The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-12 00:00:00

QUERIES FOR AN ACTUARY.

regular subscriber to
OaFreTg
E
your valuable Paper by answering the following Stß,T2YoTuHwEill EmpuclhTo°blißge
as early as possible in your " Notices to
17
-orresponlentsle•"
A gentleman, between twenty and thirty years of ag
is in immediate want of one hundred guineas ; he hes'
effected an insurance on his life for `2OO/., in a
res
ea.
able office, and is willing either to make a bonafidePsale
of the policy tor the one hundredhe 2001, at giving
the purchaser all right to the at his (the gentle-
man's) decease, or he will.sborrowof the
the money and de-
posit the policy in
thei hands
tthe
lender, by way of
security,
giving
to the saiddtb lender right to receive the
whole of the 2001., slicul e gentleman die before the
borrowed money is paid. Good security will be given
for the payment of the annual on policy, and
to make "assurance doubl)o'r sure," arrangements will
be made for the purchaser lender himself to pay the
premium.
Now, Sir, do you think that the
the
gentleman in ques-
tion will be able to obtainsum wanted by either of
d means . and f so, where do y the above-name i
you think
it would be best to apply ?
By giving an early answer to the above queries (if
possible in your Evening Edition to-morrow, of to-orrow, Wed-
eesday) you will much oblige,
Sir, your's, very respectfully, CLERICUS.
[We cannot venture to answer the question. Per-
haps some of our calculating- readers will ; at all events,
information might be had at any respectable Assurance
Office,—ED. Sun.]

ANDwhe n Kth :N G
trainS -
had reac,l,ied Sandymount Avenue, the
-.------
D
gat:l:r:
when the half-put seven o'clock train
TOWN RAILWAY.--
ACCIDENT 0 N
DT;I:Ein
gr:at violence off the rails. The engine
aowxnal
se Sundaytehfr oth,ven morningwit
with
engine
upset, and most of the second class carriagas were smashed
to pieces. We are happy to add that no person sustained
the slightest injury. The engineer was thrown with vio-
lence under the engine, but fortunately escaped, having
been removed from bis perilous situation unhurt.—Dublin
Evening Post.

IN RE WILLIAM SMITH AND

JOSIAH SMITH.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
SLR,—In your evening edition of Wednesday the 28 h
ultimo, you published a Report of the meeting under this
hat, which has been pointed out to me as so replete with
blunders as to facts, circumstances, and even the
names of the parties, that I am induced to throw myself on
your well-known candour for the admission in your valu-
able columns of a corrected statement of what passed on
that occasion—the more so because, having for the last
thirty years maintained an extensive business connexion in
every principal city and town in the kingdom, and being
personally known in the several respectable commercial
rooms of such localities, where your Paper is extensively
read, I can but feel the deepest interest that all statements
should be fair and impartial.
Our debts and " liabilities" were stated at 23,0001. Our

" liabilities" were on bills of exchange, several thousand
pounds of which are already discharged by the acceptors
or indorsers. The firm is " William and Josiah Smith ;"

there is no ‘• Richard Smith" in the firm. The property
in Scotland is that of the film. The junior partner has
shown no separate estate either there or elsewhere, having
been taken into partnership without a shilling capital of his
own, after serving his apprenticeship to me. The official
assignee never allowed me 41. per week as maintenance.
The examination was before Mr. Commissioner Fanc, not
Mr. Commissioner Evans.
The allowance awarded to me was the same as to my
junior partner, viz., 2/. 10s. per week, he having but him-
self and three infant children (the eldest not six years of
age) to maintain. In applying for an increase, 1 stated
the heavy burden that was on me—an ailing wife and five
grown-up children (the youngest in her sixteenth year),
making seven adult persons out of situations, and wholly
dependent on this 50s. per week. That I had within the
last few years brought in from my private estate many
hundred pounds to support the ci edit of the firni—that I
had sold off the whole of my furniture at Walworth in
January last, and applied great part of the proceeds to the
uses of the firm—removing my family to Edinburgh, where
I took a furnished house. And now my misfortunes,
having broken me down, I had neither home nor bed. 1
also showed that my private estate, consisting of freehold,
copyhold, and leasehold property, in London, Brighton,
and Dublin, also life insurances, and other matters, after
paying 20s. in the pound to my separate creditors, would
yield a very large sum in liquidation of the joint debts.
The L:arncd Commissioner Fane inquired of the official
assignee if he had any complaint to make of the bank.
rupts ? The immediate answer was " No." The Learned
Commissioner then commenting on my case, said I had
shown not only that my necessities called for an increase
of the allowance, but I had also shown a large, " a very
large," private estate, and that therefore I was entitled to a
more liberal allowance—that it must be borne in mind
where a man had liabilities on him for 20,0001. he must be
content with a very moderate income for maintenance.
He had no power to order an increase, but he kindly and
earnestly recommended to the assignees that 30s. per week
be added from the date of the fiat, making my allowance
4/. per week.

With respect to the logs of mahogany in the hands of
Messrs. James Duncan and Cu., Leith, your report is
pretty correct, with the exception that the Learned Com-
missioner did not decide the question, but allowed the proof
without prejudice, leaving the matter still open, (which
applies also to logs to a large amount in the hands of others.)

I am, Sir, }.ours respectfully,

London, Nov. 10, 18-10.

ViM. SMITH.

[Commissioner Evans's name was on the paper of the
day, and the reporter, therefore, concluded, that he heard
the case. But that, as well as some other points, to which
Mr. Smith objects, are very immaterial, and on others he
complains without reason. " The official assignee," he
says, " never allowed me 41. per week." The report states
nothing of the kind, but, on the contrary, states very cor-
rectly, according to Mr. Smith, that the allowance awarded
was 21 103. He ought to know also, that the way in ‘shish
business is conducted in this Court renders it difficult at
times to give all the names correctly.