The Sun.
London, England, 1824-04-21 00:00:00

[MORNING RERALD.]

Paris Papers of Sunday arrived last night, by
express. On the preceding day the long-expected
proposal of the reduction of the interest of the
debt was submitted to the Chamber. M. Masson,
the Chairman of the Commission, reported at
some length in favour of the plan recommended
by the Minister. The chief opposition to the
measure is described as being made in the capital,
especially.hy the Stockholders. The Chairman,
in his report, contended that public credit would
be rendered more steady by this operation.—
The existing system, he said, gave rise to
speculating avidity, because under It the
holder of the rentes might derive from his
capital one, and even one and a half per
cent. per mouth, whilst the present measure
would confine the pendulum of the public
credit between three and four per cent. per an-
num on good security. It is admitted that some
injustice is done by the reduction of the interest
to those early holders whose rentes would be de-
preciated. But the Reporter urges, that indivi-
dual good must result to that of the public ; that
few, if any, of the original purchasers hold shares
at present, and that no exception in favour of
small holders of rentes could be made, because
any limit would still be a hardship on those im-
mediately beyond its operation. Among the
stated advantages of the measure are these, as
stated in the Report : There will be an annual di-
minution of taxation to the amount of (28 or
30 millions of francs. The rate of interest
will be lowered, and the number of abortive
speculations and failures will be less, because the
interest of money in the funds will he more mo-
derate and steady. The Reporter of the Com-
mission further states, that the capitalists who
• have undertaken to support the operations of the

Minister of Finance, are so wealthy, and esta-1
blished in credit, as to render it unlikely that it
should be necessary to draw upon the resources
of the Government at all—the probability being,
that the five per cents. renters, would univer-
sally consent to the reduction of the interest
on their stock to four per cent._ The Minister
of Finance made some observations in favour

of the Report, and observed, rather sneer-
ingly, that those who had lent only from 50 to
88 francs, had no reason to complain of being
paid off at a hundred! MM. de la Bourdon-
naye—a decided Ultra, Vaublanc—a sort of
doubtful Royalist, and General Foy and Casimir
Perrier—leadincr Liberals, spoke against the
plan. The further discussion was postponed to
the following Saturday. The Chamber was next
occupied with the verification of the qualifica-
tions of Deputies. M. Marchongey, who made
himself unfavourably notorious by his zeal as
State prosecutor during the lust political trials
in France, has been a second time disappointed
in his attempt to become a Member of the Cham-
ber. His qualifications have in both instances
been found insufficient.

[THE TIMES.]
Mr. Guebhard, by what he calls his " Pros
" pectus of a Royal Spanish Loan,"-ts trying once
more to raise the wind for King Ferdinand. He
talks learnedly about the millions to be borrowed
—the interest to be paid—the sundry series of
bonds, professing to represent 200 piasters each
—the privilege offered to the holders of tossing
up for the priority of payment—and, what
Is best of all, this bankrupt borrower pre-
sumes to tell the world, that the whole loan
is to be repaid in twenty years from the day on
which the money shall have been lent to him.--
Now, Mr. Guebhard, let us ask you one or two
plain questions :—For whom are you striving to
raise this money ? and what security have
you to offer ? " For Ferdinand VII. ; and his
" royal signature (quoth Mr. Guebhard) is the
" security of the lender, that the several
" branches of revenue which the King pledges
" for the principal and interest of this debt
" will be honourably applied to these, and to
"no other objects." Mighty well, we answer :
but, like the cosmogony man in the Vicar of
Wakefield, King Ferdinand has told us all this
fine story before. It Is only two years since he bor-
rowed large sums of money, which were furnished
to him from this country—gums out of which he
ate, and drank, and dressed himself, and kept
his Court ; and spent, moreovero„ large portion
of them in raising Royalist soldiers, and in se-
cretly destroying those very securities which he
tendered to us, his creditors, for interest, sinking
fund, and so forth, on the principal we lent him.
We cannot, therefore, believe one word this King
of yours tells us, or a single promise that he
makes. " Oh, but," says the financier, " King
" Ferdinand was then in durance—the niciis owne—th master,e Cortes
" had hold of him—he was not
".and had no power'tt!act trt as they compelled
cc him?. This, we enjoin, IS the exact point to
which we Nt ished to bring you, Mr. Guebhard.
`King Ferdinand assured us, in the former in-
stance, that he was free to act as he thought fit;
he took his oath upon it to his own subjects ; he
pledged his honour to us. Which of you is guilty
of the falsehood ? for you flatly contradict the
King. Besides, if his Majesty excused himself from
the obligation of his former bond, because he" was
not free," we ask you, Is he free at this moment ?
If the (tortes then had hold of him, is he not ac-
tually a prisoner surrounded by foreign soldiers?
And is not that an excuse, far more reasonable
than the other, for allowing the validity of the
loan which you are now requiring? We say for
once, then, before you talk of contracting new
debts, be good enough to discharge your old ones
—before you ask a receipt for this year's, or for
next year's interest-money, skew that the
last year's is not in arrear : the King's word of
1824 is not an atom better than his oaths of 1820,
1521, 1822: let him fulfil his promises of the above
periods—let him not laugh at the credulity of
those who trusted him, and then ask them to
trust him again. Uncertificated bankrupts have
no credit here, nor any where. Advise Ferdi-
nand VII. to pay his old creditors, Mr. Gueb-
hard, or it is something more than a " toss up"
that you and he are hooted off our Exchange as
a couple of base impostors.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

LUNT V. BARCLAY.

CiIESTER, APRIL 17.—This was an action aris

ing on a balance of account, about 81., for work done by the
plaintiff in building a house for the defendant. The dispute
had previously been left to reference, and two of the Aldermen
of Chester had undertaken the task, and given their award,
when they discovered that they had made an error of 21. The
defendants would not abide by this, and it was to recover the
balance that the action was brought.

The case proceeded for some time, when the Cm rx JUSTICE
suggested an amicable arrangement, and it was finally left to
the determination of Mr. Huinberston, solicitor : his award to
be final.
IMPORTANT TO COACH PROPRIETORS.—LOWS v. BOOTH

AND OTHERS.
The plaintiff is silversmith in Chester ; the defendant is
landlady of the Golden Lion Inn, and part owner of a coach to
London, called the Favourite. On the 16th of July last, a box
containing some, valuable jewellery, gold and silver coin, &c.,
was packed up 'by Mr. Lowe, and addressed to Mr. Wm.
Bateman, 1011, Bunhill-row, London. It was taken at 10
o'clock at night to the coach-office, and left time, and 4s. 6d.
carriage paid for it. Between Chester and Newcastle, in Staf-
fordshire, it was lost, and the action was brought to recover the
value of it.
The defence was, that there was no liability. There were
printed notices in the office, directly opposite to the door, stat-
ing that the proprietors would not be answerable for any articles
of plate, jewellery, &c., unless they were entered as such, and
3d. in the pound paid as an insurance. It was admitted that
plaintiff's sxyl had been in the office at least 50 times ; that he
had actually read coach advertisements which were fastened to
and above the notice, and yet he swore that he had not read or
seen any part of,the notice. It further appeared, that the plain-
tiff had entered into a treaty with the defendant's bookkeeper,
to have his parcels carried as common parcels at 2ld. per lb.,
instead 'of the usual price 3d., on account of his sending one or
two every week to London.
The trial occupied the Court a considerable time, and
The Lottia CHIEF JusTicE, in summing up, spoke of the
improbability of plaintiff's son being so often in the office, and
not seeing the notice, which was on a board upwards of five
feet long. The plaintiff had never intimated to the bookkeeper
that his parcels were of more than ordinary value.
Under these circumstances the Jury retired, and in about an
hour returned with a verdict for the defendant.
It is expected that application will be made for,a new trial.
MminaY, APRIL 19.—This day ftentence of death was
passed upon Joseph Dale, convicted of the murder of W. Wood

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, TUESDAY, APRIL 20.

FELLOWS AND ♦NOTHER V. ROBINSON.
This was an action on the case against the defendant, a dealer
in dyed silks, for a false representation of the circumstances of a
man named Gillingham, to Messrs. Fellows and: Brown. An
action against the same defendant, for a similar representation,
and in respect of the same person, was tried on Thursday, when
a verdict was given for the plaintiff'. In this case, the allega-
tion was, that the plaintiffs were requested, by Thomas Josiah
Gillingham, to supply him with credit : that he referred them
to the defendant, and that the defendant, in answer to certain
questions put by Joseph Renshaw, a clerk of the plaintiff's,
stated that he had a good opinion of Gillingham ; that he had
dealt largely with him, and found him regular in his pay-
ments ; that he would trust him to the extent of 5001. or
6001. ; though he well knew that Gillingham was then insol-
vent; in consequence of which false representation the plaintiffs
trusted him goods to the extent of 4081. 16s, and had lost that

sum.
The AT TOR NE r-GE NERAL opened the circumstances un-
der which the plaintiff sought to recover.
Charles Ensall, a clerk in the employ of the plaintiffs, stated,
that on the 16th of November, Thomas Josiah Gillingham,then
a stranger to them, applied to his master's for goods on credit.
In consequence of this application, Joseph Renshaw was di-
rected to make inquiries, and, on his report, goods were supplied
to Gillingham in two parcels, the first in December, 1822,
amounting to 2521. 135.; the second on the 26th of January,
1823, amounting to 1561. 35.; but, between those two transac-
tions, some communications took place between Gillingham
and Messrs. Fellows and Brown. In November last, Mr. Ro-
binson called at the counting-house of the plaintiffs, extremely
angry at a letter which he had received, threatening an action,
and had another person with him, who stood in the door-way.
He said, alluding to Gillingham, " What could Ido while he
owed me money ? But see what I did when he got out of my
debt—l told Tatlock and Hogg not to trust him any more, and
exposed the villain."
On cross-examination, the witness said, that something had
passed about another silkman, named Billinge, having lost by
Gillingham, but lie did not remember the words " taken in."
lie wrote down what he thought material in the conversation
soon afterwards, and had refreshed his memory by looking at
them a few days ago.
Joseph Renshaw, a clerk of the plaintiffs, stated, that on the
15th of December, 1822, he went, by desire of his employers,
to inquire of the defendant, the character of Gillingham for
solvency. In reply, Robinson gave the man a general good cha-
racter, and said he had a good opinion of him. The witness
asked to what extent he would trust him ? He replied, 44 You
may trust him to the extent of 5001. or 600/." Renshaw asked
if Gillingham was regular in his payments. Robinson answered
that he was. Renshaw said, 44 I have spoken to a person named
Messent, and he said Gillingham was worth nothing." He
replied, " Messent knows nothing about it." In reply to
another question, Robinson stated that he had known Gilling-
ham in the way of trade two or three years. lie opened a book
and showed it ; but the witness did not inspect the items.
Thomas Gillingham, the father of the insolvent, stated that
he accompanied his son to Mr. Robinson, at the latter end of
November, or the beginning of December, 1822, when he owed
him 2001. or 3001. Mr. Robinson told him he could give him
no further credit unless security were given for this sum. The
witness offered to join his son in a warrant of attorney for the
debt then due; but Mr. Robinson declined to give further
credit unless he would deposit the title-deeds of his freehold
property, which the witness refused to do on account of his
other children. As they were retiring, Mr. Robinson said lie
could do Gillingham a great deal of service, by recommending
him to silk houses, where he could obtain goods at a cheaper
rate, and on nine months' credit. The father expressed him-
self obliged, and Robinson desired the son to call on the fol-

lowing day.
On cross-examination, the witness said he did not know on
what credit his son had been accustomed to deal with Mr. Ro-
binson. The object of the warrant of attorney was to give him
two years' credit for the suns then due. At that time the wit-
ness believed his son to be solvent_ ; he carried on a large esta-
blishment, employed 60 hands ; had apparently a large stock
of manufactured goods; was sober: and industrious, and
worked for some of the first houSes in 'London. Ile (witness)
arrested his son in August, 1823.
Thomas Josiah Gillingham, the insolvent, (who was not call-
ed on the former trial), stated that he was in the habit of pur-
chasing dyell, silk of the defendant ; and in December, 1822,
was indebted to him in a sum of about 3501. Mr. Robinson
had applied for money, and declined supplying goods on fur-
ther credit. He referred him to, lessrs. Tatlock and Hogg, as
a house of whom he might obtain a longer credit. In Decem-
ber, Robinson again applied for money, and in the same month
mentioned Messrs. Fellows and Brown, to whom he recom-
mended him, and afterwards recommended him to a person
named Raine. Upon this recommendation, he applied to the
plaintiffs, and obtained goods from them. On the 7th of
February he paid 1001. to Robinson in silk, obtained from some
one to whom Robinson recommended him, but which he had
himself previously dyed. In March or April, he paid cash to
Robinson, and in May cleared off the balance of his account
by money and silks. Tatlock and Hogg were paid in June ;
the plaintiff Brandit (the plaintiff in the former suit) and Bil-
linge were then creditors, and the other creditors were only for
small sums.
On cross-examination, the witness said that the credit.which
he was usually allowed by Mr. Robinson was from two to
three months. He had not been accustomed to dye silks him-
self, but commenced doing so in October, 1822, when Mr.
Robinson complained that he was opposing him in his own
line. At the time when he purchased of the plaintiffs, he
believed himself solvent; he wished for an extension of credit
because his business was extending, and such an extension
would have operated as an enlargement of capital. He had
been robbed to a great extent—he believed to the amount of
hundreds ; and but for these robberies, believed he should hare
paid Messrs. Fellows and Brown, and all his other cieditors.—
He did not apply, after he received goods from the plaintiffs,
for large supplies to the defendant, but he received what he
asked for. His whole debts, at the time of his discharge.,
were not much beyond 9001. In January, before the deli-
very of the second parcel of goods, he made a favourable repre-
sentation of his affairs to the plaintiffs. He was in the habit of
paying 501. per week In November 1823, he was discharged
under the Act for the relief of insolvent debtors. He had an in-
terview with Mr. Fellows, who had given notice of an inten-
tion to oppose his discharge in prison. He was not then or
at any other time told that the plaintiffs would withdraw their
opposition to his discharge if lie would assist them in this ac-
tion, nor did he ever.tell Mr. James, the defendant's attorney,
that such terms were proposed to him. Notice of opposition
was,. however, given by the plaintiffs, and afterwards with.
drawn.
Being re-examined, the witness said that the amount of pro.
perty stated in his schedule was 1121., but it sold only for
about 20/.
Mr. Lane proved that he had pressed Gillingham for a debt ;
and denied that he ever gave a character to Gillingham, though
on one application he opened his account to view.
It was proved that Gillingham was discharged under the
solvent Act, on the 24th November, 1823.
Mr. SCARLETT addressed the Jury! for the defendant. He
entreated them to decide this cause, without reference to that
of Thursday, and with a disposition to require proof before
they imputed gross and palpable fraud. This species of action
was unknown until recent times : the case of Baxley v. Free-
man, reported in 3 Term Reports, was the first in which it had
been attempted; and on that occasion there was a difference of
opinion among the Judges whether it could be supported.—lt
was really contrary to the principle of the wise provisions of the
statute of frauds, which protected a man who encouraged an-
other to give credit by saying, " If the debtor does not pay
you, I will," from liability, unless his promise was reduced into
writing ; became no man ought to be charged by loose conver-
sations retained only in frail memory ; and, on the samegrounds,
representations to be binding also ought to be written. On this
occasion he would prove that one of the conversations at least had
been misreported by witness ; and how, at this distance of time,
could they rely on the accurate recollection of the other? He would
prove, in addition to what had been already extracted from the
witnesses, that Gillingham was recommended by Lane to Ro-
binson, who knew nothing of him before; that Gillingham dis-
tinctly stated to Mr. James, that the plaintiffs agreed to abandon
their opposition to his discharge, on condition of his assisting
them in their suit; and that the supposed confession of the de-
fendant stated by Ensall, never was made. If Gillingham bore
all the appearances of solvency—if his own father considered
kim as solvent, and, on that belief, would have rendered his
property and his person liable, surely Mr. Robinson might
honestly entertain and express the same opinion. There were
some minds so constituted, as to infer fraud on every plausible
case of suspicion ; but lie trusted, in candour and in justice,
that they would insist on proof before they imputed it to one
whose character had been without a stain.
To sustain this case he called Mr. Barnes; a merchant, who
accompanied Mr. Robinson to the counting-house of Mr. Fel-
lows in November, when he Complained of the threat of an
action. This witness did not hear Mr. Fellows say " What
could Ido when he owed me money ? But see what I did when
he got out of my debt—l told Tatlock and Hogg, and exposed
the villain :" and thought be must have heard it if it had been
said. He represented Mr. Robinson as saying, " Why, you
must have had an opinion in his favour, or why recommend
him yourself to Billinge, from whom he obtained goods under
your representation ?" Mr. Fellowes asked, " Did you sustain
any injury from furnishing silk ?" Robinson replied, " Cer-
tastily not."
On cross-examination, the witness said he had a converse.

tion with Mr. Robinson's attorney in the cause of Thursday',
while the clerk was giving evidence. He never believed the
action would be brought, and made no minute of what passed,
but afterwards went about his own business. He attended from
mere curiosity on the former trial.
William Stone, a silk.broker, said, the morning after Gil-
lingham stopped, one of the plaintiffs observed, " This is the
third bad debt I have made by Tatlock and Hogg."
James Mills stated that- in March, 1822, he was sent by
Mr. Robinson to Mr. Lane, who had been examined as a wit-
ness, to ask the character of Gillingham ; and he did give
him a character. Said that Gillingham had dealt with him,
and paid as well as people in his trade usually did, and that
he did not limit him as to the amount of his account ; and
when the witness said, " You appear to be satisfied with Gil-
lingham's circumstances," he said, " I am." This he report-
ed word for word to Mr. Robinson. He did not name the
house for whom he replied. He saw no book.
Mr. Marshall, a clerk of Mr. Robinson, said he was present
when Renshaw called from Fellows and Brown, and saw the
book shewn him, which was produced in Court. Gillingham
usually had from two to three months' credit.—[The witness
went through the account, and showed, that from time to time,
payments were regularly made on it.]—lle had, occasionally,
goods afterwards.
Mr. James, the defendant's attorney, was called to contra-
dict the insolvent Gillingham. He deposed, that Gillingham
came to him, unsought, in April, and said, " Fellows said,
that if he would assist them in their action against Robinson,
they would withdraw the opposition of which they had given
notice." He expressed his regret that lie had any thing to do
with the business. He made a minute, but did not read it over
to him, as lie understood he had been brought up in an attor-
ney's office. Robinson came with him.
In reply, a paper was put in, by which the amount, marked
as received in goods in the book, was stated as received in cash.
Mr. SCARLETT, on this evidence, observed, that the entry
could not be made to deceive any one, because it was delivered
to Gillingham only, to whom the truth was known ; but that,.
coming now out of his hands, it clearly proved that he was a
willing witness in the plaintiffs' cause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied. He urged that this,
fallacious entry was made for some object, and that the appear-
ance of the account-book, which bore marks of alteration to suit
the exigencies of the cause, afforded pregnant evidence of the
fraud. Although, in point of form, the action was new, its
principles were as old as the English law, and were founded in
substantial justice. He contended, that the apparent contra-
dictions in the evidence could be best explained by regarding
the defendants' witnesses as mistaken ; that these did not affect
the main points in the cause; and that all the undoubted cir-
cumstances in the case pointed to one conclusion—that the de-
fendant had made a representation which he knew to be false,
for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction of his own claim.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said it wastrue that this species
of action was first introduced between thirty and forty years
ago; and then one of the Judges of the King's Bench (Mr.
Justice Grose), differing from Lord Kenyon and his Learned
Brothers, thought it could not be supported. Since that time,
however, it had been often brought, and had never been brought
under judicial consideration ; it must therefore be taken as
• law that it would lie whenever injury arose from a representa-
tion at once fraudulent and false. His Lordship then read over
the whole evidence, directing the Jury to examine the account-
book, and judge for themselves if it had not been altered ;
showed that they might distinguish between the first and
last parcel of goods, if they thought the last was furnished on
the faith of a statement of Gillingham himself; and concluded
by observing, that whether he had a mind particularly liable to
infer fraud, lie would not assert ; but this he would confess,
that when lie found a nian uttering a wilful falsehood, he felt a
great difficulty in believing him actuated by an honest motive.
The Jury retired, taking with them the account-book ; and
▪ after an absence of an hour and a quarter, returned a verdict for
▪ the plaintiff—Damages, 252/. 13s.

Some years ago the following inscription, en-
graved on the fragment of a stone, was discovered amongst the
rel►cs of an antiquarian, and was considered by him as a great
curiosity, and enhanced in value by its translation having
puzzled the best scholars of the age

BENE.
A.T.H. T.H. I.S.S.T.
ONERE. POS. ET
li. CLAUD. cos TER. TRIP

E. SELLER()
F. IMP
IN. GT. ONAS. DO.
TII. its
S. C.
ON. SOR.
Some supposed it to refer to the Emperor Claudian, till a lad
one day spelt it out—" Beneath this stone reposeth Claud Coster,
tripe-seller of Impington, as (loth his consort Jane."

FATAL ACCIDENT.—On Monday night, about
nine o'clock, while a boat belonging to a water-
man of the name of M'Neill, was conveying pas-
sengers from Greenwich Fair to town, having 11
passengers on board, on passing Mr. Kane'S
wharf, it came in contact with a canal barge,
when, melancholy to relate, the boat was upset,
and the entire party, except the boatman, an old
man about 70 years of age, and a child about
eight months old, met a watery grave. Three
bodies were found yesterday, near the spot, at
low water, who turn out to be a young man from
Whitecross-street, about 22 years of age, a
hatter; the mother of the child which was
saved ; and a child about four years old, which

has been recognized as the daughter of a respect-
able engineer, who resides at Limehonse, and
who, with his wife, met an untimely end. It has
not yet been ascertained who the other sufferers
are.