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

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1841.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 15.

IN TUE MATTER OF WM. HITCHCOCK, A BANKRUPT.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. LLEWELLYN, one of the assignees, said that Mr.
Shoolbred had stated to him the whole of the circum-
stances some time since, and that as soon as they had
entertained the least suspicion that there was anything
wrong, they had insisted on the parties taking back the
goods, and returning them the money.
Mr. HUMFREY had held no conversation with Mr.
Llewellyn, and he was exceedingly glad to hear that
gentleman make the statement he had made.
Mr. LLEWELLYN—It was stated to me that on the oc-
casion referred to, Mr. Gregory Cook had asked for a
reference, and that the person referred to had said—
" You need not take the trouble to ask for a re-
ference, for I am very well known to Mr. Shoolbred."
Mr. Cook could not at that time refer to Mr. Shoolbred,
because he was absent in Ireland.
Mr. lIUMFREY—ExactIy so, and of course he could
never imagine for a moment that a man would refer him
to his own partner if he had no knowledge of him.
Mr: LLEWELLYN had, when he heard the bankrupt
make the statement, doubted whether he ought not to
have contradicted him.
The bankrupt was about to address the Court, when
he was interrupted by the Learned Commissioner.
The bankrupt—l have evidence in Court to prove
what I have stated.
Mr. Commissioner HoLaorp—lt is unfortunate that
these sort of things should go forth to the public in the
newspapers.
Mr. lIUMFREY—It is unfortunate it should so go
forth, but it is impossible my clients can suffer
these statements to remain uncontradicted. Then, with
respect to the statement of the bankrupt, that Shool-
bred and Cook had had to pay 1,020/. to keep ,a man
out of Newgate, nothing could be more false. There
had never been a suspicion of the kind until
Mr. Hitchcock had wickedly made the state-
ment. The only desire of his client was that
the contradiction should go forth as widely to the public
as the statement had gone, and he could assure the
Court that an opportunity should be afforded of testing
tho accuracy of Mr. Hitchcock's statement, that he
would be made responsible for what he had said, and
most likely criminally so.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD—As far as the Court is
concerned, nothing that is stated prejudicial to the cha-
racter of an individual has any effect until it has been
properly heard, and the case comes on for judgment.
The bankrupt—l hope it will not be understood that
the charge is not sustained until further evidence has
been heard.
The examination was then resumed.
Did you not, after the payment of that check, put
down figures in the presence of Mr. Cook, and take cre-
dit for the same as against your cash account ?—I do not
recollect having done so. After looking at my banker's
pass-book, I see the check was paid on the 18th of May.
Will you swear that you did not put down figures in the
presence of Mr. Cook, and afterwards take credit for it
on your cash account ?—I will not ; but I think it
likely that some figuring took place between myself
and Mr. Cook, after I had written my second letter
at their request. In that letter I think I asked them
to pass it to the credit of my cash account, for
I believe Mr. Gladstone observed to me at the time
I wrote the second letter (and he dictated it to me),
" I think we are not safe with this letter—we wish,
therefore, that you would write a second." My im-
pression now is, that on May 15 we did not owe Messrs.
Cook and Gladstone. this 8631. Bs. 9d. undrawn, and
that therefore was the object of the /word " cash "
being introduced into the second letter, and which,
I think, was omitted in the former. The second
letter has been seen by a third party now in
Court, and who saw it previous to my send-
ing it to Messrs. Cook and Gladstone.
My question is without reference to the first or second
letter. The question was repeated.—l do not recollect
it. If I did I think it must have been subsequent to
the writing of the second letter.
Will you swear you did not ? I have already declined
to swear.
Give the date of the first and second letters to
which you refer ?—The first letter I have already
stated, the 15th of May , the second letter was written
during the time the conversations took place in the li-
brary or dining-room before referred to, and I believe
was dated back to the 15th of May, by their request.
By request of which of them ?—I believe Mr. Glad
stone.

Is the letter now produced bearing date 28th May,
marked E., in your hand-writing ?—lt is.
The letter was here put in and read, dated 28th May,
signed W. Hitchcock, and addressed to Messrs. Cook
and Gladstone, enclosing the check, stating that the
writer could not pay more thatmonth, and requesting the
renewal of two bills of 1,0001. each. The letter stated the
writer to be under great obligations to the party ad-
dressed.
Do you not in that letter take credit for the check in
question as paid in your cash account ?—I cannot answer
that question.
Mr. Commissioner Ho'morn—The letter explains itself.
How do you reconcile that letter with the answers you
have previously given ?—This letter was written in the
hurry of business, and was chiefly intended to bring to
Messrs. Cook and Gladstone's mind, that after
they had complied with the request contained
in the letter, that it would show them I should have
reduced my liabilities to them of 3,1384 during that
month; and that the items contained in the letter
being only in round numbers, will show it. I did
not think at the time I was writing this letter that
the account stood in the same form in my books,
but simply to draw their attention to my reducing the
liability to the amouut of about 3,0001.
The bankrupt—l wish for the letter in reply to this,
and for the letter which drew forth mine. I have not the
originals, but I have no doubt but that Cook and Glad-
stone have copies.
It was stated there were no copies in existence.
Is the letter now produced dated May 31, 1841, signed
W. Hitchcock, in your hand-writing ?—Yes.
Was it not addressed by you to Cook and Gladstone?
—Yes.
Is the letter marked G., dated May 15, 1841, in your
hand-writing ?—Yes. •
Was that addressed by you to them ?
The letters were then put in and read. The first re-
lated to the bill of Heeles and Co., as being in a
satisfactory train for settlement by that firm, and
the second stated that the bankrupt, in order to prevent
detriment to his position, had ordered his bankers not to
pay Heeles' bill, but that he remitted a check to Cook
and Gladstone, as the holders of that bill, requesting
them to place it to his general cash account, and to hold
over the bill, so as to enable him to recover from Heeles
and Co.

What was the amount of your debt to Cook and Glad-
stone at the beginning or 1841 ?—I do not at all recol-
lect, but can tell by having proper time given me to re-
fer to my books. ..
You are requestedqo refer to your books, and state?—
I cannot refer to my books in Court, and give such an
answer as I could wish.
Can you not state nearly the amount that was owing?
—No ; nor do I wish, without reference to my books.
Mr. ASIIIIRST had no objection to wait until to-mor-
row morning for the answer, in order to give the
bankrupt time to refer to his books.
The bankrupt homed, -considering the fatigue he had
undergone, that the Court would give him one clear day
to examine his books, and that he should have notice of
what was required. _ _

Mr. ASHURST wished him to be prepared to give a
statement of the accounts between him and Cook and
Gladstone, from the beginning of 1841. He would not.
Mr. SOLE wished to ask the bankrupt one question.
Mr. Ashurst had stated that the assignees had promised,
the bankrupt his certificate. lie wished to ask the
bankrupt the question, because, no doubt, it would go
forth to the world.

Mr. Commissioner HoLitovD thought it was better not
to put any such question.
Mr. ASHURST-It was merely a bye observation of
mine, and I withdraw it. I have not been so thin-
skinned as to what the bankrupt may have said.
Mr. SOLE—Yes, but I wish it to be distinctly under-
stood that such is not the case, and I wish it should go
forth to the pu'die.
Mr. Commissioner HoLnoYD—lie has a lung way to
travel before he conies to his certificate.

The bankrupt applied for the exhibition of the se-
cond letter written by him to Cook and Gladstone.
Mr. ASITURST —I have that letter, and it shall be put
in in due time—at present I do not think it necessary.
Mr. SOLE, on behalf of the assignees, pressed that the
examination should
.be proceeded with to-morrow.
The bankrupt said it was a complicated question of
accounts, and he required time.
Mr. ASHURST had no wish to enable the defendant to
continue himself as an object of public exhibition longer
than necessary. He would therefore abandon the ques-
tion of interest, and merely confine his examination
to showing how the bankrupt had travelled into Cook and
Gladstone's debt, while representing he was getting out
of it. He would merely as the bankrupt to detail the
state of the account between himself and Cook and
Gladstone on the first day of every month from the is
of June, 1841. •
The bankrupt—l require a day to do that.
After some discussion it was arranged that the examina-
tion should be resumed to-morrow, and that Mr. Ashurst
should confine himself to the Ist January, 1841.
The bankrupt—l accept that.
The Court then adjourned till to-morrow at eleven
o'clock.

INSOLVENT DEB7Y)RS' COURT, Dec. 15.
Iv RE THE nEv. WILLIAM JOHN ST. AUDYN.
The insolvent in this case, who had been frequently
before the Court on his application to be discharged,
again came up in custody of the Warden of the Queen's
Bench.

It may be recollected from the previous report of the
examination in The Sun, that he had been the Rector of
Stoke-Damarel, in Devonshire, and was the son of Sir John
St. Aubyn. By his ecclesiastical emoluments he derived

After a lengthened examimation&iearned Commis-
sioner ordered the applicant to be discharged.

COURT OF EXCISE, Dec. 14.
Tun PICCADILLY SALOON.—Thomas Alexander Beale,
proprietor of the house known as " Goodered's," or the
"Piccadilly Saloon," was charged on information with
retailing beer. without a license on his premises, situate
No. 2221-,
The defendant did not appear, but was defended by
Mr. T. WoNmEn, who stated that Mr. Beale was un-
able to appear, but he wished the case to be proceeded
with.

Witnesses having been called in support of the case,
the COURT gate judgment in a penalty for the full amount.
Another information of a similar description was pre-
ferred for offences committed on the 25th of the same
month (September).
The case was proved by the same Officers.
Mr. MAYow—I must beg the judgment of the Court in
this case also for the full penalty.
Mr. STEPHENSON—Yes, certainly.
William Burdon, of the Battle of the Nile public-house,
York-street, Botherhithe, was charged with adulterating
his beer.

Mr. Geary, the officer, said he examined the stock of
beer of the defendant, and found one cask slightly sweet-
ened. The others were in excellent condition. Defend-
ant said it was the bottoms of the casks anti waste beer.
He had also mixed it with ale and a very small portion
of sugar tc, take off the acidity.
The defendant prayed most earnestly the mercy of the
Court, as he was a ruined man. He had served his late
Majesty, and prayed their merciful consideration.
The COURT said they could not help him, but he might
petition the Board, and fined him in the penalty of 201.
Edward. Wells, of the Sir Hugh Myddelton public-
house, Myddelton-place, Sadler's Wells, was charged
with having in his possession forty gallons of brandy
without a permit, or entry of the same.
The COURT ordered the whole to be condemned.
Thomas Chiddell and Edward Jones, spirits-mer-
chants, of Hays-lane, Southwark, were charged with
having an excess in their stock ; the excess of spirits
condemned.

Jonathan Hall, of the Ship and Whale, Russell-street,
Rotherhithe, was charged with having in his possession
a quantity of foreign Geneva, without any permit or
regular entry.
An officer deposed to finding it in the cellar; it was
what was called " tub gin," and was commonly smug-
gled. It was ordered to be condemned.

Percival Scott, of Fair-street, Horslydown; Francis
Farnham, of the King's Arms, Old Jewry ; Alexander
Vicary, of St. Paul's public-house, Walworth-common ;
and Martin Gaherty, of the White Swan, Sheaman's-
row, Holloway-row, were charged with having in their
possession rum and brandy varying from 24 to 30 under
proof, and in each case the spirits were ordered to be
condemned.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT•
OLD COURT.

Mr. William Croft, a respectable tradesman, was in-
dicted for a felonious assault upon Sarah Deborah Stevens.
Mr. Ryland, at the request of the Court, read the
depositions ; and Messrs. Clarkson and Charnock ap-
peared for the prisoner.
When thv prosecutrix was called, she requested that
she might be allowed to retract a portion of what she had
sworn before the Magistrates.
The COURT told her that was not the proper time, and
when she came to the part of the evidence she wished to
correct, she might do so.
She was then sworn, and according to her evidence the
defendant went to her lodging for a newspaper, and
there being no one else in the house he took the oppor-
tunity of committing the offence, to which she swore
positively.
Upon her being cross-examined, she admitted that she
had sworn before the Magistrate that she was married
to the person named Stevens whom she was living with,
but she now admitted that this was false, and that Ste-
vens was already married, and that she was aware of
that fact at the time; and she assumed the name of his
real wife when she was at the police office. She also
said that she had been accused of pawning a blanket,
and that on another occasion she was locked up all night
in the station-house, and she said that the reason was
because she refused to give a policeman some drink. She
also said that Stevens told her to swear that she was his
wife, to the Magistrate, in order that the prisoner might
be brought to justice. She said that her real name was
Sarah Harman.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON said this put an end to the case.
The indictment charged her name to be Stevens.
Mr. CLARKSON wished to put another question to the
witness, and he asked her whether, as she and Stevens

were going to the police-office, she did not hear him ask
if the prisoner were to come forward and make an offer
to settle the matter, what they should do ?—.The witness
swore that she did not hear anything of the kind.
Mr. Baron ALDEitSoN expressed his opinion that the
case was very properly at an end, and he did not think
the parties would venture to prefer another indictment.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Mr. CLARKSON said that he felt called, upon to state,
that if the case had gone on, he was in a position to have
shown that the whole transaction was a gross conspiracy
to extort money.

The defendant was immediately discharged.
Frederick Andrews, 16, was indicted for feloniously
cutting and wounding Thomas Husband, with intent to
maim and disable, or to do him some grievous bodily
harm.

It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner and
the prosecutor had a dispute, and the prosecutor struck
the prisoner on the head. Some further angry alterca-
tion took place, and subsequently they scuffled together,
and the prosecutor received a wound on the leg from a
knife which the prisoner had in his hand.
The prisoner admitted that he inflicted the wound,
and said that he should not have done it if the prose-
cutor had not struck him.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty of the felony, but
at the same time recommended him to mercy on account
of the provocation he had received.
. _

Baron ALDERSON said it wa;avery proper verdict.
He did not like to see Juries, where parties were charged
with using a knife in this way, return verdicts of assault
against them upon slight grounds, and he was sorry to
find by the newspapers that this was a practice prevail-
ing to some extent.
The Learned JUDGE, in passing sentence upon the
prisoner, observed that it was to the advantage of all that
the law;hould be fearlessly administered, and that Juries
should always return verdicts in accordance with the evi-
dence, no matter what the result might be. He regretted
to find that offences of this description were very much
on the increase, and he feared this might in some measure
be attributed to Juries returning verdicts of assault only
in such cases. Taking into consideration the circum-
stances of the cap, and the recommendation of the Jury,
he should only pass the same sentence upon the prisoner
that be should have done if he had only been convicted
of an assault—that sentence was that he be imprisoned
and kept to hard labour for nine calendar months.
Four young men, named Wm. Lee, Wm. Way, Thomas
Norton, and Henry Saunders, were indicted for attempt-
ing to rescue a prisoner from the custody of the police;
and they were also charged with assaulting the con-
stables in the execution of their duty.
Mr. Payne and Mr. Ballantine appeared for two of
the defendants.

When the case was called on, Mr. Baron Alderson in-
quired whether any counsel were retained on behalf of
the Commissioners of Police to conduct the prosecution,
and on an answer being given in the negative, he said
that counsel ought to have been employed in a case pro-
secuted by such a body as the Metropolitan Police. Wit-
nesses were then examined, but it is needless to give the
evidence, as it has appeared in the police reports.
The Jury found the defendants guilty of assaulting the
officers in the execution of their duty.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON sentenced Saunders to be im-
prisoned for six, Lee for four, Way for three, and
Norton for two months in the House of Correction, and
there to be kept to hard labour.
This case concluded the business of the session, which -
has thus only lasted three days. The Grand Jury were
discharged on Tuesday, a circumstance that has never
befOre taken place since the establishment of the Central
Criminal Court. The next session will commence on
the 3d January.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
William Sutherind, the master of a fishing-vessel,
appeared before the LORD MAYOR, upon an information
preferred against him by Mr. Thomas Kiwi., the Secre-
tary to the Marine Society, for having violated the 33d
of George 11., cap. 27, which enacts that the master of
any fishing-ship, &c., ,shall, within three days after ar-
rival at the None, with any fish, truly report the time of
arrival to the clerk in the Coast-office, London. The
penalty annexed to the violation of the Act, in every in-
stance, is the serious one of 501, without mitigation.
Mr. Young, the solicitor to the Marine Society, stated
that the Secretary had proceeded against the defendant
at the desire of the Society, for the purpose of giving an
effectual check to the practice which had for seine time
existed of evading the payment of ;the fees established by
Act of Parliament, for the admirable purpose of defray-
ing the expenses incurred by apprenticing the boys un-
der the care of the Institution, in various ways, to the
sea service. The fees, of course, reverted to the hands
of the masters or owners of the vessel, subjected to the
provisions of the Act, to whom the boys of
the Marine Society are bound, and the advantages
derivable from the system, were public and extensive.
The defendant, against whom there were two cases ca-
pable of being established at once, had prudently deter-
mined to plead guilty ; and, although it was out of the
power of the Magistrate to remit or even mitigate the
penalty, the
plea of ignorance of the law, and the posi-
tive assurance of future observance of it, would no doubt
produce a favourable effect upon the Directors of the
Marine Society.
The LORD MAYOR said it was most important that the
fishing vessels,
which became liable to the operation of
the Act, should be s:rictly obliged to comply with its
provisions. He knew that, in consequence of the lax
manner in which the duties of the persons appointed to
see that regular reports were made, had been performed,
the mass of proprietors of vessels contrived to evade
the payment of the fees.
Mr. Hobler then read the first 'information, and asked
the defendant whether he pleaded guilty or not guilty-
The defendant said that he was guilty from ignorance.
He begged that the Lord Mayor would understand that
he could not read.
The Secretary elated that the defendant and the owner

upwards of 1,8001., and had in right of his wife's jointure
800/. a year ; yet during a few years he managed to incur
debts to the amount of 22,0001,, and upon.proceedings
being instituted in the Ecclesiastical Court his living was
sequestrated and a curate appointed to do the duties of
the parish, which yielded I,ISOOL per annum, for an annual
salary of 1001., while 2001. arising from surplice fees was
allowed for the yearly support of the insolvent, mid the
balance made available to his creditors.