The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-08 00:00:00

TilE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1841.1

and her daughters had resided for the last ten years at
Hampton, in this county. Mr. Rosser received the
rents for her daughters, who used to call on him to re-
ceive them. Her daughter Sophia went to tet Countess
Mon talembert before the death of Mrs. Rosser. It might
be a year or two, or it might be more. It was by Mr.
Rosser's recommendation plaintiff went to the service.
About a month after Mrs. Rosser's death plaintiff went
to defendant's house.
In answer to Mr. THESIGER, who objected to the
question, witness said she did not go with her daughter
and did not know of the visit, of her own knowledge. Had
seen a letter from Mr. R. to her daughter in April, 1837. It
was received by her daughter at Hampton on the 10th
of April, about a week before she went to Mr. Rosser.
About that time was in the habit of coming to London
with her daughter, and went generally to Northumber-
land-street. After the 10th of April recollected the letter
now shown to her coming. Her daughter was making a
communication relative to this subject when she received
the letter, at the time they were at Mr. Robinson's
in Northumberland. street. Had been in the habit
of going to that house when they came to London.
Her daughter went to Mr. Rosser alone, a few days
afterwards. Recollected a letter being received by her
daughter, begging the acceptance of 201. Recollected
Mr. Rosser coming to her house at Hampton, shortly
before the burial of the late King. He came by the
stage-coach. He came purposely to state the affection
he had for witness's daughter, and to ask her consent.
They had a long conversation. Witness felt surprised
at the proposition, so early after Mrs. Rosser's decease.
Witness said she could not approve of itt nor would
any of his relations. lie said he must beg to be excused
making his proposals so early, as he was afraid she might
be engaged at the twelve months' end. On witness tell-
ing him that his family would not approve of it, he said
they were well provided, and would not object. He said
he had always liked her daughter since she was eleven
years of age. Told Mrs. Rosser what her daughter had
said about him naming the subject so soon after hiswife's
death. He spoke of Mrs. Rosser in very kind terms;
but said he could not bring her back again, and he
thought her daughter would make him comfortable.
Upon witness objecting to. the age of Mr. Rosser, he said
he enjoyed excellent health, and was in constitution not
more than 30 years of age. Witness told him she dis-
approved of the match altogether. He told witness that
he had amassed great wealth by his own industry ; that
what he might acquire could be settled on her daughter,
and that he would marry her at the twelvemonth's end.
Mr. Rosser, on this occasion, was with them several hours.
He saw witness's daughter on that day, and addressed
her as her suitor. On the following Sunday Mr. Rosser
came to witness's house. On the previous interview Mr.
Rosser left her house, with the understanding that he
was to marry her at the twelvemonth's end. When the
defendant came on the Sunday, it was about eight o'clock
in the morning. He came in a carriage. Witness was at
breakfast ; and, upon asking him to breakfast, he said he
had had it before he came out. The carriage and horses were
sent to the Clarence Arms, Hampton. Mrs. Bennett was vi-.
siting them there. Witnessand her daughter went with Mr.
Rosser to Hampton Church. He paid great attention to
her daughter, and would not have a book to himself, but
read out of that which witness's daughter hal After-
wards went out a drive with Mr. Rosser, who dined with
them. At dinner he paid her daughter great attention,
and said that Providence had been kind in finding him
such an object. Mr. Rosser drank tea with them,
end left her ho,use while witness was gone to
Church with Mis. Bennett in the evening.
On another occasion went to Mr. Rosser's house;
at his written request. Mr. Rosser was very busy. He
paid great attention to witness's daughter. In the har-
vest of that year the defendant again came to witness's
house at Hampton. He took witness's
.daughter for a
walk. Witness mentioned to Mr. Rosser, on another
occasion, the circumstance of his transferring stock into
the name of his daughter. Witness remonstrated against
it, when he said it would all come back to him
again. by his marriage. Upon his stating he should
make further transfers in favour of her daugh-
ter, witness begged him not to do so. Before
Mr, Rosser went to Wales he requested her not to let
her daughter go out of her sight. Recollected going to
.31ilton with Mr. Rosser and her daughter Sophia. Her
youngest daughter dined at Mr. Rosser's house. When-
ever witness had any conversation with Mr. Roseer, he
always spoke of his marriage. On the occasion of going
to Milton he said he had a house at Islington, which he
wished witness and her daughter Sophia to have, stating
he would furnish it, and increase her daughter's income.
Witness objected to it. Mr. Rosser paid the expenses
to Milton. On their return Mr. Rosser accompanied
them to Hampton. Witness's daughter always behaved
very kindly to Mr. Rosser. All the letters sent by Mr.
Rosser to her daughter were seen by witness. Witness's
time, and that of her whole house, had been occupied
for the last four years with answering his letters. Her
daughter had received upwards of 400 letters from Mr.
Rosser.— (Laughter.) One day went to Mr. Rosser's
to dinner, and stated to him she did not like to
do so, when her daughters were absent. He
afterwards wrote to witness, requesting her and her
daughter to come and stop with him a week, which she
refused to do, thinking it improper as his daughters
were absent. He said he would introduce his daughters
to them when they returned from Wales. Some-
time alter this witness said to Mr. Rosser that he
was trilling with her daughter, and that he had
Dotter break off the connection ; to which he replied
he could not. When his daughters returned they
objected to the match, and witness then told him
she thought he had better marry some of the old ladies
whom he said were in love with him, to which he re-
plied, "I marry an old woman ! Not I. I would not be
troubled with one."—(Laughter.) In September, 1838,
Mr. ItossE-r came to witness'S house, said he was deter-
mined to be married, and that he would not listen t, his
daughters' objection, as he was sure those objections
would be all forgotten by Christmas. Recollected send-
iog a letter by her daughter to Mr. Rosser, which came
back to her open. After September, 1838, witness and
her daughter went Co Ormond-street for the purpose of
seeing Mr. Rosser's daughters, but he told them his
enughters would not see them. Her daughter
Sophia became ill in Ormond-street, through fretting at
the way they were received. Mr. Rosser was afraid to
be seen out with them in the street, and he was so jea-
lous he would not let them go out by themselves. They
removed to Richmond. Mr. Rosser visited them there fre-
quently ; he continued the same as ever ; it was
always "to be or not to be,"—to marry, or not to
marry.—(Great laughter.) Witness frequently re-
proached Mr. Rosser with his conduct, and
told him the injury he had done to the whole family.
She told him she believed he had had no object all along
but to pass away the time of his widowhood with more
amusement than he could enjoy with his own family.
He still persisted in saying that his purpose was not
changed, but his eldest daughter could not be reconciled
to the match. Her daughter at length became so ill that
she looked like a corpse, and was worn to a skeleton.
In April, 1840, she received a jewel box, contain-
ing a wedding ring, from the defendant. This certainly
improved her daughter as much as anything could im-
prove a skeleton.—(Laughter.) At defendant's request
her daughter sent to him a bet of patterns for dresses.
Witness and her daughter had told defendant that there

STAINES-IV

IRIDGE V.

VOOHLE V. KLATOWSKY
This was an action to recover 1661. 15s. for work and
labour done in the printing and stereotyping of plates
for come English and Foreign school boots.
The plaintiff was a widow, residing at Camberwell,
where she carried on the business of a printer, left her
by her late husband. In March, 1810, the defendant
applied to have a vocabulary. printed and stereotyped, in
which the pftges should be in columns, one in English,
another in which the corresponding words appeared in
French, another in-Italian, and another in German. lie
required an estimate, which was given him, and it
amounted to 3. 9s. per sheet. Ile gave an order, and
work was done fur him to the amount claimed.

was no occasion for any such thing, as she had sufficient
dresses already, but he insisted that he should buy her a
Suit himself. The licence for the marriage was bought
about the same time. The day before the ring was
changed a " letter was received from Mr. Rosser,
to the effect that he would that day procure
the licence. The ring was bought from a
jeweller of the name of Storey. The first ring
was too large, in consequence of her daughter having
grown so thin since her linger had been measured be-
fore. A smaller ring was procured. After that they re-
ceived a letter fromdefendant, in consequence of which
witness and plaintiff went to see him. He said on that
occasion that he had known before all about the matter
he had complained of in the letter, and he felt it his duty
either to marry or provide for Sophia ; that his family
still objected, but he would consult his own feelings• and
marry. He would warty as soon as his daughter, Mrs.
Allen, went out of town. After that her daughter re-
ceived a packet, containing a bond from the defim-
dant, securing her an annuity of 60/. a year for life.
Mr. MESMER objected to this statement.
Witness resumed.--Defendant came to his house at
Hampton, and having called in her two daughters to
the parlour, took their hands, and said that they should
all be happy by Christmas. Witness told hint that his
conduct would not have been so unprincipled if she
had a son or a husband to protect her. She was
ruined, and her child's health and prospects blasted by
his conduct. She never saw him since.

....
This was proved by the son of the plaintiff. In his
Cross-examination, he denied that he had ever told the
defendant that he was the successor of his father; the
business was wholly the property of his mother. He bad
given instructions to the attorney, but merely as the
agent of his mother. There was nu custom in the trade
that persons having whole works printed had twelve
months'
re
but
ccnlietvelrt
to
o•prtsu
ityaatel tpoergsiovnes.
wt credit to book-
sellers,thahen he sent in
the estimate, he stated that the setting up was to be at
three months' credit, and thQ stereotyping was to be paid
cash. In dealing •with the defendant, he spoke.to him
in his own name.• The stereotype plates had not been
delivered, nor would they until they were paid fur. The
present action was for the work.

• Re-examined—His mother's name was over the door.
The porter to the plaintiff proved the delivery of the
books. Mrs. Voghle was the owner of the business, and
when he received any money he always gave the receipt
in her name.

Richard Clay, a printer, proved the reasonableness of
the prices charged. _ _ _

Air. COCKBURN for the defendant, complained that
the delay which had occurred in the completion
of the vocabulary, had, in fact, prevented the defendant
from completing his contract. That delay had put an
end to the contract. and the defendant was entitled to the
credit given according to the custom of the tra-le.
ought not to have been sued until next year. He called
witnesses to prove-the custom of the trade, but
His LORDSHIP -refused to, receive the evidence. The
credit was a matter of contract as well as the price.
Under his direction the Jury found for the plaintiff
for the sum claimed.

Cross-examined by Mr. THESlGEa—Witness became
a bankrupt when she was in business as-a wine mer-
chant. Was not in prison. Did not know what sort
of confinement the Counsel meant ; there were several
kinds of confinement.—(Great laughter.) Had not
thought defendant so old. Had heard from himself that
he had lived fifty-one yQars with his late wife. She often
told him it was indelicate and unfeeling to go looking for
a young wife so soon after his wife's death. He replied
that heaven had smiled upon him, in presenting to him
a person so like his former wife. Witness did not smile
upon him too.—(A laugh.). He threatened to withdraw
all his favour from them if they would not allow his
visits.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 7.
CLARIDGE V. BeKENZIE.
This case occupied the Court from its sitting yester-
day, and had not termivatod when we went to press—
we subjoin the conclusion:—
Two witnesses proved the facts stated by Mr. Sergeant
Shea as to the payment of rent by plaintiff, first on de-
mand, and secondly after a distress levied.

Witness could not afford to lose his friend

ship, and, besides, she was grateful to him
t 4 his kindness. . lie had the management of
her affairs, and possessed all the vouchers of
her daughter's property, and her own. Had. heard
how many children Mr. Rosser had, and told him repeat-
edly that she could not believe his family would ap-
prove of the match. She often said that he ought to
marry a person of his own age. He always spurned that
advice, and said he would not be pestered with an old
woman. Witness always remonstrated on the impro-
priety of proceeding in the matter without the approba-
tion of his family. She did not insist on it
as strongly as she would have done, if sin

The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE left it to the Jury to say
whether they believed the testimony. of Tilbury, and the
document produced by him, that the interest of ill'Kenxie
expired in 1838.—Verdiet for the plaintiff; 491.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 7.
MESSRS. WRIGHT AND CO.'s BANKRUPTCY.
This day being appointed for a dividend under the
fiat, a number of creditors were'in attendance.
Mr. DIXoN appeared to move that a proof for
1,7051. 125."1d., by Air. George Robins, the well-known auc-
tioneer, of Covent-garden, admitted on the 19th March,
against the joint estate of Messrs. Wright and Co., be
expunged. The proof was established on Mr. Robins's
affidavit, which stated the firm to be indebted to him at
the time of the fiat issuing in that sum, being the ba-
i lance of a banking account for money in hand, and re-
ceived fOr their use, and for which the deponent re-
ceived no security or satisfaction. -The ground on which
ho (Mr. Dixonl ,applied to have that proof expunged
was, that the 'transaction was one in which Mr. John
Wright alone was concerned in his individual ca-
pacity. By a pass book, which lie produced in Court,
it appeared that Mr. John Wright was debited fur
17,000/. A sum of 18,0001. had been lent to the Right
lion. Mr. Howard, through the instrumentality of Mr.
Wright, by Mr. George Robins, in June, 1839, and it
would appear that that sum bad been paid into the bank,
after some time, on account of Mr. Robins. The first
document which he (Mr. Dixon) should produce would
be a memorandum, bearing date the Bth of June, 1839,
which appeared to be a security given by Mr. John
Wright to Mr. Robins in certain Cuba bonds for the
amount of 17,0001. It was in the form of a letter ad-
dressed to Mr. Robins, as follows :

, .
were not-a-n uncertiticated bankrupt and entirely de-
pendent on her three daughters. Sophia received hand-

some presents from defend—ant from the beginning of his
courtship. Could not say that they amounted to 601. a-
year. Sometimes her daughter returned the presents.
Could not say that she returned the 51. presents and kept
the 20/. One 201. was given for her to buy a suit
or mourning, that she might correspond with his own
appearance in walking out with him. Witness thinks.
that she had heard something about the presentsin
money amounting to 601. a year. Plaintiff received be-
sides that presents of dresses and shawls, but never of
night-caps.—(Laughter ) Never heard such a foolish
story as that he should send night-caps.—(Laughter.)
On her birth-day- he sent her someb presents; witness
could not say what. He transferred to .her daughter's
name stock to the amount of 6661. lie used to accom-
pany her daughter to receive the dividends. That pre-
sent was independent of the 601. a-year.—(A laugh.)
It was all to become his again upon marria,ge.—(A laugh.)
—A letter was here put in to witness's hand, which she
look some time to read.] I don't consider the match to
have been off when that letter was written. When
a letter came in one way, there was another be-

fore the day was out the other way. One
was for, and the ' other against, the match. I
knew 8, person named Kitchen; He was never the ac-
cepted suitor of my daughter. He was not paying his
addresses in this way. There was a cor-
respondence between them. It might have been
as long as two years. I saw the letters
put up and sent to Mr., Rosser, there were three letters
sent, but there were several others which were destroyed.
Those three letters were returned by Mr. Rosser. The de-
fendant purchased the ring in May 1840, just before he came
to Hampton the last time. I suppose he purchased it of
his own free will. I certainly wrote to him at my
daughter's request to purchase the ring, as a
token of friendship, and to show that his intentions
were honourable, but that the matter had been
broken off because his friends were averse to it. That
was on the 23d of March, 1840. The ring was sent
down in April, I believe. I told my daughter it was
a silly request, but she said, "it would show the
people who were aware of all this correspondence
that bis intentions were honourable." There was no fail-
ure of letters during these three years. I do not
recollect copying any of my daughter's letters to Mr.
Rosser. lam quite unconscious of hnving done so ;
but it is impossible to recollect. The case was so extra-
ordinary that it put me into a state of great wretched-
ness. Such a thing, I dare say, has not occurred for a
hundred years. lam sick and tired of it. I am very
unhappy, being in hourly expectation of hearing of
my eldest daughter's death.
Mr. THESIGER —Are you not aware that this engage-
ment has been the cause of Miss Rosser's death ?

Mr. PLATT objected to the question.
Witness—l had a letter from Miss Rosser, stating
something to that effect, which I considered very unkind
of her. I did not like the lodgings in Ormond-streeet.
It was a very noisy unpleasant place. There were seven
or nino men in the house, and, in my opinion, Northum-
berland-street was a palace to it.

Re-examined by Mr. PLATT—My father-in-law car-
ried on the business for some time after my husband's
death, and then he gave it to us. It was worth about
1,0001. Since my bankruptcy I have been wholly de-
pendent on my daughters. I never was in pri-
son, but I have , been arrested. It was in
relation to a family property. I don't think my daughter
had more than 201. after the first time. There was 201.
also given when the ring was brought to buy what she
thought proper, for herself and her sisters to go to the
wedding. Ho never sent any night-caps. Kitchen
was an acquaintance of the family generally. He lived
in London, and we saw him once in a month or six
weeks. I received the two letters, now handed
me, from Mr. Rosser. They are rather intended
for that gentlemen (pointing to the Solicitor). The letters
were handed me, one in my daughter's handwriting.
[Several large bundles of letters were here handed to the
witness, which she took some time in turning over and
examining.] There are some of them in Mr. Rosser's
hand-writing, and some in my daughter Elizabeth's. _
Joseph Arthur Sharpe—l am a clerk in the Office of
Faculties. There is an affidavit of the 15th April 1840,
made by Mr. Rosser. It comes from the proper office,
where they are deposited on obtaining marriage licenses.
There is a mark on it by which I know that the license
has gone forth. It is sent to our office before the license
is issued.

The affidavit was then read. It was in the usual form
for license between defendant and Sophia Darbon.
Mrs. Mary Anne Bennett—l am the wife of Mr. Henry
Bennett. He is engaged iu a mercantile . house in the
City. I knew the plaintiff. In the month of July, 1837,
I was at Mrs. Darbon's house at Hampton on a visit, and
saw the defendant tiler/. twice. I was at Mrs. Darbon's for
six months. One time I saw him there was on a Sun-
day. I recollect his dining there on that occasion. I
think
.plaintiff and defendant walked out together. She
was in good health and spirits then. She is
rather lively, and I think her person attractive. Mr.
Rosser appeared old, but a healthy old gentleman.—
(A laugh.) I thought him about 60. His conversation
was lively, and he was courteous and attentive to the
ladies. Ono of the visits he paid was in his
carriage, and he went to church in it with Mrs. and Miss
Sophia Darbon. He dined there that day, and Miss
Sophia sat next him. The plaintiff always appeared to
me a person of modest manners. I saw her three weeks
or a fortnight ago. Her appearance • was changed.
She looked like it. person who had suffered anxiety of
mind—she was thinner and paler.
Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER—I did not suppose
Mr. Rosser to be less than 60. He had good hair, but 1
don't think it was quite white. I thought him a
fine man for his years. He seemed a man of
intelligence, and his conversation was good. Miss
Darboa called on me in London, and told
me that she supposed I would be called upon about this
trial. She was in low spirits, and had an appearance of
anxiety. She remained three or four hours.
At six o'clock the case was adjourned lin to-morrow,
and the Court, which was extremely crowded during the
day, then broke up.

COURT OF EXCHE Q UEI?,Dec.7.
BORNE, PUBLIC OFFICER OF TIIE CO3IMISBIONERS OF

This was. an action b.-ought against the defendant for
the purpose of recovering the sum of 5001., under the
following circumstances :—ln November, 1840, the tolls
of the bridge were let by public auction, and were taken
by a person named Thomsont The lessee was obliged
to obtain two persons to enter into a bond as securities
for the due payment of the rent of 1661. 13s. 4d. per
month. Thomson gave in the name of the defendant as
one of such sureties, and he signed an agreexent to exe
cute the bond. Thomson tools possession of the tolls on
the 31st Dec., 1940, paying one month's rent in advance.
In February application was made to the defendant to
execute the bond, but he then refused to do so, and gave
the trustees notice of his intention of, withdrawing him-
self as surety, of which no r.otice was taken. Thomson
continued to pay his rent regularly, until August, when
lie ceased. There were three months rent due, amounting
to 5001., which they now sought to recover from the de-
fendant, considering that he was bound by the agreement
which he had signed.
Mr. EIILE contended that the plaintiffl3 had no right
to recover from the defendant, as surety, until they
had shown that Taylor was unable to liquidate. his
debt; and that the conduct of the trustees, after receiv-
ing notice in February that the defendant withdrew
himself from his liability, was such as to induce him to
bolieve that he was relieved. He hoped they would
consider it a case for nominal damages only.
Under his Lordship's direction, the Jury found fur
the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

RA:thins—l hope your Honour will make an order
requiring the opponents to pay my expenses. I have
come up here from Brighton' with four horses.—
(Loud laughter, in which the Learned Commissioner
joined.)

Mr. HAMILTON--I dare say, Mr. Robins, you won't
spare expense in this case ?

Mr. COmmissioner HOLROYD—The terms of the Act,
ordering the payment of all reasonable expenses, shall
be complied with.
Mr. FRANCE, on behalf of a number of stock claimants,
among whom were several Roman Catholic clergymen,
applied to the Court to be allowed to prove their claims.
The bankrupts acted in this case as trustees, and, there-
fore, it was competent for those creditors to prove either
against thejoint or separate estate. Many applications had
already been made to the Court of Review, and the case had
been considerably prolonged by this, but he hoped, under
the circumstances in which his clients were placed, his
Honour would order a lengthened adjournment.
Mr. Commissioner HoLnovn—These debts cannot be
proved without an order of the Court, giving them per-
tui6sion to come in and prove them, and in the case of
?jr. France's clients that order has not been obtained yet.
After some further routine matters had b2en disposed
of, it was finally arranged that the case should stand
over to the 20th of January.

ST ATE OP TRADE.—There was a fair demand
for cotton during the greater part of last week, which
continued yesterday, but we regret to say that there is
no improvement in the accounts from the manufacturing
districts, which are still as unfavourable as possible. The
Commissioners appointed recently by Government, for
the purpose of ascertaining whether any increased fa-
cilities can be given to trade and commerce by improved
methods of collecting the revenue, are expected in Liver-
pool about the end of this week, and, we understand,
that they will take evidence on the 13th inst., from mer-
chants, shipowners, and others, as to any defects which
exist at present, or any improvethents which can be sug-
gested in the mode of collecting the very large amount
of revenue which is paid in Liverpool. W'e have reason
to believe that several matters of consequence will be
brought before them, and, amongst others, a plan for ex-
tending the hours, and increasing the services, of the
landing waiters connected with the port.—Liverpool Timer.
The Rouen Papers state that a well-known
poacher was found (lead three clays ago at the foot of a
tree near Quillebceuf. His skull had been shattered by
a discharge from his own gun, and it appeared on ex-
amination that he had formed a retreat among the
branches of the tree, whence he could the better mark his
" June 18, 1839. i game, but in getting up a twig had no doubt caught the
" place at your disposal Cuba Bonds to the t trigger of his gun, and thus produced the accident.

amount of 22,0301, which you hold as security for
17,000!., which you have placed in our hands,
subject to be realised by you, or repaid by us, at one
month's notice, and interest to be paid to yoa, ad inte-
rim, at 5 pei ant *e held ourselves responsible to
you, in the event of a loss being stisteined, for the defi-
ciency of any of the security.
(Signed) " JOHN WRIGHT.
" P.S.—The nominal value of the bonds is only 801.,
although we lately purchased them at 83/."
The Court would observe, that in this letter, both at the
commencement and the end, John Wright alone appears,
although in the body the plural number omen. How-
ever, it appears to have been written at the Ake of Mr.
Robins, and none of it, save the postscript and Sigtititute,
is in Mr. Wright's handwriting. He (Mr. Dixon) c 0
tended that this letter was enough to prove the transac-
tion of leaving the money which had been paid into the
bank on account of the loan to Mr. Howard was with
Mr. John Wright only, and this assertion would be
strengthened when he said that the firm had no interest
whatever in it. Therefore, though the plural number
appeared in the letter it was no proof that the firm was
implied. Again, those Cuba bonds were the property
of John Wright, and the partnership had not one penny
interest in them. The cheque for 17,0001. in favour of
Mr. Robins was drawn by Mr. John Wright in these
terms —e Pay to self on Cuba bonds, or bearer the sum of
17,0001. on account of George Robins, Esq. Signed John
Wright. Addressed to Messrs. Wright and Company."
Nothing could be more conclusive to prove John
Wright to be the principal actor, and that it was
a separate transaction, than that cheque. Mr. Robins had
the pass-book connected with this transaction for
17,000/., yet he made no formal objection until now,
when he is called on to establish the fact of its being an
account with Wright and Co. Cuba bonds to the
amount of 5,000/. were retired from the box, and Mr.
John Wright's name alone is mentioned in that affair.
Again, in all the entries made on account of interest
paid to Mr. Robins the name of John Wright was to
be found, and the same observation holds true in the
transactions with respect to the principal. Mr. Robins
had sold out the Cuba bonds at 65, and as a security, in
case of their falling below 80, there were certain Steam-
packet debentures lodged, which had been sold out also,
as the Cuba'bonds only realised 15,750/. The Learned
Gentleman concluded by saying he should put in the
pass-book and the checks, and ask a few questions of
Mr. John Wright, by the way of a cross-examination of
his previous evidence.
Mr. George Robins—l object totally to this proceed-
ing. I can't recognise any right to undo my proof,
which has been already fairly established, and by the
Learned Commissioner admitted. The more so do I pro-
test against this, as I shall be compelled to touch upon
matters which may be painful to Mr. Wright ; and, also,
unless it can be proved that there is some suspicion at-
tached to me, as I think it quite enough to lose my
money without being subjected to vexatious opposition.
There ought not to have been Counsel brought into
Court to upset my claim, without having first given me
adequate notice, which has not been done, as I only got
notice yesterday.
Mr. Commissioner HOLItOYD said . the Act of Parlia-
ment authorised the assignees to take certain steps to as-
certain whether any proofs under a fiat had been im-
properly admitted ; but, at the same tune, they were
bound to pay such costs as the Court might award in
case the opposition should prove frivolous.
Mr. HaanuroN—A summons had been served upon
Mr. Robins before.
Mr. Robins—Yes, it was served at the time when I
was engaged in the sale of Lord Southampton's estate,
which had been advertised in every Newspaper in Eng-
land for three months previously. As he considered his
case to be equitable he should dispense with Counsel, and
leave the legal points in the hands of the Court.
Mr. John Wright, being sworn, stated. that he recol
lected having some transactions with Mr. George Robins
concerning a loan of 17,0001.—[Here the Learned
Counsel, in opposition to Mr. Robins's claim, handed the
witness the pass-book before alluded to.] In it he found
an entry, dated 19th July, 1839, of John Wright, for
17,000 L About that time he made an application
to Mr. Robins, telling him that the Hon. Mr. Howard
wanted to borrow a large sum of money, at the rate of
5 per cent. ; and he thought it would be more advanta-
geous to him (Mr. Robins) to let Mr. Howard have that
sum, instead of only receiving 3 per cent. on his capital.
He (Mr. Wright) thought 'Mr: Robins was at the time
under the impression that the lean was to be guaranteed
by the firm ; but such was the stability of the bank
then, that he paid very little attention to the exact words
used. The interest on the loan was credited to the ac-
count of Mr. Robins, and witness never had any other
transactions with him. If it were a partnership transac-
tion, it would not have been entered as John Wright's,
in the book. However, his position in the firm was
such, that Mr. Robins might naturally consider
his act that of the firm ; and in his (Mr.
Wright's) opinion, it was of very little consequence
against which estate Mr. Robins proved, as he would be
quite as likely to get as large a dividend from the separate
as from the joint estate. He could swear the-transaction
was with him, but what Mr. Rubins's impression was he
could not say.
Mr. G. Robins said he was not by any means aware it was
a transaction separate from the firm. He felt that his
own credit with the world depended on his rendering an
explanation o all the facts of the case. Mr. Wright
said to him, " You said you can't get more than 3 per
cent. for your money, but I shall be able to get you 5 per
cent, if you lend the Hon. Mr. Howard 17,000/. on
certain shares in the London and Southampton Rail-
way." To this ho replied, that he did not know the
value of those shares, but would consider the house of
Wright and Company to be sufficient security. The
money was accordingly advanced upon these terms, and
also that it was to be repaid upon the sale of some pro-
perty to the Duke of Newcastle by the Duke of Nor-
folk. But the chief point upon which lie (Mr. Robins)
relied was, the wording of the letter originally quoted
by the Learned Counsel, for the word " we" must,
in the mind of any man of common sense, imply the
firm, and the firm alone. When this sum was repaid
by the Hon. Mr. Howard, Mr. Wright sent for him
(Mr. Robins), and said the loan had been paid into the
bank, and he could lay it out again in the way of loan
on as good security, and offered Cuba bond's to the
amount of .22,000/ as security for the. 17,0001 which had
been paid in. To this .he replied he was not aware of
the value of the Cuba bonds, but was quite satis-
fied with the security of Messrs Wright and
Company. The money was, consequently, never
drawn from the bank, and surely the Court would not
believe that he required the security of the house in the
first transaction, without observing a similar precaution
in the next. It would be ridiculous to suppose that he
would risk his money in a loan to any one bank, when
he knew all the other banks were getting money for 3
per cent. The fact is, that the banker is generally
the lender, and not the borrower. The fact was,
be thought lie was lending the money to one of Mr.
Wright's very numerous clients. The letter had been
written by Messrs. 'Wright's own clerk, Mr. Beadle, and
he (Mr. Robins) thought the sentence " we hold ourselves
responsible for any deficiency" in the depreciation of
'the nominal security of the 'Cuba bonds, to be ample
proof that the firm was involved, and not an individual.
If such a fact were known as any bank to borrow
money at an interest of 5 per cent., he could have made
it bankrupt in 24 hours.
Mr. DIXON having replied,
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD said this was an applica-
tion to expunge a proof against the joint estate of the
bankrupts. After the loan to the Hon. Mr. Howard had
been repaid, the money being in the bank, Mr. Robins
allowed the use of it. on the joint security of the partnership.
Taking all the circumstances of the case in to consideration,
considering that the loan to Mr. Howard had been given
on the guarantee of the firm, and considering that in the
material part of the letter the plural number had been
used, there was not enough to satisfy him that that debt
had not been contracted on the responsibility of the firm of
Wright and Company. He would rather form an opinion
from the documents that had been produced that day
in Court than upon the evidence of any person, no
matter who he might be, at that distant period. From all
the circumstances of the case he came to the conclusion,
that as the loan to Mr. Howard was originally given on
the security of the firm of Messrs. Wright, so, also, when
that money again came to be disposable by its repayment,
Mr. Robins would again require similar security. Under
those circumstances ho should not entertain the appli-
cation.