The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-15 00:00:00

BANKRUPTCY-(THIS DAY.)

IN TIIE MATTER OF WM. BITCHCOCK, A BANKRUPT.
The bankrupt's examination was resumed this morn-
ing. The interest excited by the case has not at all
abated, as the Court .was again crowded by commer-
cial men.

Mr. ASIIMIST begged to call the attention of the Com-
missioner to the situation to which he was placed. The
solicitor of the two assignees refused to give him any of the
aids which were necessary for the examination of the
bankrupt and the bringing to light the whole of the facts
of the case. The two assignees, by their solicitor, are
in possession of a deed which conveyed the lease of the
premises in Regent-street to the bankrupt's brother.
Now it was most important that he should see or have a
copy of that deed, but they refused to give him
that facility for pursuing and probably greatly shorten-
ing the examination, although, when they set out, they
promised that the inquiry would be full and satisfactory.
He did not wish that the Commissioner should order
him to be furnished with it; all he wished was, an ex-
pression of opinion upon the point.
Mr. SOLE, solicitor for the assignees, said as they fully
expected to destroy
.Cook and Gladstone's debt to the
amount of at least 7001., he found it his duty to
refuse Mr. Ashurst a copy. He might obtain it from
the bankrupt's solicitor ; that was the proper quarter
from which it should come.

Mr. ASHURST said the reason given for the refusal
was most insufficient upon the face of it. If Mr. Sole
attempted to expunge any of his clients' debt, he (Mr.
Ashurst) would be entitled to see the deed as a matter of
right. Why then not show it now, when it was so im-
portant to him?
The COMMISSIONER could see no objection to Mr.
Ashurst being furnished with a copy of the deed. It
might as well be given now as in a future stage, when
he must have it as a. matter of right.
Mr. SOLE-If we are to furnish every information, of
course it must be reciprocal; but in justice to my clients
I must refuse a copy. Let him get it from Mr. Marsden.
Mr. MARspErt—l offered it last night, and will furnish
it to-morrow.

Mr. ASIIURST.-But I want to examine from it now.
I will pay you for the copy if you will let me look for a
very few minutes now. (This offer was declined). I
am aware that there has been a bargain made that this
man shall get his certificate, but it shall not be until the
whole truth is out. .

Mr. ASIMURST.—FIave you communicated with your
brother George since yesterday.—No.
Have you advised with your solicitor, who is also the
solicitor of your brother, since yesterday ?—I have not
received any proposition.
Answer the question, Sir.—Only in reference to my
own affairs.

I will have an answer. Have you advised with your
solicitor, who is alai the solicitor of your brother, since
yesterday ? —I have.
Before the regular examination was proceeded in the
bankrupt said—l wish, before lam questioned further,
to have your Honour's permission to make the following
explanation. Mr. Ashurst questioned me in reference
to certain bills which were dishonoured, and for which
bail was given. I now add that Messrs. Cook and Glad-
stone knew at the time of the dishonour of the bills, and
of the bail which was given, and they said there was no
reason why I should not go on, as the parties could not
get judgment until, I think, November.
"When was it that this conversation took place ?—At
one of the meetings in the library or the dining-room, to
which I have before referred to.

In their library ?—ln their library or dining-room.
How did they know it ?—I communicated it to them.
The time I did so being a period when I was acting
under their instructions. I told them that some of the
parties whose bills were dishonoured were pressing for
payment, and had served me with a 21 days'.notice of
bankruptcy.
Was it Cook or Gladstone ?—Both, I believe.

Was that all you told them ?—I believe it is all on
that subject.
Will you state all that took place on the occasion ?
I stated all that I recollect occurred then.
Will you swear that you now believe you have stated
all that occurred on that occasion on that subject ?—I
have already sworn it.
What did they say, and if possible tell me which of
them, and in what terms?—They said (which of them I
cannot say) that there was no reason why I should not
go on, as the parties could not get judgment until, I
think, November.
Was that all, whoever spoke it,spoken in the presence
of the other ?—I am not sure, as I before stated, that
both were present, but believe they were.
If they were both present, was it spoken by one in the
presence of the other ?

Mr.MARSDEN submitted that the question was improper.
The Commissioner—lt might be put in another form.
In all the conversations you had with the two on the
subject, was that which was said by the one said in the
presence and hearing of the other ?—lf both were pre-
sent, as the question implies, I should think that both
would hear it. I.cannot say, but I believe so.
You stated that one of your reasons for making over
the lease held by R. P. Pritchard to your brother was,
that he might again become security for you. Will you
now state what guarantee or security your brother gave?
—I believe it was a guarantee.
For how much, and when due ?—I think for the
amount of both bills, and which were to be paid by a
certain day. I haste no doubt the guarantee is still in
existence if it be important.
Did you pay off that guarantee ?—Yes.
Did you deliver up that letter of guarantee to the official
assignee?—lt was not in my possession.
here is it now ?—I don't know.

Will you swear that a guarantee was given by your
brother to Pritchard ?—No. I will swear that I under-
stood a guarantee or some other document of security
was given. I have no doubt it was.
Did you transfer the leases from Pritchard, by an ar-
rangement, to your brother, and afterwards paid off the
debt of 2,0001., without seeing the document of transfe-
rence, or asking for the document when you paid the
money ?—The leases were not transferred from one to
the other.

Did you pay off a debt of 2,0001. without seeing the
document by which it was secured?—l believe I did. I
think Mr. ft. P. Pritchard Called on my brother to ob-
tain the guarantee.
Then you never saw it?—Not to my recollection.
Is that the only reason you have for not asking to see
the document before you paid the money in discharge of it?
—Yes, and my receiving back the lease which Mr.'Pritch-
ard previously held.
Did you not receive back the lease before the money
was paid.—Yes.
Did you receive back the lease at the time the guaran-
tee was given?—l believe about that time.
Then did you pay 2,0001. in discharge of a document
you had never seen ?—I paid the 2,0001. in discharge of
the debt I owed, and in accordance with my promise.
Did you obtain the document by which you were, or
your brother were bound, at the time you paid the 2,0001?
—I think not.
Did you not make over to your brother the other
leases of the premises in Regent-street, as well as that
held by R. P. Pritchard, as security to your brother ?
Yes.
How many leases did you make over of the Regent-
street premises ?—Three.
Were they not made over by the same deed
or arrangement which made over the lease held
by Pritchard ?—I object to answer that question, Sir
Mr. Ashurst has frequently endeavoured to mislead me
by putting questions founded upon my answers, and ap-
parently embodying them, but not correctly. lie is now
were
endeavouring to make it appear that
theairtto my brother.
leases
made over directly from R. P. Pritcl
Add to the question "previously held" by Mr. Pritchard.
amend-
ment. objectionCAoliir.istAisssiltouNrsEtnwasaswnontoto
gmecnond--
assume
an
y the hi al
trary to the evidence.
Mr. AsnunsT—That puts it upon me, Sir, that I be-
lieve all he says. I have no objection to say, " alleged
to have been previously held by R. P. Pritchard." The
question so amended was then put.--Yes.
Did you not make a conveyance of the lease of the
house in Regent-street to your brother ?
The bankrupt had no objection to answer the question,.
but objected to the form in which it was put.
The COMMISSIONER said they had already got from
the witness that he had conveyed the leases to his bro-
ther, and some of the securities he bad given to Cook
and Gladstone were those leases.

Mr. AsnunsT—l only wish that you should bear tha
in your mind.

The COMMISSIONER—I have it all in my mind a long I
ti me. —(Laugh ter.)
Mr. ASHURST wished to show that till the goods had
been converted into cash, and the money paid over to his
brother— _ _ _

The COMMISSIONER thought it better that there should
be no argument at that stage of the business. It ap-
peared that they had the security of these leases for
money advanced to them.
Did you tell Cook and Gladstone that you were trans-
ferring the leases they held to your brother George ?
No, but I told them so immediately afterwards.
Did you tell your brother that the goods you sent out,
as you say, for the purpose of enabling you to secure
them, you should sell and apply the cash to discharge
R. P. Pritchard's debt?—l never said that the goods sent
out for Cook and Gladstone were to be applied to the
payment of Pritchard's debt.
Mr. ASHURST said that was not an answer.
Mr. MARSDEN objected to the form in which the ques-

tion was put.
Mr. ASHUBST wished to show that the bankrupt had
said he would not have sworn falsely, but for the purpose
of accusing his clients.

The Bankrupt—l deny that in toto. I appeal to the
Honourable Commissioner for protection.
Mr. ASHURST wished to have a narrative of the mo-
tives which had influenced the bankrupt in raising col-
lateral issues, by which the characters of other parties
were attacked, without their having an opportunity of
defending themselves.

The COMMISSIONER thought it would be better for the
interests of his client, and more just to the bankrupt, to
put questions which would not allow of any inferences
being drawn.

ASHURST would put the question in whichever
way the Commissioner would dictate, and the question
was then put as follows :
Did you tell your brother out of which goods you in-
tended to pay Pritchard's debt 7—No.
Mr. ASHURST understood Mr. George Hitchcock was
in Court, and that the deeds were in his possession. He
wished to have them produced.
Mr. George Hitchcock was then called, and said he
had the documents (the leases) referred to, and had no
objection to produce them.
Mr. ASHURST inquired of Mr. Marsden whether he
was now ready to produce any documents which con-
veyed any interest to George from the bankrupt ? Also
the documents relating to B. P. Pritchard's debt, and
all letters and papers relating to the bankrupt's affairs?
Mr. MARSDEN did not think he could produce all the
documents Mr. Ashurst required. He would give up
any he had.
Mr. ASHURST wished to know if he would produce the
guarantee given to Pritchard.
Mr. MARSDEN did not know whether he had it or not,
but would send to his office and ascertain that fact.

To the Bankrupt—Did you tell your brother that you
intended to make over the lease of the house in Regent-
street before the deed was executed?—l told my brother
that I would make over the two leases to him, Cook and
Gladstone having only a lien upon them.
When did you tell him this?—lt is impossible for me
to say.

M. SOLE said he could save a good deal of time by
stating that the deed of assignment Contained a recital
that Cook and Gladstone had only a lien upon the leases.
Was that all that passed between yourself and your
brother ?—I should think not.

Mr. ASHURST would now go to the case of Heeles and
Co., and refer to the evidence given on a former occa-
sion, the 6th DecenTher. A bill accepted by you in
favour of Heeles and Co., for 8631. Bs. 9d., is now in
your hands, is that bill alluded to in your evidence of
the 6th December ?—I don't know. I believe it is
the bill.

Was that bill discounted for you, or for Heeles, Gaw-
thorpe, and Co.?—For Heeles and Co.
Did it fall due on the 6th May ?—Yes.
Did you not, for your own purposes, give your
bankers orders not to pay that bill ?—Not for my own
purposes, but for the purposes of Cook and Gladstone.
State in what way were these purposes to be answered?
—Mr. Cook applied to me not to pay the bill. In a
conversation,with me about the latter end of April, or
the beginning of May, alluding to my debt with them,
Mr. Cook said that he was paying other parties money,
and not paying them sufficiently, and he had observed
that Heeles' bill was coming due shortly, and it would be
better for me to pay them the amount instead of to
Heeles'. It was about this time that it was arranged
that I should do so. I subsequently gave orders to the
London and Westminster Branch Bank not to pay
that bill. On the same day I drew a check for
the exact amount in favour of Cook and
Gladstone, and sent it to them enclosed
in'a note which stated that I had given orders not to pay,
and that I now enclosed the check, which they would
pass to the credit of my account. I have since seen the
check, and referred to my banker's book, and I find that
the check was presented by Jones, Lloyd, and Co., to
my bankers, on the morning of the 17th. It would be
important for me here to ascertain what day of the week
the 15th of May was.
The COMMISSIONER—Saturday.
The Bankrupt—To account for the check not being
presented till the 17th, it appears to me that the letter
containing the check did not arrive at Cook and Glad-
stone's until after four o'clock on the 15th, and which I
believe to be the case; presuming that Messrs. Cook and
Gladstone left at four o'clock, the letter would not have
have been opened till the following Monday only, and
therefore not presented at the London and Westminster
bank before then. If the check be in Court, I should

like to see it. It has been handed over to the official
assignee. _ _

Was that payment so made and placed to your cash
account at your own request P—lt was at my request,
and which request it was agreed that I should make.
Then was it understood between you or not, that that
payment was on account, or in satisfaction of Heeles'
bill?—lt was, as far as I was concerned ; but the plan
adopted was, as I have before stated, to enable them
to hold lleeles responsible, and which they have since
attempted to recover.

Will you swear that you yourself did not intend that
payment as a payment on your cash account?--Yes.
The bankrupt, before answering the question, ap-
pealed to the Court as to the difficulty in which he was
placed by the question, having before stated that at Cook
and Gladstone's request he had written the letter alluded
to, which might be brought in evidence against him.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD said that to statements
respecting the circumstances under which the letter
was written,:the bankrupt answered as above.
Did not you, in several conversations with Mr.
Cook, state to him yourself that you had made
that payment on your cash account, and,therefore, did not
make him any further payments in May, or words to that
effect ?—I think not.

Will you swear you did not ?—I will not.
What is your belief ?--I believe not.
Do you give that answer deliberately and upon reflec-
tion ?—Yes. I wish to add, having heard my answer
read over to me, that I do not think I could have made such
an observation, because, during the month of May, I
did pay other accounts to a very large amount, as wil
be shown by my books.
Mr. HUMFREY, the barrister, here: entered the Court,
and said that, observing there was a little pause in
the proceedings, he wished to take advantage of it
for the purpose of alluding to a statement which
had yesterday been published as having been made by
the bankrupt in answer to Mr. Ashurst, relating to some
goods stated to have been disposed of to Messrs.
Shoolbred and Cooke. I have to state, said Mr.
Humfrey, in the most direct and unequivocal manner,
on the part of those gentlemen, that the statement of
the bankrupt is a most direct, unequivocal, and mali-
cious falsehood. So far. from the statement then
made being correct Mr. Shoolbred was the first
person to give information to Mr. Llewellyn,
one of the assignees, of the circumstances which had
occurred. I cannot ask your Honour to post-
pone these proceedings to investigate what may be con-
sidered a collateral issue, but on the part of Messrs.
Shoolbred and Cooke I again state that the
bankrupt's statement relating to them is a
perfect falsehood, uttered with a malicious object, and
it is the intention of Messrs. Shoolbred and Cooke to
make the bankrupt responsible for it. They
are exceedingly anxious that this statement should
be as widely diffused as the falsehood had been. They
met the Bankrupt's statement with the most po-
sitive and unequivocal contradiction. There had
never been a suspicion of anything against them until
Mr. Hitchcock had wickedly given utterance to this
falsehood.
(The examination was proceeding when we went to
press.)

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COUR'i'.

ut-
tering coin, well knowing the same to be counterfeit,
Mary Casey, aged 21, was convicted of unlawfully
after a previous conviction for a like offence.
The LEARNED JUDGE, in passing sentence, said it was
necessary to make an example of the prisoner, as no
sooner was she released from prison than she commenced
her old practices. The sentence was that she be trans-
ported for ten years.
Frederick Edwards, aged 16, was indicted for cutting
and wounding John Day, on Sunday last.
The prisoner, with the prosecutor, were in a public-
house together, and a quarrel arose, when the prisoner
committed the offence of which he stood charged. The
prisoner was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
Richard B. Hibbert was indicted for stealing and se-
creting the will of Dorothy llibbert, deceased, for a
fraudulent purpose. The prisoner pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Clarkson appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
C. Phillips for the defence.
Mr. PHILLIPS objected to the indictment, and re-
ferred to the statute regulating wills, which came into
operation jnlB3B, whereby it was pro-
vided be signed by the party
tha ont
everythe
1s
will
lf
should
making that will, to be in the presence of and attested by
two witnesses, in the presence of each. Mr. Phillips
submitted that the will in question was neither signed
nor attested on the date when it was made, ccnsequently
it could, be no offence under the statute to secrete such
a will ; and ho therefore submitted that the objection
was fatal to the case.

The LEARNED JUDGES consulted fora short time,
and then said that, under the circumstances, the offence
was not one which could be submitted to inquiry. The
Court had no jurisdiction.

CHRISTI! AS CAROLS.— Christmas carols are
still sung in Ireland. In Scotland, where no Church feasts
have been kept since the days of John Knox, the custom
is unknown. In Wales it is still preserved to a greater
extent than in England. At the former period the
Welsh had carols adapted to most of the ecclesiastical
festivals, and the four seasons of the year ; but at this
time they are limited to Christmas. After the turn of
midnight, on Christmas-eve, service is performed in the
churches by the singing of carols to the harp. While
the Christmas holidays continue, they are sung in like
manner in the houses.