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

'MORNING SUN

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 iu 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
Milton with Mr. Rosser and her daughter Sophia. Her
youngest daughter dined at Mr. Rosser's house. When-
ever witness had any conversation with Mr. Rosser, 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 after this witness said to Mr. Rosser that he
was trifling with her daughter, and that he had
better 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. Rosser came to witness's house, said he was deter-
mined to be married, and that he would not listen to his
daughters' objection, as he was sure those objections
would be all forgotten by Christmas. Recollected send-
ing a letter by her daughter to Mr. Rosser, which came
back to her open. After September, 1838, witness and
her daughter went to Ormond-street 14 the purpose of
seeing Mr. Rosser's daughters, but he told them his
daughters 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 set of patterns for dresses.
Witness and her daughter had told defendant that there
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 leer daughter having
grown so thin since her finger had been measured be.
fore. A smaller ring was procured. After that they re-
ceived a letter from defendant, in consequence of which
witness and plaintiff went to see him. Ile 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 marry as soon as his daughter, Mrs.
Allen, went out of town. After that her daughter re-
ceived a packet, containing a bond from the defen-
dant, securing her an annuity of 601. a year for life.
Mr. TUESIGER 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 him 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.

Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER—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 years 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. Witness could not afford to lose his friend--
ship, and, besides, she was grateful to him
for .his. kindness. He 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. Ile always spurned that
advice, and said he would not be pestered with an old
woman. :Witness always. remonstrated en 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 sit?:
were not au uncertiticated bankrupt and entirely de'-
pendent on her three daughters. Sophia received hand-
some presents from defendant from the beginning of his
courtship. Could not say that they amounted to 60/. a=
year. Sometimes her daughter returned the presents.
Could not say that she returned the 5/. presents and kept
the 201. One 201. was given for her to hay a suit
of mourning, that she might correspond with his own
appearance in walking out with him. Witness thinks
that she had heard something about the presents in
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 some presents; witness
could not say- what. He transferred to her daughter's
name stock to the amount of 6661. He 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 marriage.—(A laugh.)
—A letter was. here put in to witness's band, 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 thtr other way. One
was for, and the other against, the' match. I
knew a person -named Kitchen. He was never the ac-
cepted suit,* 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,
believe. I told
Amy daughter it was
a silly request, but
p
id,
e who were
It would show the
people she of all this correspondence
aware
l that his intentions were hononrable." There was no W-
not
ure of letters during these three years. Ido
o
recollect copying any
of my.
Rosser. lam quite unconscidaughter's letters t Mr ous of having d
but it is impossible to recollect
state
eocf great ase was :in extra_
extsra:
ordinary that it put me into a
wretched-
ness. Such a thing, I dare say, has: not occurred fur a
hundred years. lam sick and ti red of it. I am very
unhappy, being in hourly expectation of hearing „--t
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 3liss 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 nine men in the house, and, in. Nmy 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
1,000/. Since my bankruptcy I have been wholly de-
pendent on
.my daughter!. I never was in pri-
son, but 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 20/.
also given When the ring was brought to buy what she
thought pr'oper, for herself and her sisters to go to the
wedding. Ile never sent any night-car. Kitchen
tu
Was rdequaintance of the flintily generally. He lived
in Louden, and we saw him once in a month or six
week - 1 received the two letters, now handed
me, from Mr. Resser. They are rather intended
for that gvntiern„ (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—I 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 in a mercantile house in the
City.. I knew the plaintiff. In the month ofJuly, 1807,
I was at Mrs. Darbous house at Hampton on a visit, and
saw the defendant there twice. I was at )4rs. Darben'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 persoa 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. One 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 a 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. Ile 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
Darbon 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 till to-morrow,
and the Court, which was extremely crowded during the
day, then broke up.

COURT OF EXC.HEQ UER, Dec. 7.
BURN V. BEATLY.

This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 1001.
of which the defendant was the acceptor.
Mr. ERIE contented himself with proving the hand-
writing of the defendant to the bill.
Mr. KELLY, for the defendant, said that was one of the
, into
Court. impudent actions which had ever been brought
Court. He would most clearly show that the bill was
given to Guiness, who appeared on it as an indorser, for
money lost at his house at play. In the latter part of
1840, a brother officer and the defendant belonged to a
regiment, then lying in Dublin, got introduced to
Guiness, and were by him taken to his hazard table, to
which they became frequent visitors to the great detri-
ment of their fortunes. After losing near 2,0001. they
were again at the table, and lost to the amount of 801.
and, being short of cash, Guiness proposed that if they
would play at his tables again he would advance them
201. making 1001. in all, an he would take their joint
bill for the amount. They agreed to this. The
bill was given, they played, and lost the 201., and
so invariable had been their losses that they took
away with them two of the dice with which they
played, and on breaking them they were found to be
loaded in such a manner as to make them alt‘ays turn
up in favour of the bank. The regiment did not stay
long enough in Dublin to give these plundered gentle-
men an opportunity of indicting Guiness, and although
they would, as honourable gentlemen, have paid losses
if fairly won of them, they felt bound to resist the pay-
ment of money so unfairly taken from them. In such
an action he would consider it his duty to take advan-
tage of every technical objection that presented itself.
It would turn out that the date of the bill had been
altered since the time it was made by the defendant.
If he proved that fact, then he would be entitled to
their verdict.

He then called the drawer of the bill, who deposed as
above. The date had undoubtedly been altered, because
be obtained leave of absence on the 15th of November,
and he went to the country on the 17th. He believed it
was originally dated 13th November.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant on both
grounds.

LOUIS V. PARKER.

Mr. BAGLEY said, the plaintiff in this case was a wine-
grower in Ay, in France, who had supplied the de-
fendant, a wine merchant, in Lower Thames-street,. with
a quantity of champagne, for which the bill for 1691.,
now sought to be recovered, was given. He would prove
the acceptance of the bill, and he was totally unable to
form even a conjecture as to what defence could be set up.
Mr. Bonassi, the plaintiff's agent, proved the delivery
of the wine, and the acceptance of the bill by the de-
fendant. In his cross-examination by Mr. Dasent, he
said he never knew any but one John Parker ; he had
always dealt with him, and never with his brother. Ile
had seen the brother in the counting-house, but he had
always considered him merely as clerk to his brother.
Mr. DasENT addressed the Jury, and suggested that
the witness had got confused between the two brothers.
The action was brought against Benjamin Parker. The
wine was sold to John Parker and Co.; and John Parker
was the party liable.
The Jury immediately found for the plaintiff for the
sum claimed.

HORNED PUBLIC OFFICER OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF

STAINEI

:8-BRIS

;DGE

This was an action brought 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 Thomson. The lessee was obliged
to obtain two persons to enter into a bond as securities
for the duo 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 agreement to exe-
cute the bond. Thomson took possession of the tolls on
the 31st Dec., 1840, 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 notice was taken. Thomson
continued to pay his rent regularly, until August, when
he 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. MILE contended that the plaintiffs 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 for i
the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

VOGHLE V. KLATOWSKY

This was an action to recover 1661. 15s. for work and
labour done in the printing, and stereotyping of plates
for some English and Foreign school books.
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, 1840, the defendant
applied to have a vocabulary printed and stereotyped, in
which the pages should be in columns, one in English,
another in which the corresponding words appeared in
French, another in Italian, and another in German. He
required an estimate, which was given him, and it
amounted to 51. 9s. per sheet. He gave an order, and
work was done for him to the amount claimed.

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 had
given instructions to the attorney, but merely as the
agent of his mother. There was no custom in the trade
that persons having whole works printed had twelve
months' credit It was usual to give that credit to book-
sellers, but never to private persons. When he sent in
the estimate, he stated that the setting up was to be at
three months' re lit, and the 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 for. The
present action was for the work.
lte-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 be received any money he always gave the receipt
in her name.

Richard Clay, a printer, proved the reasonableness of
the prices chated.
Mr. 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 trade. Ha
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.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 7.
CLARIDGE V. ➢I'KENZIE.

This was an action fur trespass and illegal distress,
brought to try the right to certain premises in High-
street, Marylebone. It appeared, from a voluminous
mass Of documentary evidence, consisting of leases, as-
'ignurmts, and the various licences and assignments
(Crow 1751) of the Marylebone Coffee-house (now Wa-
ueetenisd,
file
Arms), which was originally a parcel of
r.( same leasehold property as the premises in ques-
tion,.,_ that the father of Miss M'Kenzie, the
e e -I;ouPsree:nt oisae
aantioholding by lease under the Duke of Portland,
years" in
011,810 the remainder of his term, or " 24
ns talornrhthiteanntdsou
namedth ofT i
lthhaery3.larTy lhee-
lbaotnteerChfing built on both lots, let the houses to two
persons, of whom the plaintiff was one. In 1828 Tilbury
informed his tenants that _ his interest had expired, and
11,11)(ortland was thenceforth their
that the Duke
expiration:'\i of the
0f24 years, the property
however, insisted that
alafntedrlorthde.
her father, whose term
reverted to her under the
to Claridge,p to her,
first acting under
her, but ultimately
had not yet expired.
hTeilvboulrun'stagyvipeerOproesefusdetodacknoywlerds her as landlady,
heuee the rent from
paid quar-
ter's condition that she consented to ,
,
40 guineas to 35L In Jute 1839
ter's rent, but the next quarter not
distrained, whereon the plaintiff paid thi:gb Paid'
Again defendant istrainedd for the Christmas broker.
replevin, .vas o
and the plaintiff having sued upon re
suited. In 1840 and 1841, the defendant levied twonirn-
tresses, for one of which the present action was brought
in trespass, and for the other an action ofreplevin Whiche
,
is now in the paper for trial.
Mr. Sergeant SHAW, for the defendant, contended that
it was not competent to a tenant to try the right of his
landlord in the form of trespass, having acknowledged
the landlord's right, under a full knowledge of all the
circutnstenees, as the Learned Sergeant was prepared to
show.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked if the defendant
was prepared to disprove the fact in evidence, that her
interest expired with the lease of Tilbury ?
Mr. Sergeant SHEA submitted, that even granting
that all the plaintiff's evidence was true, he could not
raise objection to his landlord's title after the formal re-
cognition
of the former's right, which would be proved
by defendant's witnesses.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said he would see what
that evidence was.
The case occupied the Court from its sitting, and had
not concluded when we went to press.
Two witnesses proved the facts stated by Mr. Sergeant 1
Shea as to the payment of rent by plaintiff, first on de- t
nand, and secondly efter a distress levied. 1

The LORD 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 M'Kenzie
expired in 1838.—Verdict for the plaintiff, 49/.

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. 12s. Id., by Mr. 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. Rilbins's
affidavit, which stated the firm to be indebted to him at
the time of the fiat issuing in that sum, being the ba-
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
he (Mr. Dixon) 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 he produced in Court,
it appeared that Mr. John Wright was debited for
17,0001. A sum of 18,0001. had been lent to the Right
Hon. Mr. Howard, through the instrumentality of Mr.
Wright, by Mr. George Robins, in June, 1839, and it
would appear that that sum had 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 : _

" June 18, 1839.
" Sir,—l place at your disposal Cuba Bonds to the
amount of 22,0301, which you hold as security for
17,000/., which you have placed in our hands,
subject to be realized by you, or repaid by us, at one
month's notice, and interest to be paid to you, ad inte-
rim, at 5 per cent., and we hold ourselves responsible to
you, in the event of a loss being sustained, 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 831."
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 occurs. How-
ever, it appears to have been written at the office of Mr.
Robins, and none of it, save the postscript and signature,
is in Mr. Wright's handwriting. He (Mr. Dixon) con-
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, andd-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—" 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 niore 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. Cubs 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 15,7501. 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 gob
notice yesterday.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD 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 time, they were
bound to pay such costs as the Court might award in
case the opposition should 'prove frivolous.
Mr. HAMILTON—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, ant]
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 17,000/.—[llere 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
17,0001. 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.
Ile (Mr. Wright) thought Mr. Robins was at the time
under the impression that the loan 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 bad 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. Robins's impression was he
could not say.
Mr. G. Robins said he was not by any means aware it was
a transaction separate -fronfihe firm. He felt that his
own credit with the world depended on his rendering an
explanation of 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 he 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 he (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 bonds to the
amount of 22,0001. 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 e) the other banks were getting money for 3
per cent2tl The fact is, that the banker is generally
tho lender; ,and not the borrower. The fact was,
he thought he 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 HoLnovia 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 into 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 lie should not entertain the appli-
cation.

Mr. Robins—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-4 dare say, Mi. Robins, you won't
spare expense in this case ?
Mr. Commissioner Iloutovp—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 the joint 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, uncler