The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-14 00:00:00

nAMSBOTTOM U. FREEMAN.

Mr. PEMBERTON moved for an order to appoint a re-
ceiver of the rents of a leasehold estate belonging to the
defendant, on which the plaintiffs, who are wholesale
brewers, claimed to have an equitable mortgage. The
defendant, who is a beer-shop keeper, having been in-
debted to the plaintiffs, gave them a confession of judg-
ment to be exercised unless the debt was paid within a
given period. But the day before that on which pay-
ment became due, he executed an under-lease of the
property at a nominal rent., upon which a bill was filed
and an injunction obtained to restrain the defendant
from receiving the rents. Defendant had not moved to
dissolve the injunction, and the plaintiff now moved to
have a receiver appointed.—Order granted.

VICE CHANCELLORS' COURT, Dec. 13.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
FLETCIIER V. NORTIICOTE.
The arguments in this case were brought to a conclu-
sion this morning ; and the report was ordered to be
referred back to the Master in the matter of the excep-
tions allowed.
THE FISHMONGERS' COMPANY V. THE LORDS OF THE

of Lieut. Dennehy were well founded, and that Mr.
Thomas was not lit to commend a transport. Now, it
was clear that the charge of the defendant in the present
case was one of those privileged communica-
tions, which, even if the words were slanderous, would
protect him from an action of damages. He had no
other course to pursue—he was bound to report what he
honestly and sincerely believed to be the inefficiency of
the Master ; and there could be no objection taken to the
manner in which that report was made. The Jury were
now called to award damages against an officer
in her Majesty's service for having discharged what:he
conscientiously believed to be his duty. He confessed that
he was astonished at such a case being brought into that
Court. He submitted that, upon the plaintiff's own
showing, the inquiry had been instituted in a regular
manner, and he had in addition the report of the disin-
terested officers appointed by the Government in his fa-
vour ; and, under these circumstances, he submitted that
the defendant was entitled to their verdict.

Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN left it to the Jury to say
whether they were of opinion that the defendant had
exceeded the strict line of his duty in the representations
he had made, and had been actuated by malice.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, 501.

ALEXANDER V. TIIO3IAR.
Mr. PRICE stated the case. It was an action brought
by the plaintiff for injury sustained by himself, and his
gig and horse, from a collision with the defendant's cart,
on London-bridge, and which was attributable to the
furious and reckless driving of the defendant's servant.
Patrick Mahoney said, I sell combs and other small
articles on London-bridge. On the sth May last, I saw
a gig and horse coming from London towards the
Borough ; it was on the proper side, and about two or
three feet from the curb-stone. The horse was going
about twelve miles an hour—he was not gallop;ng. I
saw a cart on the right-hand side of the road, and drove
over to the other side' against the gig, and chucked the
man out of the gig. He fell against the curb-stone. He
was in a very bad state, and was taken to the hospital.
Cross-examined--I was on the Borough side of the
bridge, on the footpath. Mr. Alexander was not stand-
ing up in the gig, nor whipping his horse. I don't know
what the speed was. The man was driving fair enough.
He was not more than between two and three feet from
the kerb when the gig was struck. The cart drove away,
but was stopped. The gig was broken all to pieces.
William Storey--I am a Pity policeman. I was on
duty on London-bridge on the sth May last. I saw Mr.
Alexander picked up by two men ; his head was cut
open. The gig was about a foot from the berb ; the
shafts, springs, and body of the chaise were broken. I
did not see the collision. The cart was standing behind
the gig when I came up. I assisted in taking Mr. Alex-
ander to. the hospital. It was Mr. Thomas's servant
who was driving the cart. Mr. Thomas is a wine-mer-
chant. He sent for myeslf and my brother officer after
the accident, and inquired how it occurred, but we re-
fused to give any information. These are the orders
given to the police force.
Richard Varney—l was assisting a truck over London-
bridge on the day in question. I was behind the gig,
which was going between three and four miles an hour.
The cart was going between five and six miles an hour.
I saw the cart strike the chaise about the step. The
evidence of this witness and of Thomas Ihll, a person
who was crossing the bridge at the time, was corrobora-
tive of what had been previously stated.
The medical man who attended plaintiff for about a
week after the accident, was then examined. His charge
would be about 255. or 30s. The party who purchased the
gig after the accident said he had given 50s. for it. It
was in very shattered state, and when sound it might
have been worth about 251.

Mr. PLATT addressed the Jury for the defendant, and
commented upon the statements made by the two police-
men, that they had instructions not to disclose what they
knew of the transaction to any person until they had been
brought into a court of justice. He did not think that
any such improper and unjustifiable orders had been is-
sued, because it gave rise to much litigation. The defen-
dant having heard nothing of the accident but what was
stated to him by his own servant, naturally sent for po-
licemen, to hear their version of the story, and to make pro-
per recompense to the plaintiff, if he found that his servant
was in the wrong; but they would give him no informa-
tion, and hence arose the present action.

The defendant's servant, Wyatt, who was driving the
cart on the day in question, deposed that he was driving
at a foot pace—that there was plenty of room for the
plaintiff to pass —that the plaintiff was flogging his horse,
and ran right against the cart which at the time was standing
still. The cart was not at all injured; there were two sacks of
malt in the cart at the time, and he had gone the third cart
out of the line to pass others which had stopped. He had
no whip, his master not allowing him to go beyond a foot
pace. The gig was coming very fast, and crossed over
towards his side of the road.

Two or three other witnesses were examined, who
stated that the plaintiff was driving very furiously, and
that he had plenty of room to pass on his own side of
the road without coming in contact with the cart.
Mr. PRICE having replied,
The Jury retired, and in half an hour returned with a
verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXC.HEQUER, Dec. 13.
SHEPPARD V. SHOOLBRED AND OTHERS.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the plaintiffs in this
case were probably_ the largest woollen cloth manufactu-
rers in England. They sought to recover 8162, the value
of 39 pieces of cloth, which they alleged was their pro-
perty at the time they came into the possession of the de-
fendants, who kept a large shop for the sale of goods of
all descriptions, in Tottenham-court-road. The amount
in question was a large one, but the principle involved in
the action was a hundred, nay, he might say a thousand,
times more important. Ever since the Usury Laws had
been repealed—for repealed they virtually had been—a
practice had grown up, of traders who were in distressed
circumstances getting bills discounted at ruinously high
rates, and upon the deposit of goods as security. In
Sept. 1840, a person named Green applied at the ware-
house of the plaintiffs fora quantity of cloths, which he said
were wanted for the American market. and he wanted
to send them by the Great Western, which sailed from
Bristol in a few days. He gave references, which were
satisfactory, and the goods were made up and sent in to
his warehouse. The very next day the goods left that
warehouse, but not for Bristol, or to any one to pack
them for that destination, but to the shop of a Mr. At-
tenbury, a pawnbroker, where they were pledged for one
half their value, and for a bill which was discounted at
ten per cent., and one per cent. upon the transaction.
Now, it must be well known to every man in business,
that any person transacting business on such terms
must be on the high road to ruin, awl be acting disho-
nestly. The goods were then at t' MO bury's, and it
would be proved that Mr. Brown, aI $S ter in the house
of the defendant, went to the pawilaroker's shop to
look at them, to see if he would purchase them, and on
the 27th November he did purchase them for 5751., the
cost of them having been 8161. odd, and they said they
had paid for them. Now, he said the defendant, acting
in that manner, not going to any regular place of busi-
ness, but going to a place the circumstances of the
goods being there being likely to create suspicion,
deserved no sympathy from the Jury. Such a
transaction was not calculated to uphold the high charac-
ter of a London merchant. It would be proved that the
goods were sold at such ruinous prices as must have ex-
cited suspicion, and he trusted the Jury would not lend
themselves to such a transaction, but find for the plaintiff,
in whom was still the property in the goods.
The sale of the goods to Green upon the representation
of their being for the American market was proved by
Mr. Norton, the servant of the plaintiff. The goods were
sold to be paid in cash on the Saturday week following.
They were not paid for, and Green became bankrupt in
five weeks after.
The delivery of the goods and their removal to Atten-
bury's were proved by the waggoner.
The examination of Mr. Brown before the Commis-
sioners of Bankrupts was put in, from which it appeared
they had purchased the goods through, and from, a person
named Ridgway; they were nearly all sold to Storey, a
draper, of Tottenham -court-road. It was the only tran-
saction they had ever had with Ridgway.
Stephen Stevens was porter and warehouseman to
Green. The goods received from Sheppard were all
sent away on the following day.
Cross-examined—Was twelve months in his employ.
During that period Green carried on a very large busi-
ness. Green told him to deliver the goods to Ridgway.
He did so, and he took them away.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL called for the clothworkers'
book, kept by the defendant. It was produced, and
being compared with the invoice, the numbers corre-
sponded.
Roger Dawson, a draper, of Newgate-street, proved
the reasonableness of the prices charged in the invoice
from Sheppard to Green. The goods there referred to
could not be made for 57 51 and if a stranger were to
offer them
at such prices, and the goods were lay-
-1 a,
aase „4 lAwnbroker's shop, he would decidedly refuse to
Cross-
puren them.
examined—Goods in their trade were frequent y
was happy to
depreciated to the
buy ch'eap when he could.
mount of 30 per cent. Of course he
Mr. TIIESIGER submitted that there was no case to
go to the Jury.
His LORDSHIP said
he would not withdraw the case
from the Jury—if he Was in the box he would know
what to do.
The ATTORNEY-GEN ...
plaintiff's case ? En"---Is your Lordship adverse
to
Lord
point of law ; but I do not
Ohred ABLNGER—Not in
think you have at all connected the
the Jury for the defendants with the
fraud committed by Green.
Mr. THESIGER then addressed
de-
fendants.
foun
His LOerdict for the de fenRDSHIP, summed updants. , and the Jury immediately
Counsel for the plaintiff, the Attorney-Gentral, Mr.
Kelly, and Mr. Martin ; for the defendants, Mr. The-
siger, Mr. Erie, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Humfrey.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 13.
JACKSON V. BOWLEY.
This action was brought by the churchwardens on
behalf of the united parishes of St. Mary Walbrook, and
St. Bennet Shirehog, in the:City of London, to recover
from the defendant, as executor of Joseph Lyon, de-
ceased, formerly parish clerk and rate collector of those
parishes, the snm of 21/. Bs. Id., which the testator had
received on account of the rates, and had not paid over to
the churchwardens.
The defendant pleaded that he had duly administered
the assets, and had no funds wherewith to discharge tko
debt. The plaintiffs set forth in their replication, that
the plaintiff had left, property of several kinds, which
had come into the hands of the executor, and had not
been administered.
It appeared that the defendant was brother-in-law of
the testator, having married two of his sisters, by both
of whom there were children ; and the testator having
no children of his own, and being separated from his
wife, assigned to the defendant, in trust for the eldest
daughter of the latter, leasehold property producing
about 254 a-year, and subseouently assigned to him a

mortgage deed and collateral securities of the value of
1,5001. in trust for the remaining children of the testa-
tor's two sisters. lie died in a few months after the exe-
cution of these assignments, leaving a will, to which de •
fendant was executor, and by which he bequeathed free-
hold property in Brighton, and the sum of 5001., to his
widow. The defendant administered, and having sworn
the effects to be under 8001., paid the duty of 151. Ac-
cording, however, to his case, in answer to the present ac-
tion, the property realized only 91/., and he expended
89/, in the probate duty, funeral expenses, and the pay-
ment of certain debts. But it was endeavoured to be
shown for the plaintiffs that the property, independent
of that assigned to the defendant in trust for his children,
really amounted to nearly the sum sworn for which the
duty was paid.
The case occupied from shortly after ten o'clock in
the morning to half-past six in the evening, when the
Jury found for the plaintiffs in the full amount.
In answer to the Judge, the Jury replied that they
did not find the assignments to be fraudulent.

Did you enter those in your books 2—No ; we kept a
list of them, as we did also with the linens.
Where is that list?—l don't know where either of the

lists are.
When did you see it last P—l don't recollect.
State as nearly as you can ?—Late in July, or early in
August..
Where were you when You last saw that—in your
country house?—l don't recollect. I should think it was.
Was it amongst the documents you destroyed ?—lt
was not, nor were any papers of accounts ever destroyed
by me.
Did not you yourself remove some of the goods in
your own phieton to some of the places of deposit ?—I
believe I did..
Don't you_ know that you did ?--yes.
State the-number of plaoes taiwhich, according to your
knowledge or belief, the goods which were so removed
were carried to ?—Four, I think.
To whose honses did they go ?—My own, Mr. Hay-
ward's, Mr. Bendell's, and Mr. Churchouse's. Those
are all that I recollect. They were moved subsequently
from those houses to other places.
Were not goOdS removed to. Mrs. Reynolds's, a rela-
tive of your wife ?=---They were--from Mr. Bendell's to
Mrs. Reynolds's, and were removed from Mrs. Reynolds's
to my house in Regent-street, in my cart.
When ?—I do not recollect.
Will you swear that all the goods that were removed
unti - you should determine what should be done with
the oi 'ere removed back toyour house in Regent-street?
—No ; but I will swear it was intended to do so.
The messenger's man states that on the evening of
the 12th October, this fiat being issued 16th September
preceding, he seized stock, consisting of seven packages,
belonging to you at Mr. Layer's, of Princes's-place,
Kennington-cross. Do you not believe that the pro-
perty to which the messenger has so sworn belonged to
your estate ?—The Bankrupt—l should like to hear
the messenger's evidence read.
The evidence of John Fleet, the messenger, having
been read,
The Bankrupt—l do not wish to let that word seizure
pass' unnoticed, for I have evidence to show that it was
not seized.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD—That has nothing to do
with the question ; do you believe those goo& belonged
to your estate?—l believe that such property belonged
to my estate, and also the linens, they both being sent
out for the same purpose.
Were you not examined on 6th October last, under
this fiat?—l think I was.
Did you not then swear that you never sent any goods
to any body, except to Mr. Cook and Mr. C. Leaf ?—I
did not ; I swore on thattlay—
Mr. Commissioner HOcaoyn—lt would be much
better to put in the examination, and ask him if what he
had there stated was true.
The examination of the 6th of October having been put
in, the bankrupt said, I swore on that (lay that I did not
send any goods for any one, except for Cook and Chris-
topher Leaf.
On the suggestion of Mr. Commissioner lIOLROYD,
the following question and answer for your examination
of the 6th of October being read to you in the following
words Have you sent any other goods to anybody
besides Mr. Cook and Mr. C. Leaf ?—None other.
How do you reconcile what you then swore with
what you now swear ?—The goods that were sent
out were sent out for Messrs. Cook and Gladstone,
and for C. Leaf and Co., and when the examination was
read over to me, I think by Mr. Jones, then Messrs. Cook's
solicitor, I understood the words to be for Messrs.
Cook and Gladstone, and mentioned it at the time,
having made the following observation to Mr. Jones, and
remarked at the time, that I wished to be par-
ticular in answer to that question. I understood
from Mr. Jones that the word " for" in the question
was inserted in my examination previous to my signature,
and not the word " to," and I believe that my trade as-
signees present will remember it, and that they both
observed that Mr. Jones shielded or threw a cloak over
those parts of my answers, for the purpose of shielding
his clients Messrs. Cook and Gladstone. Mr. C. Brown
and Mr. Llewellyn are the gentlemen I refer to in this
answer. They have informed me that they had re-
moved Mr. Jones from being solicitor to the fiat in
consequence. This I conceive to be a proper explanation.
Is it a true explanation, and one with which your mind
and conscience goes now ?—Certainly.
You adhere to that answer ?—Yes.
Did you then disclose to Mr. Jones, or your assignees,
where the goods which were then concealed were ?—No.
What was your reason for swearing in relation to them,
and not stating the fact that they were concealed at
Laver's ?—Mr. Jones did not ask me.
Were you not then asked if you had never sent any
goods to any person but to Leaf, and did you not
answer " Yes, a parcel of goods returned to Cook, Son, and
Gladstone ?"—I do not recollect that question or answer.
Were you not then asked had you ever sent any goods
to any excess ? (The officer of the Court read the
bankrupt's examination of the 6th of October, from which
it appeared that such a question had been put, and such
an answer given.)
That having been read to you, I ask how came you not
to disclose where these goods then were P—The parcel of
goods at that moment had been entered as a return to
Messrs. Cook, Son, and Gladstone, and dated back in
our books.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD—Why did you not state
at that moment that these goods were at Laver's?—Be-
cause Messrs. Cook and Gladstone could not have
reaped any benefit from them, and I was instructed by
them.
When and by whom?—Messrs. Cook and Gladstone
had previously told me they would give me 2,5001. if I
got them out, and that was my reason for swearing as I
did, which I thought consistent with truth, and think
so now.
Will you now swear that there goods were not intended
to be concealed from your cre liters, except from Cook
and Gladstone ?—Yes ; I swear so now.
Did you not meet your shopman, Churchouse, on the
morning after seizure by the messenger, and did you
not say to him, speaking of the seizure, " Who could
have given the information," or words to that effect ?—I
do not think I did. I met him near the Court of Bank-
ruptcy. I had not seen him previously, nor do I recol-
lect ever saying anything to him of the kind.
Will you swear you did not ?—I will not.
What is your belief?—l believe I did not.
If he has sworn on that same day that you did put
that question to him, has he sworn to your belief that
which is true or false ?—I have no recollection of such a
thing, but I cannot answer for what he has sworn. I
might have said such a thing, but I do not recollect it.
.1 see no reason why I should not.
You have sworn that You did not intend to conceal
attase goods from your creditors ; would not-that question,
if you had put it, intimate that you meant to conceal
them P—l (lid not intend that all my assignees should
have the information.

Then, did you intend, by the answer, that your two
assignees, Brown and Llewelly, should known?—No, only
Mr. Cook.

How do you reconcile your last answer with the state-
ment you have just now given, that the goods which
were seized were not intended to be concealed from your
creditors ?—lt appears to me that they do tally with each
other. I wish here to make an addition to my answer. about
Churchouse. On the morning of the 13th (the day re-
ferred to) I do not recollect to have seen Mr. Churchouse
anywhere alone, and only in the Court of Bankruptcy, in
the presence of other persons, in a private room, and
therefore I think that I could not have made such an ob-
servation to him as the one referred to in your previous
question.
Did you make such an observation to him, either on
the morning of the 13th, or at any other time ?—I do not
recollect ever having done so.
Will you now swear you did not ?—No.
The Bankrupt—May I request to know, Sir, if there
are not in my examination many questions appearing to
which no answers appear? I draw your Honour's atten-
tion
to this to show how very loosely that examination
was conducted.

TUE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1841,

The goods were afterwards fetched away late at night, in t
a cab or coach, by Mr. Hayward, who met me at St.
John's Wood Chapel. They were then taken from the
coach and placed in my phaeton, and I drove them to
Mr. Hayward's. The next day, or, the next but one,
Mr. Hayward and myself got up the goods for sale, and
sent them to Regent-street. They were not taken
out of the cab, but were taken from Regent-street to the
warehouse of Christopher Leaf and Co., having first been
entered and regularly invoiced. Mr. Leaf sold the
goods for a much better price to wholesale houses in the
trade, and the proceeds were received in Regent-street,
and accounted for there in the usual way. A small por-
tion of the goods we never got from Slioolbred and Co.,
as they stated they had sold them. A very small allow-
ance was made by them for such goods, and deducted
from the 3041. That, I believe contains the substance of
Mr. Walden's matter.

For what purpose were these goods originally place(
with Walden ?—They were sent there by me and in
tended afterwards to be sent to Messrs. Cook and Glad
stone.

When did you form that intention ?—When I sent oul
the goods, as before.

You have no hesitation in affirming that ?—Not an,
What was the amount of the whole of the goods sent

Walden, and ultimately sold by C.. Leaf ?--The amount
of the goods sent out by C. Leaf was, I think, 6501. I
cannot tell exactly without referring to my books.
Do you mean that that was the whole amount of goods
sold by C. Leaf for you ?—No.
What was the whole amount of goods that C. Leaf
sold for you ?—About 2,7001. or 2,800/. The other
portion of goods alluded to as being sent away from
Walden's on the Monday morning, was taken to my
private residence, and in a day or two were removed to
Mr. Laver's, and have since been given up to the messenger.
Were not the goods you speak of as removed to Laver's
other goods than those which were sold for 2,7001. or
2,8001. to C. Leaf ?—I believe so ; they formed part of
the goods delivered to the messenger on the 12th. The
goods sold by C._Leaf did not produce 2,7001. ; that was
the cost price.
What was the amount, in value at cost price, of all the
goods removed from your premises, of which mention
has been made in the examination ?—The goods sent to
C. Leaf and Co., at cost price, but not in value, was
about 2,7501. The amount of goods at Laver and
Reynold's was 1,870 L
Were these the only goods to your knowledge or
belief that were removed from your premises ?—No. A
parcel of linen was sent out under the plea of being
washed, amounting to about 700/., and a small portion of
goods not recovered from Shoolbred and Cook. These com-
prise all the goods that I have ever sent or ordered to be
sent out.

Do they comprise all that you believe to haie been
sent out ?—Yes.

Do you now swear, to the best of your knowledge and
belief, that that is the whole of your estate, stock, goods,
and effects, you have disclosed to your assigness under the
fiat?-Yes.

Where is the letter that you say Hayward wrote to you
giving you information that Walden was selling your
goods ?—I did not keep it, believing it of no consequence.
What did you do with it? I do not recollect ; I think
it likely I destroyed it instantly.
What makes you state it likely you destroyed it ?

As I was coming to town instantly to see to it, thoug
the letter was useless.

Do you now remember that you then so thought ?
—Yes. It was never my habit to keep useless letters.
I don't recollect whether I destroyed the letter, the
letter being entirely useless, and do not think it is likely
that I thought of keeping it. I have no doubt that
I destroyed it, but I don't recollect about it. I can give
you the contents, if you wish it. It was as follows :
" Dear Sir, I have just heard that Walden has
been selling or offering silks ; bad you better
not come to town instantly ?" I think it was
dated about hall-past five o'clock, Regent-street.
I received it in the Isle of Wight on Sunday
morning. When I received it I lodged at Moore's library
or Hewitt's baths. Each of these parties had lodging
rooms. I don't recollect at which place I received it ; but
it will be easily proved. My family stopped there till the
Ist week of September. Ido not enter my travelling
expenses in any book. I usually draw a cheque for them.
I do not think I received any letter from Hayward or
any other person in my establishment while I was at the
Isle of Wight. I am confident I did not. On one
occasion I recollect receiving a letter from my
clerk, stating that he had forwarded me the
letters that had been received in Regent-street,
and that they were going on as usual.
I am not certain that the letter did not allude to the tak-
ings of the day, but that was nothing important. lam
speaking now of the month of August, or the beginnibg
of September. I don't recollect whether the letter re-
lated to the takings. I had been dishonouring my
bills for the month of July preceding. The
takings were of great importance to me at the
latter end of August and the beginning of September;
but not the takings of one day. I have no doubt that I
destroyed the letter. I have been to the official assignee
to search for one letter. I have not been in the habit of
keeping my letters generally.
At four o'clock the examination of the bankrupt was
adjourned till to-morrow (this day) at eleven o'clock.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dec. 13.
IIPRE JOHN CLARK SUMMERS.
The insolvent, who was more than seventy-six years
of age, was opposed by Mr. Nicholls, on behalf of Messrs.
Manton and Steele. He was supported by Mr. Cooke.
The debts which appeared ini his schedule amounted
to upwards of 6,3561., the greater number of which were
without consideration, and • upwards of 5,3001 were
accommodation bills in favour of Peter Harriss Abbott,
the late official assignee' in the Bankruptcy Court, who
had absconded a defaulter.
It appeared by the insolvent's testimony that he had,
as a matter of friendship towards Abbott, accepted, at
different times, bills to the amount of 30,0001. in his
favour, one of which for 3501. passed into the hands of
Messrs. Manton and Steele, and formed the grounds of
the present opposition. The insolvent had been many
years in business, and eventually retired on an income
which he trusted would have been sufficient to maintain
him through life, but the present unfortunate transaction
frustrated his hopes, and he had given it up to pay his
creditors.
The Learned CHIEF CO3IMISSIONER, who sat for the
first time after his return from Circuit, said that, al-
thOugh the insolvent did not evince any evldedce of dis-
honesty at first, yet he had been guilty of running into
debt, without any reasonable hope of. having the means
of payment. The sentence of the Court, therefore, was,
that he be imprisoned for five calendar months from the
date of his vesting order.