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

WEDNF:SDAY.

LN THE MATTER OF W3l. 'HITCHCOCK, A BANKRUPT.
The bankrupt's examination was resumed this morn•
ing. The interest excited by the case has not at al
abated, as the Court was again crowded by commer-
cial men.

Mr. ASRURST begged to call the attention of the COM-
missioner to the situation to which he was placed. The
solicitor of the two assignees refused to give him any of the
aids which were nece for the examination of the
bankrupt and the brinirToligh
t the whole of the facts
of the case. The two
hi6eres, by their solicitor, are
in possession of a deed w conveyed the lease of the
premises in Regent-street to bankrupt's brother.
Now it was most important that he should see or have a
copy of that deed, but they e
refused Probably
to give him
ai.Lhough, vihen
that facility for pursuing, and
greatly shorten-
ing the examination,
they set out, they
promised that the inquiry would be Cull and satisfactory.
He dill not wish that the Corntaissio.
him to be furnshed with it; all her should order
pression, of opinion upon the point wished was, an ex-
Mr.gnees, said as the full
his
to the
SOLE, solicitor for the assignees,
expected. to destroy Cook and Gladstone's ‘,1,---eyY •
amount of at least 70CL, he found it
refuse".•Mr. Ashurat a copy. He might obtain, itittyf to
From
the bankrupt's solicitor ; that was the proper
quarter
from Which it should co:ae. -
Mr. ASHURST said the reason given for the refusal
was most insufficient upon the face of it. If Air. Sole
attempted to expunge any of his clients' debt, he (I.llr.
Aslturst) would be entitled to see the deed as a matter of
Tight. • Why then not show it now, when it was so ha-

portant to him?
Tire COMMISSIONER could see no objection to Mr.
AslnErst being furnished with a copy of the deed. It
rnight.a.s well be given now as in a future stage, when
he must have it as a matter of right.
Mr. SOLE—If we are to furnish every information, of
Course it must be reciprocal; but in justice to my clients
I must refuse a copy. Let him get it from Mr. Marsden.
Mr. MARSDEN—I offered it last night, and will furnish
it to-morrow.
Mr. ASZURST.-But I want to examine from it now.
I will pay • you for the copy if you will let me look for
very few minutes now. (This offer was declined). I
art aware that there has been a bargain made that this
man shall get his certificate, but it shall not be until the
whole truth is out.
Mr. ASITHURST. —Nave you communicated with your
brother
George since yesterclay.—No.
l'ue Yen advised with your solicitor, who is also the
,•
soautor of your brother, since yesterday ?—I have not
received any proposition.
Answer
,the question, Sir.--Only in reference to my
owe efiaire,
I will have an answer. Have you advised with your
soliAtor, who is also the solicitor of your brother, since
yeaterday ?e-I have.
Before the regular examination was proceeded in the
bankruptrupt
before I am questioned further,
to Lave oirr-llenour's permission to make the following
explanation. Mr. Ashurst questioned me in reference
to certain bills which were dishonoured, and for which
bail was given. T
now add that Messrs. Cook and Glad-
stone knew at the time of the dishonour of the bills, and
of the bail which was given,
and they said there was no
reason why I should not*go on, as the parties could not
get judgment until, I think November.
When was it that this conversation took place 7—At
one of the meetings in the library or the dining-room, to
which I have before referred to.
In their librarynow it ?—ln their library or dining-room.
How did they k communicated it to them.
The time I did so being a period when I was acting
under their instructions. I told them that some of the
parties whose bills were dishonoured were pressing for
bayment, and had served me with a 21 days' notice of
ankruptcy.
was it Cook or Gladstone ?—Both, I believe. •

Was that all you told them ?—I believe it is all on
that subject.
Will you state all that took place on the occasion ?
I stated all that I recollect occurred then.
Will you swear that you now believe you have stated
all that occurred on that occasion on that subject ?—I
have already sworn it.
What did they say, and if possible tell me which of
them, and in what terms?—They said (which of them I
cannot say) that there was no reason why I should not
go on, as the parties could not get judgment until, I
think, November.
Was that all, whoever spoke it, spoken in the presence
of the other ?—I am not sure, as I before stated, that
both were present, but believe they were.
If they were both present, was it spoken by one in the
presence of the other ?
Mr. MARSDEN submitted that the question was improper.
The Commissioner—lt might be put in another form.
In all the conversations you had with the two on the
subject, was that which was said by the one said in the
presence and hearing of the other ?—lf both were pre-
sent, as the question implies, I should think that both
would hear it. I cannot say, but I believe so.
You stated that one of your reasons for making over
the lease held by R. P. Pritchard to your brother was,
that he might again become security for you. Will you
now state what guarantee or security your brother gave?
—I believe it was a guarantee.
For how much, and when due 7—l think for the
amount of both bills, and which were to be paid by a
certain day. I have no doubt the guarantee is still in
existence if it be important.
Did you pay off that guarantee 7—Yes.
Did you deliver up that letter of guarantee to the official
assignee?—lt was not in my possession.
Where is it now ?—I don't know.
Will you swear that a guarantee was given by your
brother to Pritchard?—No. I will swear that I under-
stood a guarantee or some other document of security
was given. I have no doubt it was.
Did you transfer the leases from Pritchard, by an ar-
rangement, to your brother, and afterwards paid off the
debt of 2,0001., without seeing the document of transfe-
rence, or asking for the document when you paid the
money ?—The leases were not transferred from one to
the other.
Did you pay off a debt of 2,000/. without seeing the
document by which it was secured?—l believe I did. I
think Mr. R. P. Pritchard called on my brother to ob-
tain the guarantee.
Then you never saw it?—Not to my recollection.
Is that the only reason you have for not asking to see
the document before you paid themoney in discharge of it?
—Yes, and my receiving back the lease which Mr. Pritch-
ard previously held.
Did you not receive back the lease before the money
was paid.—Yes.
Did you receive back the lease at the time the guaran-
tee was given 2-1 believe about that time.
Then did you pay 2,0001. in discharge of a document
you' had never seen 2—l paid the 2,000/. in discharge of
the debt I owed, and in accordance with my promise.
Did you obtain the document by which you were, or
your brother were bound, at the time you paid the 2,0001?
—I think not.
Did you not make over to your brother the other
leases of the premises in Regent-street, as well as that
held by R. P. Pritchard, as security to your brother ?
Yes.

How many leases did you make over of the Regent-
street premises ?—Three.
Were they not made over by the same deed
or arrangement which made over the lease held
by Pritchard ?—I object to answer that question, Sir
Mr. Ashurst has frequently endeavoured to mislead me
by putting questions founded upon my answers, and ap-
parently embodying them, but not correctly. He is now
endeavouring to make it appear that the leases were
made over directly from R. P. Pritchard to my brother.
Add to the question "previously held" by Mr. Pritchard.
The COMMISSIONER saw no objection to the amend-
ment. Mr. Ashurst was not to assume anything con-
trary to the evidence.
Mr. ASHURST—That puts it upon me, Sir, that I be-
lieve all he says. I have no objection to say, " alleged
to have been previously held by R. P. Pritchard." The
question so amended was then put.—Yes.
Did you not make a conveyance of the lease of the
house in Regent-street to your brother ?
The bankrupt had no objection to answer the question,
but objected to the form in which it was put.
The COMMISSIONER said they had already got from
the witness that he had conveyed the leases to his bro-
ther, and some of the securities he had given to Cook
and Gladstone were those leases.

Mr. Amin:en—l only wish that you should bear that
in your mind.
The COMMISSIONER—I have it all in my mind a long
time. —(Laugh ter.)
Mr. ASHIIRST wished to show that till the goods had
been converted into cash, and the money paid over to his
brother—

The COMMISSIONER thought it better that there should
be no argument at that stage of the business. It ap-
peared that they had the security of these leases for
money advanced to them.
Did you tell Cook and Gladstone that you were trans-
ferring the leases they held to your brother George ?
No, but I told them so immediately afterwards.
Did you tell your brother that the goods you sent out,
as you say, for the purpose of enabling you to secure
them, you should sell and apply the cash to discharge
R. P. Pritchard's debt?—l never said that the goods sent
out for Cook and Gladstone were to be applied to thc.
payment of Pritchard's debt.
Mr. ASHURST said that was not an answer.
Mr. MARSDEN objected to the form in which the ques-
tion was put.
Mr. ASIIIIRST wished to show that the bankrupt had
said he would not have sworn falsely, but for the purpose
of accusing his clients.
The Bankrupt—l deny that in toto. I appeal to the
Honourable Commissioner for protection.
Mr. ASHURST wished to have a narrative of the mo-
tives which had influenced the bankrupt in raising col-
lateral issues, by which the characters of other parties
were attacked, without their having an opportunity of
defending themselves.
The COMMISSIONER thought it would be better for the
interests of his client, and more just to the bankrupt, to
put questions which would not allow of any inferences
being drawn.
Mr. ANIMIST would put the question in whichever
way the Commissioner would dictate, and the question
was then put as follows
Did you tell your brother out of which goods you in-
tended to pay Pritchard's debt ?—No.
Mr. ASIIURST understood Mr. George Hitchcock was
in Court, and that the deeds were in his possession. He
wished to have them produced.
Mr. George Hitchcock was then called, and said he
had the documents (the leases) referred to, and had no
objection to produce them.
Mr. ASHURST inquired of Mr. Marsden whether he
was now ready to produce any documents which con-
veyed any interest to George from the bankrupt ? Also
the documents relating to R. P. Pritchard's debt, and
all letters and papers relating to the bankrupt's affairs?
Mr. MARSDEN did not think he could produce all the
documents Mr. Ashurst required. He would give up
any he had.
Mr. ASHURST wished to know if he would produce the
guarantee given to Pritchard.
Mr. MAasnEN did not know whether he had it or not,
but would send to his office and ascertain that fact.
To the Bankrupt—Did you tell your brother that you
intended to make over the lease of the house in Regent-
street before the deed was executed?—l told my brother
that I would make over the two leases to him, Cook and
Gladstone having only a lien upon them.
When did you tell him this?—lt is impossible for me
to say.

M. SOLE said he could save a good deal of time by
stating that the deed of assignment contained a recital
that Cook and Gladstone had only a lien upon the leases.
Was that all that passed between yourself and your
brother ?—I should think not.

Mr. ASIIIIRST would now go to the case of Heeles and
Co., and refer to the evidence given on a former occa-
sion, the 6th December. A bill accepted by you in
favour of Heeles and Co., for 8631. Bs. 9d., is now in
your hands, is that bill alluded to in your evidence of
the 6th December ?—I don't know. I believe it is
the bill.

Was that bill discounted for you, or for Heeles, Gaw-
thorpe, and Co.?—l'or Ileeles and. Co.
Did it fall due on the Gth May 2—Yes.
_ Did you not, for your own purposes, give your
bankers orders not to_ pay that bill ?—Not for my own
purposes, but for the purposes of Cook and Gladstone.
State,p in what way were, these purposes to be answered?
the b
---conAvire.. Cook applied to me not to pay the bill. In a
rstion with me about the latter • end of April, or
eguntirg of Maalluding debtwith them,
that eel:
Mr. Cook. said
y, to my.
and not '`- that he was paying other parties money,
payingl, them sufficiently, and he had observed
better for ea was coming due shortly, and it would be
It
was
that I should dos
Heeles'. pay them the amount instead of to
seahout this time that it was arranged
London and so.
I subsequently gave orders to the
sent it that bill.
same day I drew a check for
On
the
emster Branch Bank not to -pay
the exact amount
.favour of Cook and
hat d givent otrhdeemr s not e
iGo.!aadns(t)otenew,hiehansdtatea
that I enclosed
in
and that I now enclosed the ch.
pass
- to the credit of my accounts check, which they would
I
check, and referred to my banker's book,
since seen the
the check was presented by Jones; Lit', and I find toyd, and Co., hat
my bankers, on the morning of the 1 to
7th. It would be
important for, me here to ascertain what day of
the 15th of May was. .
The COMMISSIONER—Saturday.
The Bankrupt—To account fur the cheek not n
bei g
presented till the 17th, it appears to me that the lettre-
containing the check did not arrive at Cook and Glad-
stone's-
stone's until after four o'clock on the 15th, and which I
believe to be the case; presuming that Messrs. Cook and
Gladstone left at four o'clock, the letter would not have
have been opened till the following Monday only, and
therefore not presented at the London and Westminster
Lank before then. If the check be in Court, I should
like to see it. It has been handed over to the official
assignee.
Was that payment so made and placed to your cash
account at your own request ?—lt was at my request,
and which request it was agreed that I should make.
Then was it understood between you or not, that that
payment was on account, or in satisfaction of Heeles'
bill ?—lt was, as far as I was concerned ; but the plan
adopted was, as I have before stated, to enable them
to hold Heeles responsible, and which they have since
attempted to recover.
Will you swear that you yourself did not intend that
payment as a payment on your cash account?—Yes.
The bankrupt, before answering the question, ap-
pealed to the Court as to the difficulty in which he was
placed by the question, having before stated that at Cook
and Gladstone's request he had written the letter alluded
to, whiCh .might be brought in evidence against him.
Mr. Commissioner Houton) said that to statements

respecting the circumstances under which the letter
was written the bankrupt answered as above.
Did not you, in several conversations with Mr.
Cook, state to him yourself that you had made
that payment onyour cash account, and,therefore, did not
make him any further payments in May, or words to that
effect ?—I think not.
Will you swear you did not ?—I will not.
What is your belief ?—I believe not.
Do you give that answer deliberately and upon rake-
tion ?—Yes. I wish to add, having heard my answer
read over to me, that I do not think I could have made such
an observation, because, during the month of May, I
did pay other accounts to a very large amount, as wil
be shown by my books.
Mr. HUMFREY, the barrister, here' entered the Court,
and said that, observing there was a little pause in
the proceedings, he wished to take advantage of it
for the purpose of alluding to a statement which
had yesterday been published as having been made by
the bankrupt in answer to Mr. Ashurst, relating to some
goods stated to have been disposed of to Messrs.
Shoolbred and Cooke. I have to state, said Mr.
Humfrey, in the most direct and unequivocal manner,
on the part of those gentlemen, that the statement of
the bankrupt is a most direct, unequivocal, and mali-
cious falsehood. So far from the statement then
made being correct Mr. Shoolbred was the first
person to give information to Mr. Llewellyn,
one of the assignees, of the circumstances which had
occurred. I cannot ask your Honour to post-
pone these proceedings to investigate what may be con-
sidered a collateral issue, but on the part of Messrs.
Shoolbred and Cooke I again state that the
bankrupt's statement relating to them is a
perfect falsehood, uttered with a malicious object, and
it is the intention of Messrs. Shoolbred and Cooke to
make the bankrupt responsible for it. They
are exceedingly anxious that this statement should
be as widely diffused as the falsehood had been. They
met the Bankrupt's statement with the most po-
sitive and unequivocal contradiction. There had
never been a suspicion of anything against them until
Mr. Hitchcock had wickedly given utterance to this
falsehood. •
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. lIUMFREY 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 lee 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 asks 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..Humenev—Exactly 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 Hoenovp—lt is unfortunate that
these sort of things should go forth to the public in the
newspapers.
Mr. HUaIFREY—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 Shoo'.
bred and Cook had had to pay 1,0201. 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
the 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
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 hn-
Drdssion 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 P-1 believe Mr. Glad-
stone.
Is the letter now produced bearing date 28th May,
marked E., in your hand-writing ?-11 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 that month, 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 HOLROYD—The letter explains i tself.
How do you reconcile that letter with the answers you
have previously given P--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 3,1381. during that
month; and that the items contained in the letter
being only in round members, 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 amount 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 P—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 of 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 requested to 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. ASKURST 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 hoped, 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. ASHIIREIT 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. He wished to ask the
bankrupt the question, because, no doubt, it would go
forth to the world.
Mr. Commissioner ITOLROYD thought it was better not
to put any such question.
s tOoldr. thSa°tLSEu—chYiess
Mr. Am:men—lt was merely a bye observation of
mine, utd I withdraw it. I have not been so thine,-
skinned as to what the bankrupt may have said.
,nboutttlhewicsashei,tantod
Ibewdisishtiintc
forth
to the
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD—He has a long way to
travel before. he st hyo uu lndd egr
comes to his certificate.
The bankrupt
cond letter written, applied for the exhibition of the se-
by him to Cook and Gladstone.
Mr. ASHURST
in in due time —I have that letter, and it shall be put
—at present I do not think it necessary.
Mr. Soen, on, behalf of the assignees, pressed that the
examination should be
The bankruEt said
it was
with to-morrow.
accounts, and e required time. p complicated question af
Mr. SMURST had no wish t* o enable the defendant to
continue himself as an object of public exhibition longer
therefore longer
than necessary. Ile would
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 ask the bankrupt to detail the