inquiries that were
made of them, or either of them, as to
your circumstances since the 30th June last ? Yes.
Mr. Cook said—l think in the drawing-room in Regent-
street, and at the meeting I have before referred to as
having taken place there—that he had given a. good. re,
ference to Messrs. Wheeler, Strachan, and Co. , This
believe to be in August. That is the only house that I
kuow of, as it would not be usual for me to know-whe-
ther or not houses referred by us had gone to them or
not. We should infer they had, if the goods were sent
in and which was generally the case.
Mr. LLOYD stated that he had no further questions to
put to the bankrupt at present.
Mr. SOLE now called upon Mr. Ashurst to place
Messrs. Cook and Gladstone in the box as he had pro-
mised.
Mr. ASHURST would redeem his pledge at the proper
time, but he wished to have the whole of the bankrupt's
examination finished in the first instance.
Mr. MARSDEN said, if there was any gentleman who
wished to examine the bankrupt he was now ready to
answer any questions that might be put to him. He had
nothing to conceal, and was anxious to meet the charges
that had been brought against hire.
The COMMISSIONER said it would appear that Mr.
Ashurst supposed that it was intended to call some wit-
nesses in support of the bankrupt's evidence.
Mr. MARSDEN said that certainly was what he intended
to do. He hoped, however, he would be allowed a few
days to prepare his case.
Mr. ASHURST had no objection whatever to such a
course. He would give him time to make copies of the
depoSitions.
The COMMISSIONER thought it would be as well now
to hear the official assignee's statement of the balance
sheet, as that might guide them in their future operations.
Mr. SOLE now proposed to call Mr. Wheeler.—(Ap-
plause.)
The COMMISSIONER said, if these noises were perse-
vered in he would be compelled to adjourn the Court.
The statement of the official assignee was then read as
to the balance sheet up to 11th January, 1839, showing
a surplus of 3,800/. up to that date. The balance sheet
of 1841 showed a surplus of 3,2881., and then he would
leave a deficiency of 13,000/. to be accounted for from
that period up to the time of the bankruptcy. The in-
vestigation was said to be cursory because the official
assignee had not had time to examine the books.
Mr. MARSDEN was instructed to say that that balance
sheet was commenced, and that period agreed upon by
the bankrupt and the official assignee and Mr. Sole.
Mr Hitchcock was ready to give any further informatioa
in his power. He would' be enabled to give a sufficient
explanation of the profit, which was stated at 12i- per
cent., and which would show why it was that there was
not a larger balance in his favour. He wished the ex-
amination to be adjourned for a sufficient time to en-
able the bankrupt to give a full statement of all his af-
fairs to the Court.
The Official Assigneesaid the period of January, 1839,
had been agreed to, as that was the time up to which the
bankrupt said he would be enabled to give a clear state-
ment of his affairs. Now the bankrupt had merely given
the totals, and he had reason to believe that they did not
agree with the totals that had now been drawn up.
The Bankrupt thought the official assignee should be
at all events disinterested, and when he stated that he
had applied for certain accounts, it would have been more
in accordance with his public duty, and more just to a
fallen man, if he had stated that the bankrupt had not
had time- to prepare these accounts, instead of passing
a censure upon him. He was prepared to show that he
was solvent in January, 1839. When he showed a ba-
lance of 3,800/. less to the time of his failure there were
no stock takings in his own possession, and when he ap-
plied to Cook and Gladstone they said they had no stock
takings of his, but afterwards they selected that of 11th
of Jan., 1839, as being that which would best answer
their purpose. As to the deficiency of 13,000/., which
was said to exist, he denied that there was any regular
balance sheet of January, 1841 ; and as to the document
in Cook and Gladstone's handwriting, he would prove it
to be a falsehood altogether, and he would stand or fall
by that assertion.—(Loud cheers.)
The COMMISSIONER said he should adjourn the Court,
and declared the Court adjourned.
The bankrupt was about to make some further obser-
vations, when
The COMMISSIONER said—" The examination is ad-
journed sine die, and whenever the bankrupt is ready to
proceed he must apply fur another sitting."
The COURT was then cleared by the officer, and at
half-past two the proceedings abruptly terminated in the
way above stated.

COURT OF EXCISE, Dec. 14.
TUE PICCADILLY SALOON.—Thomas Alexander Beale,
proprietor of the house ►cnown as " Goodered's," or the
" Piccadilly Saloon," was charged on information with
retailing beer without a license on his premises, situate
No. 222 i, Piccadilly.
The defendant did not appear, but was defended by
Mr. T. WONTNER, who stated that Mr. Beale was un-
able to appear, but he wished the case to be proceeded
with.

Witnesses having been called in support of the case,
the COURT gave judgment in a penalty for the full amount.
Another information of a similar description was pre-
ferred for offences committed on the 25th of the same
month (September).
The case was proved by the same officers.
Mr. MAYow—I must beg the judgment of the Court in
this case also for the full penalty.
Mr. STEPHENSON—Yes, certainly.
William Burdon, of the Battle of the Nile public-house,
York-street, notherhithe, was charged with adulterating
his beer.

Mr. Geary, the officer, said he examined the stock of
beer of the defendant, and found one cask slightly sweet-
ened. The others were in excellent condition. Defend-
ant said it was the buttoms of the casks and waste beer.
He had also mixed it with ale and a very small portion
of sugar tc take off the acidity.
The defendant prayed most earnestly the mercy of the
Court, as he was a ruined man. He had served his late
Majesty, and prayed their merciful consideration.

The COURT said they could not help him, but he might
petition the Board, and fined him in the penalty of 201.
Edward Wells, of the Sir Hugh Myddelton public-
house, Myddelton-place, Sadler's Wells, was charged
with having in his possession forty gallons of brandy
without a permit, or entry of the same.
The COURT ordered the whole to be condemned.

Thomas Chiddell and Edward Jones, spirits-mer-
chants, of Hays-lane, Southwark, were charged with
having an excess in their stock ; the excess of spirits
condemned,

Jonathan Hall, of the Ship and Whale, Russell-street,
Rotherhithe, was charged with having in his possession
a quantity of foreign Geneva, without any permit or
regular entry. _

-An officer: deposed to finding it in the cellar; it was
what was called " tub gin," and was commonly smug-
gled. It was ordered to be condemned.

Percival Scott, of Fair-street, Horslydown; Francis
Farnham, of the King's Arms, Old Jewry ; Alexander
Vicary, of St. Paul's public-house, Walworth-common ;
and Martin Gaherty, of the White Swan, Sheaman's-
row, Holloway row, were charged with having in their
possession rum and brandy varying from 24 to 30 under
proof, and in each case the spirits were ordered to be
condemned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

A young man, who gave the name of George Murray,
was placed at the bar, before Messrs. Kelly and Lainson,
the sitting Magistrates, on a charge of being found on
the premises of Messrs. Clay and Son, wholesale woollen-
drapers in Skinner-street, Snow-hill, for the purpose of
committing a robbery.
The prisoner in answer to the charge told the usual story
of going to look for a situation. Ile also said he was a
type-founder by trade, and had worked with Messrs.
Sherwood and Co. of Aldersgate-street.
The policeman said he inquired there, and no such per-
son was known; however his acquaintances at the station-
house at once recognised him.
The prisoner was remanded till Monday.
The three paupers, Murphy, Owen, and Roebuck,
whose case was reported in yesterday's Sun, were again
placed at the bar on the charge of selling the workhouse
clothes which they wore yesterday.
The Relieving Officer having proved the case, a sharp
debate ensued between Sir Peter Laurie and the master
of the workhouse, relative to the decision in yesterday's
case, in which Sir Peter told the master he was inca-
pable of managing the workhouse, and the master told
Sir Peter he was " mighty wise in his generation."
Mr. Alderman KELLY sentenced each of the prisoners
to a month's imprisonment with hard labour.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Thomas Simpson, the driver of the Maidenhead wag-
gon, from the Rose Inn, Farringdon-street, City, was
placed at the bar.

Police constable, No. 73 of the E division, stated that
between six and seven o'clock on Wednesday, while on duty
in Regent-street, he observed a waggon heavily loaded,
and drawn by a team of four horses, proceeding along
without any guidance or c9ntrol. At some distance
behind he saw the defendant so excessively drunk,
that he was reeling from one side the pavement to the
other, and quite incapable of taking care of himself—he
was therefore, with the waggon, taken' into custody.
house.

Inspector Beresford said, that on examining the con-
tents of the waggon he found it to consist. of property of
such value, upwards of 7001. worth, that, he did not
deem it safe to trust it in the green-yard, therefore
sent it to the Rose Inn by a police-constable.
Ordered to pay a fine of 205., or be committed for
16 days.

QUEEN SQUARE.
Yesterday James Hopkins, a man about sixty years of
age, who lives at Manor House, Rochester-row, West-
minster, and is said to be very wealthy, surrendered to
his hail, and was placed in the dock, before Mr. llard-
wick, charged with the abduction of Mary Anne Howell,
a weak-looking child, only ten years of age.
Mr. Price, the barrister, appeared for the prisoner.
Mary Howell, the mother of the child, was first exa-
mined. She said she was the wife of a shoemaker, and
lived at No. 37, Old Rochester-row, Westminster. Her
child was ten years of age on the 6th of April last.
She had known the prisoner for 24 years; he had formerly
kept an oil shop at the corner of Rochester-row.
and had been her husband's landlord eight years. On
last Monday week the prisoner came for his rent. No
one was then present but witness's son, who is thirteen
years of age, and her daughter, the subject of the pre-
sent complaint. After some conversation, prisoner said,
I want the girl to go with a lady to Southampton, who
'is in very delicate health. She will have nothing to do
but to nurse the baby and run of little errands. Witness
said it was a long way fora child of such tender years to
go, and she must first ask the child's father. The child
was present all the time, and repeatedly said, "Do let
me go." The child, though so young, had always been
eager to go into service. When the father came in she
told him the circumstance, and he said he had no objec-
tion. The prisoner then went away, saying he would
bring the lady in the afternoon.
A number of witnesses were then examined, whose
evidence want to prove that the prisoner had, by fraudu-
lent representations, carried away the child, and the
Magistrate ordered him to find bail, himself in 2001, and
two sureties in 100/. each.

GREAT NORTH OF ENGLAND RAILWAY.
Traffic returns for the week ending Dec. 13, 1841:
Passengers £625 5 6
Merchandize

£1,147 13 9
Darlington, Dec. 15. D. O'BRIEN, Secretary.

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE.

PLYMOUTIL—The Crocodile, 26, lately paid off at this
port, was taken into the Stern-dock on Monday evening.
In the Sound (Tuesday).—The Malabar, Madagascar,
North Star, Harlequin, Espoir ; Belleisle, Apollo, Sap-
phire, troop-ships ; Somersetshire, convict-ship ; and
Diligence, transport.
In Harbour in Commission.—The Caledonia, guard-
ship ; San Josef, Minden, Isis, Fly, Ferret ; Alban,
steam-vessel ; and Hamoaze, Devon, and Camel, lighters.
In Dock.—The. Resistance, Canopus, Bellona, line-of-
battle ships, repairing ; Crocodile, 36, to be examined ;
Wolf, brig, under large repair.
On the Slips, building.—The Albion, 90, laid down two
years and three months in slip No. 1 ; Exmouth, 90, laid
down sixteen months, slip No. 2 ; Aboukir, 90, just be-
gun, on slip No. 3 ; Flora, frigate, No. 4 slip.
In consequence of the ravages on the wood fibers of
slips No. 1,2, and 3 committed by the lininoria, or
grabble worm, and the teredo navalis, or auger worm, it
has been considered necessary to substitute granite stone
for wood. The bottom of the slip on which the Aboukir
is laid has lately been repaired with stone. The wood
in some parts was so thoroughly eaten by these little de-
structives as to appear like sponge.