The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-16 00:00:00

EVENING StiN '

at Hatchard's hotel with Mr. Talbot. I think George')
ra
Pine, a mate in the navy, dined with us.
Thomas Davis—l am a surgeon residing at Georg
street, Hanover-square. I knew the J-lon. Gee. Heerf
Talbot for 25 or 26 years. Was his professional tato:
dant down to February, 1838, when he resided at Th?,:l
tle-grove, Old Brompton. Was well acquainted v'n'ci
him, and saw him frequently. I saw him in JOY 111{/.
August, 1837, and he was then in very good health. I ist
general health was good. I don't know perhaps
his usual habits of life were, but I believe he play.
very much and sat up at night, but I don't think 113,
any other bad habits. I saw him many times in 18561
but I cannot recollect the months. I don't know wb.'
his habits of life then wcra, but his health was very gw"'
I often saw him as early as nine in the morning, and
late as five or six in the afternoon. He never exhibi d
t:,
any symptoms of intemperance when I saw him. Be b.:
a florid eruption on his face like the late Earl of Shrew
bury. That certainly was not preduced by intemperate
habits, beeause he had it when a boy. boa
CrosE-examined by Hr. THESIGER—I cannot sq.* the
I saw Mr. Talbot before August, 1837. I saw 11kij in sau
beginning of the year. On one occasion he oniwu OA` be
to fill up a letter to an Insurance-office. tlwpgsroi
was of temperate habits, and I have never expre
ess,,
different opinion. [A letter was put into wit. gr,
hands, which he said was in, his hand-writing.
Thesiger
beg read the letter, which was dated Itirch, 18'"ja
addressed to the Asylum-office, and in which it was se',
that Mr. Talbot's former habits were not tempvs.—Afe.
that he believed he now led a sober and temPell42
Witness said that referred to an early period of Pfetter,
when he was in the 9th Lancers.) In another ~rjd
dated March 9, 1836, addressed to the same offiee,
that although his face bore marks of irregular ba`,.lll.red
believed him to possess a sound constitution. Ire'e •
,trite
to the marks he had had since a boy. I gave Tie] icsi
opinion to the office. lam a Director of the L'i,,,roor
and Medical Life Insurance Company, and I I.'"
mended Mr. Talbot to that office. te
Horatio Cleggett—l was acquainted with the -ad ire*
George Talbot. I knew him about 22 years, 411 j
mately for the last three or four years of his life. ,
sociated with him a good deal when in London, aa° wig
frequently with him. He was not on good teral!-,0,,
his brother's family during the latter period of r:o.ver
I was in London in the year 1837. I saw hini?b,juirtis,
he was in London. He always stopped at 0017,0 Ass
Piccadilly. I saw him in May nearly every dal. un. with
in London, and often dined and passed the .everunt''pott.
him. He used to take wine pretty freely, but 11°.
cularly, not more than myself
life is not insure . a gr.
Mr. KELLY—I hope your 'flices.
Cleggett ? Witness—Yes it is, in a number of 9wine•
—(Laughter.) I never saw him drink a bottle et, the
He drank beer at dinner. He drank less wine 00$
others generally. He drank, on the average, lesth s:
juoll,
bottle. I have seen him take a glass of beer,3l: wore.
At an earlier period of his life he used to drip claw°
His habits were much the same as I have state .n 010
to the month of August. I dined with hire I/ never
month ; his health was very good in that year. more
heard him complain. I should say no person "Tvi,ite4
intimate with him about that time than mYself'
him after he went to Thistle-grove, Old BrTof 14'
1838. He had then a cough. It was in the e‘n,ed to the
and beginning of 1838. He afterwards reel° the vias
Hampstead-road. There was a dampness °die Grove'
of the first bed-room in which he slept at
The whole house was damp. I 10l ew
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-'GENEI Ilat7t
Mr. Talbot 'when he was in the 9th Lancers' say tha
seen him exceed sometimes, but I should .n°t teelPe-
too 4 e
his habits were intemperate. He became Or dej 1101
rate within the last few years. Dr. Paris attn June
ith
in his last illness. I think I saw Mr. Talbot dined
July, 1837, but I cannot speak positively. I "'petalll
°
him at Hatchard's in August. His dinner was
Lo I
five and six. I understood he had come t°: a raan.fi.
the subject of an insurance. I am a nlarrL.,e;At. 71r.
generally left him about half-past 10 or 11 at ,':;wife
Talbot was married, and was separated frail's girl•
some time before 1837. He had a boy 037' is
was two days with him at Broadstairs in gaY'Lloolor t
Thomas Thomas—l am proprietor of i""st,yeo
Hotel. I knew Mr. Geo. Talbot, who frequentif,, voldai
my house. He was there from the Ist Jan. 183'0, try
the 15t,1837. Here was there from July 3t° kteql:
August 1 to 4, and from August 23 to 26; frlntoberl"
ber 20 to 25, from October 3 to 12, and Nil' en to ale;
to January 2, 1838. He frequently bad gentlehim° had D
Der, and the whole bill was put down to ' for
opportunity of observing his habits. rliee e
Elizabeth Glover—l was in Mr. Talbot' I w.as be
eight years, and had the care of his child. t 5
fterarsrui
the separation, which occurred ten months °nth_ °,
He was living at Broadstairs in 163711 th d the c..oe.
n
' le ble'
October. He frequently dined with myself little *1
te•
'll re
He drank sometimes beer, and sometimes
Sometimes he was temperate and sometim"slbeer be`° 5
I have known him sometimes take a little,
tea ordeoca_
dinner. I have known him go to St. Pet!!'lleot that eh
and return affected by drink. I don't rufbrink 0113.1151
curring in the year 1837. He did not
grid rem l'
latterly. We went, in June 1837, to 'aftersPari even
there a month. I have seldom seen r were tel:aP d
the evening, but his habits up to that --end elciferhe atnto
rate. He used to go to bed between we wll,:ter
rise about half-past eight or nine. V, the „v
Thistle-grove, he slept in a very damp rennlii and 1;";
ran down the walls. He caught a very bad C°l"l' fine
" I`,fe
tured a blood-vessel in April 1838. He died in
Cross-examined by the ArronNET.GE:4o',bice '1
went to Broadstairs in 1835, and that was his file nAi
residence till October, 1837. I heard him ssiere. ;
disgusted with St. Peter's, and left off going t'l
have seen him intoxicated, but not frequentlYe.,s tog'
known him to be perfectly sober for three we,,:iird
ther, but I cannot fix any particular date.
say that he detested wine and would take has 6
Sometimes he has taken it again soon after, aOO
e,
drunk at times. Sometimes he has not bere dont „reic
walk steadily up stairs, but not frequentlY. sor a t,
collect his being drunk for two or three led at nigh
together. I could always hear him go tu• he ul's.any
I could tell by his footstep in what oeolAit,.l,ook flf trios,
cannot swear that he was or was not -"orate a",- his
nights one after another. He was recoilee.
ether,
and often intemperate. I don t peks the
being sober longer than three wlic bon.seal'ittite
I never knew that he used to go to a rub ooce In ssi%
neighbourhood. I never saw him the
„ ehe Child :1 bis
of intoxication he struck me. ][ni°l".'.l"w-Tlie
Stairs
or seven years old. I, kept the child 111) -1. gall; loft
father was in a state of intoxication, wise
child has generally been in bed at these times, 5t our -re or
George Fox, fly. driver. Be has beelltiroic themor.
sometimes. I don't know whether he ba7rdibot
not. He sometimes stayed with Mr. -1-,"1„ but' Oa
There' may have been chink on the table,
ie ills gr.
say. Fox has brought him home, IYhen
times. of
worse for drink, not so often as five or atOttree
Talbot was once ill at Broadstairs. In
eb",. Abote,
hate
1837, in August or September, he WO t°: wiz?"
weeks very temperate. Before that he
5104
been at times intemperate.
Re-examined—l have known him severanitiTleastefill:ol
as three weeks quite sober. We were do putt. ‘,4.5
from 3d October till the 2d January, and -L
time' %e el °f
lea seeing him intoxicated during that,tie 01(1 of
not intoxicated, to my knowledge, durin, beirl jolt
September, 1837. Ido not recollect big ,th e' 00'
time intoxicated in August, nor in the In°‘';:,s
I think the time Fox brought him home left itbe
I should say for a twelvemonth before "'Oe, or
stairs he used to drink less. It was in 18 g ia
struck me. roCt or
Dr. Beamish—l am a physician all e Ts, .-
Ramsgate in 1837. I knew the Hon. George ;in
about three ears. I saw him occasiono,lY;siaalV in
once with him. I never attended him Preiecortifoll.
fact I never knew him to be ill. I gave a: oe,
July, 1837, and on that occasion I exturue-, ;Obi
I applied the slethoscope, and in my bntle jsone'''
his lungs and every. part of him were clul e .061
cl/ ire
never saw him intoxicated.

Cross-examined b Mr. T
with him Colonel, Mrs.,
dined.l thoughtthe rednes.s oniss his face '6. 'fascoP,,, illte-nr
and Miss Ind 'r(')clticej
by constitutional causes, but it is sometimes
,ral
perate habits. for °''.,(l
lungs.y
_e_m aaDyr os, -: at
er
ni sd—e
attendeddl
hkinm knew the
till
Mr.h Ti
sl aacit:ehe
death.
ttl
IMr.prof
r 0 Talbot
oal
els biat: 10{0 loobt °; ::3,0..;
firstetloB:r3aBi. It was a rupture of a bloodcele f tbe:
cular consumption. Ha had a predisposition 'he Oil
ehasayee.
dilefdheef
eweanssaofmptlitieenmost temperate mperateerabteabbito,io l'e'iltiatietclit
; but intemp 1 recoolo ,tar,
excite morbid action •
him to lie ln a weak °rgan' . d Ate On'
generally
dinner.Teanlebroat l
11
fvyra,rwsql
temperate, but saw nothing to in le ..Nlr.
habits. • %f, I. f
Israel Stcne—l am a waiter 'at Ilatchard's -r-teiB37, n
entlemen frequently came to dine, ands onit Talbot
somet i m e s hiyandeesi.et atrnweireydtei:knii )onura.eangrml eni..
but never saw him excessivel
ninotttesPi. ePai I:ti.:l)l..tW°ei
tinued to dieohlstrhdiam.enhrk.iespawnuftridniigiffaedreiasnmpt
rtiifinaTet sea
lb'
rntooo,,;
izitlt
fortnight.
kg. ihnt .
have seen r...,: -„ 5.C15 4ti
y run •
so free T
and the early part of 1837. gI have seen hiln tir to' tb
or three times in s al, as ,t hate
Cross-examined byn Mr. THESIGt;It—W
month of July. He d .- py clare •-,
rank prinetpa 0)0,
never known him dri •kin a mornietnhagen•
etdhoicdisihak. rLeadb:s temontle:e:3l fir,i
negiti,! and:
was in the much of u►, hs
coffee-room I •
did not see so , Talbot' eel
generally •
went to bed at one or two. 30. 11.1 , s h
oftenhi been out after I went to bed. I ;isol'ls be
has
what might be termed drunk. On these occi,feot .
half. At nighthe drank • •
generally gone out and not returned till a
10 )15
beds. George Fox came with him at one till.i)jeolf and
Talbot generall lunched, k beer or 1
and too -",. Lift). 3
t freqtlent IV°
spirits, but no ir. Ile
might have gone out at night twice in a weveD .bop,su
~,1
not known him two or three weeks sober. I°o be P-1
was. tipsy once in a Week. It was generally wber Ills. ,e
friends. I never saw Fox as a conipanion 4." bee
don't think liquor W
1
I ever saw him affected with
was alone. 11°V
I sometimes let Mr. Talbot in two or three tinae?_,fies see:,
Henry Horton—Jam night porter at Tlatchara'!weel,,'
Very few weeks I had not to do it. I have at tout fre,6,,
him in liquor. Not in a beastly state, but joboci),',e`
The worse for liquor. He never required an.Y., esao,',,,
go to his room with him. He always took 111% Pi:,
himself. He was generally in that state he'Leloc"
him in. It was sometimes one, and sometime two
I was on duty every alternate week. to 1'11553
wen
(The case was proceedine,c, when we t
- _...-_........ee!e .e. at?,

COMMONPLEAS.—(THI_,S PI: -And P
(Sittings in London befbre Mr. Justice Etri3ol4''
Special Jury.) 1 0001"
BORRODAILE V. HUNTER.
This is an action on a policy of insurance for 6'ooll,
warids,..aji,
upon the life of the Rev. Mr.Borodaile,
whose body was found in the Thames in Septewher:l:o,
and who was alleged to have destroyed helt IVefeo.
ing into the river from Vauxhall-bridge, Tbe'

EVEN IN G SITN

--
C
Ls
the London Life Insurance Company, resisted the
u of plaintiff, the widow of the deceased, on the
gl'ound that the latter had destroyed himself, being of
xrB and mind, whereby according to the terms, the policy
&l voided. The evidence for the defence was taken
110 t, and went to prove that the deceased destroyed
self.

SHERIFFS.
COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
2hiS JERRY V. DAVIS.
was an action to recover the sum of 4001. for work
and performed, and 33/. for goods sold and delivered.
;11,9 aetion was undefended, but from the statement of
47,Ceunsel, it appeared that the plaintiff is a builder,
Pie defendant a gentleman of property, who had re-
ik
ceu nutil come to London for the purpose of establishing a
Gp„,..r°olo, and for that purpose had taken two houses in
g;:"011-street, and entered into an agreement with the
L'lntff to fit up the houses as a series of baths, and the
r„nlent stipulated that 1,268/. should be paid by three
Baments for the same. The first instalment was to be
ald %lien a third of the works had been completed, and
fl.°ll in proportion, till the whole was paid. When the
,11. Portion of the works were completed, the plaintiff
lied to the defendant for payment of the first Instal-
:ltscould only obtain a very small amount ; the
were, however, continued till the second instal-
t became due. As the money due was not forthcom-
at this time, the works were stopped, and the present
lon instituted.
to „he Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; damages
wh.ole amount claimed.
eral undefended actions were taken, in all which
tttifets were given for the plaintiffs.
TEASDALE V. DUPRE.
drae WaS an action to recover the sum of 51., for work
and performed.
fir. Thomas appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C.
s for the defendant.
(14 appeared that the defendant was a milliner and
18maker, and had resided in Regent-street. She had
th!aged the plaintiff to write her circulars and bills as
ettt was very proficient in penmanship. One witness
that the plaintiff was the best female writer in
hth', "
; so well was it done, that few could tell it from
04graPh productions. She bad been engaged at 1/. per
sp , and had staid five weeks when the defendant gave
ess.
Ij
C
4rnou
Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the
nt.
14 this BROOKS V. GUIBY.
plim action. the plaintiff, who ib a baker, had sup-
ktae defendant with bread to the amount of 6/., for
tittle' the present action was brought, and a verdict re-
ed for the plaintiff.

-NKRUPTCY—(THIS DAY.)
.114 RE W. HITCHCOCK'S BANKRUPTCY.
NrhP re-examination of the bankrupt was resumed this
Ivh'ng amidst apparently increasing interest.
Goa,and was the amount of your debts owing to Cook
Q 1,4 l/stone' in January 1, 1841 ?—The amount
Ir),sl°..';ing for g oods was 2,666/. ss. 10d. •, oncash account,
tot,bl. los. 7d. ; Mr. Cook, separate account, 3,000.1. ;
tr,tit46,5831. 16s. sd. ; liabilities to them 635/. 12s. 6d. ;
101.: debt and liabilities 17,219/. Bs. 11d. This I believe
ktZla correct as the short time I have been allowed
I,enable me to supply.
'' Rit 'at was the total amount of debt and liabilities
tO4I from you to them at the time of your failure, in.
fg Mr. Cook's account ?—ln round numbers 19,8001.,
ekhh,would wish to give the particulars:' debt, goods, and
'5,937/. 155.; Mr. Cook, 3,000/; liabilities, 877/. 155.,
fir 't19,8991. 10s., and here I wish to explain. I think
likie"siiiirst will not say I have anticipated him, as I
INiftstood him to say yesterday that the object of this
4ar,itY Was to show the Court that my debt was less in
t tiil47 than at the period of my failure. I now recol-
-4a at about the latter end of December, or the begin-
/1 'l3,f January, that on one occasion, when I applied
qa
tho eSBrS. Cook and Gladstone for a renewal
or about 1,000/., and not in addition to] the
tira,'that they refused such renewal. About this
141. 'r• Cook, sen.. unknown to me, waited on my bro-
u'oth" Mr. Cook has since told me that he told my
? that I wanted a renewal, but that he would. not
P; dept upon my brother's security, that security I
the a was obtained; and also at this period, alluding to
441°'lloaencement a the year, without being enabled to
44,1fe particular as to dates, I submitted to Cook and
keat the plan of my alterations for the improve-
-I,°` iny premises, and which cost a very large sum,
improve-
tad (1 therefore improve the value of the leases
414 they held • and to which alterations they con-
-14 approved. The alterations were proceeded
completed ; and from this period to the 15th
,".40i1V, I had increased my goods' account to
5,i. 16s. 6d. ; my cash and interest account 13,960/.
akin; Mr. Cook 3,0001. ; and liabilities 1,3761. 9s. 3d.,
,a total of 21,743/. 6s. 2d. I have before
gAili.tnat in the month of May I reduced my
the ales to them about 3,100/. My premises, with
N4lterations and improvements, had scarcely been
trif which' ted, when they pressed me for money, in proof
th refer to the letters which they themselves
talbitecl. I therefore leave the Court to judge of
\‘l'h -°tives when the evidence of the different creditors
the °m-- they g ve references shall have been given.
I.llm°rni,-°°4„ thtdaMr. Groom said there were no letters in
',", of the official assignee. I found this
ttlr ilkZitnat on one file there were no less than one hun-
-4,%Tatx„.'lxty-two ; and I have reason to believe
:300 or 400. I am anxious that the public
a 7, 1/110t "ithat all my letters have not been destroyed.
v4.rni the 7paid to Cook and Gladstone in May,
spPlent
es, aad ~-nser which your brother was liable to them
curity was given in consequence of my
150(;"g. to them on or about the 4th May for a loan of
ihieh'°) Pay for Fuller's stock, which we bought, and
1,011, 'OO. we only required for fourteen days. They,
the :I'er, declined to lend it, or for a shorter period, unless
t3had his security.
1 the 6th October you swore that the books deli-
ed 111) by you contained an account of all your trans-
`ris to the fullest extent—is notthat book your pri-
g ledger?—It is.
rlti'ttate to the Court how many leaves have been taken
po Of tha.tledger?—l will say a great many. It is im -
% m
hie for to say how many. Here I wish to explain.
talttllL Swear that I have not cut out, taken out, or caused
01."' cut or taken out any part of that ledger now shown,
town,37 other book relating to my affairs, with the intent
aneeal anything from my assignees, or from this Court,
further that book has not been injured or lessened
- ;
or with my knowledge for two or three years. It
Ito,..nid book, and, whatever deficiency appears, it is
the same state as I believe itrto have been for
years.
l'ora;t4 You take out the leaves which are taken out of the
(INl,lnarked ?—I don't recollect ; but I have no
Itl I : did. The book was not formerly my private
tlao ben did it become so ?—I don't know to a year or
1114Cjtkil_t I should think 1836 or 1837. I now recollect
Feand
hook alluded to contained some accounts between
for Zi Mr. Hayward, who was my partner in 1832.
of ip-anY years we bought our stationery from Eastman,
14e Cheapside and I have no doubt, if necessary,
of lsic;ka can be identified by that house, and the date
111), Proved as the time of its purchase.
Pu mean to state that your reason for taking out
d eaves was that it contained Hayward's account ?
do eaves
recollect my reason now. I don't recollect my
.14414 at the time. I know it was from no improper
t
it,1418 kit not appear from the inex, that our own
,prii-
N-t, account is taken from tat book? —Yes. f
'''l7ae,t'linc, is that of Mr. Hayward, and refers only to
!'tailat'i,e'ant, which might have been for goods and cash
thrtt ,Nl, was my partner. Since the dissolution of thatn
).„-,Y:4-''ll3 I have not thought it necessary to enter i
bookjyto my private expenses •, it therefore cannot
any account of recent date.
441,,1ur:4t Hayward in your employ at the time of your
nts --He was.
6„,",n0t the person who assisted in the removal of
`tli-e-,,""' we have heard of ?—He was one of the parties
„ yo
Were several others.
;483,'°„t he the person who went to Paris to buy goods
tha()l",,' and who took a quantity of shawls with him
t stock 7--I object to that question. It implies
which-ajward did take- shawls to Paris from my stock,
/a ho' not been said.
d°4 the person who went to Paris to buy goods for
is.
-41'12,4 his account taken out of that private ledger ?
the understand
eL'sland nothing, Sir, but give me an answer to
11AZtion. Is his account, whatever it was, taken out of
,
144 can show from this ledger—the sold ledger,
tin,`P• flayward's account, as entered by the clerk at
th -e' is now in existence, and has been delivered up
4114dea0MCial assignee. The account of Mr. Hayward,
/thilset"bt° in the private ledger, did contain his account
was my partner.
'bee t t-o.the ledger I, shew what was contained in the
krTen out of ledger H ?—No.
;cksutinsT (handing up the private ledger)—You
'4iteh3e-e',Sir, that there are several accounts of various
7cits taken out.
Qeinp: ',l-4,ltowiex must complain of such insinuations
°thitp,rown out by Mr. Ashurst. He attended for
'"etcr.-"tchcocks, and trusted his Honour would see that
was conducted with justice.—(Applause.)
lifttr 44:11SDEN Solicitor for the bankrupt, hoped that
°ltarZleh insinuations had been unfairly thrown out, the
most t'ipt would be allowed to explain, as he could,
'1,„4,"Y, all connected with the book and the accounts.
denieeltrUpt said, if an opportunity of explaining were
factsi„"ln, many days would be consumed in eliciting the
plain Y cross •examining other witnesses. He could ex-
diitl such a manner as would astonish Mr. Ashurst
ineti,,°se Who employed him. He then said—The first
that ofn Hitchcock in this book (the private ledger) is
lowt!te firm of Hitchcock and Skinner, of Barnstaple,
think deceased. This account refers to the year 1832
alioThere is another mention of Jas: Hitchcock; this
°F iiiteresrs to- my brother deceased. The second mention
ta„ ohi,e'Vock is an account with one of my sisters of some
s._'era n,l held for her in 1835. The next mention re-
-,4,1 to that of my mother, a similar account in 1835.
topt:."er Hitchcock was ever referred to by any accounts
coeictiged in this book. There are, however, several ac-
which °f mine with other persons, the explanation of
neut. jl.think unimportant, but will give it if your Ho-
The
bulks it necessary.
exami'ankrupt--I wish to have it mentioned on the
llitehtins that Mr. Ashurst alluded to the name of
Was tle()ek, as being contained in that book; that that
lia:e reason I gave the explanation.
resumed t3ntry
was accordingly made, and the examination
thettere the accounts of which you have been speaking,
krccounts which have been taken out ?—I believe so.
offieio ASflunsT—Now I believe is the time for the
kr-". (assignee's report to be read.
''°Lt —I wish to know whether Mr. Ashhurst,
lion .t 1" 11°w concluded his examination, it is his inten-
)4B., proceed with the examination of his clients,
rs,• Cook and Gladstone.
nunissioner HOLROYD thought it would be better

to finish the examinations before proceeding to take the
report of the official assignee into consideration.
Mr. MARSDEN said that before he proceeded with
the examination on the part of the bankrupt, he
had to request the indulgence of having copies
of all the examinations which had previously
taken place ; both of those which had taken place
before he had been engaged for his client, and those
since. This investigation had now become of a most
serious nature, and he felt he could not do justice to his
client without those examinations, and also without
having access to all the documents. Mr. Ashurst
had at first, he had understood, been conduct-
ing the examination on behalf of the assignees, but
he had directed it solely to the, purpose: of exculpating
his clients, Messrs. Cook and Gladstone. He would
not then advert to the particular circumstances
of the case, but he felt he could not do jus-
tice to Mr. Hitchcock unless he had access to the
documents referred to, before the examination was pro-
ceeded with. The bankrupt had voluntarily, before
the production of his balance-sheet, stated cer-
tain facts to his assignes ; on that statement
the recent examinations had been founded,
and facts had been supplied from their not having re-
ference to what appeared in the balance-sheet. Hence
several collateral issues had arisen which must be
tried, not on the evidence of the bankrupt
alone. Mr. Ashurst had with great ability conducted
the examinations, in order, :as he had stated, to test
the truth of the bankrupt's statements ; but by what
means could those statements be tested except by collate-
ral circumstances—by letters, or by the testimony of per-
sons who could speak to letters which had been destroyed.
It was necessary that he should have access to all- these
materials, and he hoped that all the letters exhibited, if
not in the examination of the bankrupt, in the
examination of Messrs. Cook and Gladstone, in
order to show how far they bore out the
testimony of the bankrupt. It was manifest, from the
manner in which the examination had been conducted
this day, that it was necessary every collateral evidence
should be before the Court. What was the meaning of Mr
Ash urst's question as to Hayward, but to attempt to throw
a slur upon his character or discredit his testimony--
therefore he asked that all the examinations which had
taken place prior to the present one might be re-
corded in Court, and that he (Mr. Marsden) might
have access to them. He had no end in view but the
furtherance of the ends of justice. He had not been
permitted to interrupt Mr. Ashurst, on the ground that
he might in his (Mr. M.'s) examination of the bankrupt
elicit any explanations of his former testimony that he
might deem requisite ; and as it was impossible to recol-
lect all that had passed, he urged that as an additional
reason why he ought to be furnished with the examina-
tions. Certain facts went to show that his client had on
some occasions acted very impioperly, but the question
arose, had he not been tempted, to act so, and who had
been his tempters ?--(Applause.) He had no wish to
delay the examination of the bankrupt, but only to do
him justice, and in so doing, to do justice to the laws
of his country.

Mr. ASHURST said he had consulted with his clients
while Mr. Marsden was addressing the Court ; and
as that gentleman had stated he could not do justice to
the bankrupt without having copies of the examination,
they were willii.g that he should have all such copies as
might enable him to do justice to his client. They had
no desire to keep anything back.

Mr. Commissconer- HOLROYD thought it but reason-
able that Mr. Marsclon's request should be complied with.
His Honour thought it desirable that they should pro-
ceed with the examination.

Mr. LLOYD on behalf of several creditors, expressed a
desire to put some' questions to the bankrupt.
Mr. SOLE submitted that Mr. Ashurst having con-
cluded his examination of the bankrupt, it would per-
haps be as well if that gentleman were to place
Messrs. Cook and Gladstone in the box, to give their
version of the affair. Should he decline doing so, he
(Mr. Sole) should submit that the private examination
of Messrs. Cook and Gladstone :before the assignees, be
read by the Officer of the Court.
Mr. LLOYD had not interrupted the examinations
of Mr. Ashurst, and when they considered the time
which had already been wasted, he thought even suppos-
ing the questions he(Mr. L.) had to put should be useless,
the wasting one half hour additional (this examination
would not last longer) would be no great object.
The Court assented.

Mr. LLOYD resumed his examination.
How long have you had dealings with Messrs. Cook
and Gladstone ?—Nine or ten years.
What was the average amount of your monthly pur-
chases from them prior to the month of June last ?—I
can scaccely tell without reference to my books. I should
think about 7001.—it may be more.
Can you state what was the amount of your pur-
chases from them in that month ?—About 800 L
What was the amount of goods purchased from them in
July last ?—I believe 11. Is. 4d.
When did you last purchase any goods of them ?
July 12th. We ceased;to buy goods of them, as I think,
Jane 30th.
Did you, in the month of June or July last, receive
from them, or either, of them, a letter referring to some
purchase of silk, which one of your buyers had made
from them ?—Yes.
Where is such letter ?—I am not sure whether it was
kept, or whether it was one of those which was de-
stroyed subsequently, but such letter was seen by a third
party now in Court.,
Can you state whether ihat letter is in existence or not?
—I believe it is not.
Can you state its contents ?—I can. The substance is
as follows :

" Gentlemen,—We find that your buyer, or one of
them, is constantly here, and that he has bought a large
parcel to-day. This is contrary to the understanding
between us, and we will thank you to have it altered.—
Yours, &e. " COOK AND GLADSTONE."
To whom was it addressed and ,what was the date ?

—.Addressed W. Hitchcock and Co., Regent-street, and
dated I think June 30, that being the day when a parcel
of silks of 1251. 17s. sd. was bought.
And that was the last parcel of goods purchased from
them 2—Except 11. ls. 4d. which was bought without my
knowledge—l think by one of the porters.
State how it came to pass that you purchased no more
lgoods of Cook and Gladstone than the parcel on 30th June
ast?—l was requested by them not to do so.
Did you in the month of June, 1840, borrow from them
a large sum of money?—Yes ; about that time.
State what the sum was.-7,0001.
For how long a period was that sum agreed to be lent
to you ?—For seven or ten years, as will appear by a
bond which was being made at the time in favour of my
brother, but which was never completed, and which bond
contains such recital?—l believe it was ten years.
With whom did you negotiate that loan?—Messrs.
Cook and Gladstone. _

Then both were present at the time you negotiated
that loan ?—I believe they were.
What rate of interest was it agreed that you should
pay for that loan ?—.At the rate of 71- per cent. per an-
num, and that interest was paid for the first ycar by the
payment of a bill of exchange, June Ist, 1841, amount
5251. 12s. 6d. it being due on that day.
Where is that bill of exchange ?—At the official as-
signee's I have lately seen it.
Did you give them any note or bill on the occasion of
your borrowing such money front them ?—Yes, a
joint and several promissory notes, I think ; which
notes, I believe, bore interest, without stating at what rate.
What date was that note drawn, and for what term ?
—Twelve months, dated from June 1, 1840, I believe.
How came it to happen that that note was
made a twelvemonths date, when the loan to you was
made for a longer [period?—l forget the object at the
time, but at a meeting in the library or dining-
room, present Messrs. Cook and Gladstone, my
brother, and myself, the arrangement was entered
into. Mr. Cook or Mr. Gladstone, which I do
not recollect, said, they would lend me 7,0001.,
for, I believe, ten years, upon the security of my
brother. It was at this, or some other ,meeting about
the same time, that Mr. or Mr. Gladstone said that
I must understand the interest to be 7/1 per cent. I ob-
jected to it, but at last finding I could not get it
at a lower rate, and as they were then press-
ing me for the payment of a sum undrawn,
amounting to about 3,800 L, I had no alternative.
I and my brother therefore consented to their advancing
the sum at that rate, although to the best of my recol-
lection the rate of interest was communicated to me
when my brother was not present ; however, on this
point I am not sure.
Mr. Lloyd—That is no answer to my ques-
tion—question repeated.—l do not recollect the reason of
Messrs. Cook and Gladstone's requiring a bill ; but, not-
withstanding such note was given, Mr. Cook or Mr.
Gladstone said (which I do not recollect) they would not
call in the money for seven or ten years, I think. I wish
here to explain that I did not receive 7,0001., but only
the balance, after deducting the amount which I owed
them, and which I have before stated to be about 3,800/.
Was that note for 7,0001. paid at maturity ?—No, it
was not.

Was it presented for payment to your knowledge ?
It was not presented to me at my house, nor do I be-
lieve it has ever been presented to my brother.
Have you paid any part of that sum of 70,001. ?—No.
Do you know how it happened that that note was not
presented for payment when it became due ?—Yes ;
Messrs. Cook and Gladstone declined presenting the note,
but drew another, and sent it to me for my signature. I
signed it. I think I paid the clerk the stamp, and re-
turned it by their clerk.
State the particulars of the note so signed by you, the
amount, and date.—June Ist, 1841. We jointly and se-
verally promise to pay, at twelve months after date the
sum of 7,0001., with interest thereon. Signed, W. Hitch-
cock. I expect also that it was subsequently signed by
my brother. That is all I know of it.
Mr. SOLE having intimated to Mr. Lloyd that he should
have access to the private examinations of the bankrupt,
and of Messrs. Cook and Gladstone, on that point, said
he should not press it further at present. His object
was to show that the transaction was usurious, and to
lessen Messrs. Cook and Gladstone's proof by the amount
of 7,0001.
Can you state what references or what houses were
referred by you to Cook and Gladstone after 30th no
last ?—I cannot. I have, however, been since told by
one of the houses.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD----
Do you know of your own knowledge, or have you
heard from Messrs: Cook, Gladstone, or either of
them, that they answered any inquiries that were
made of them, or either of them, as to
your circumstances since the 30th June last ? Yes.
Mr. Cook said—l think in the drawing-room in Regent-
street, and at the meeting I have before referred to as
having taken place there—that he had given a
good re-
ference to Mess Wheeler, Strachan, and Co. This I
believe to be in August. That is the only house that I
Messrs:kuow of, as it would not be usual for me to know whe-
ther or not houses referred by us had gone to them or
not. We should infer they had, if the goods were sent
in and which was generally the case.