The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-18 00:00:00

LAW iNTELLIGENCE.

SECONDARIES' CO -1?7; De',. 17.
G Ruß:
riox SIN S.
B
This was an action brought by Moses Gmbh, against
A. Boxsins to recover a sum of 10/. ai. 5d
for goods
sold and delivered.
The defendant pleaded first, that the goods were told
under an agreement for two mol!ths' credit, which time had
not expired at the time the action was commenced ; rnd
secondly, that he had given the plaintiff a bill of ex-
change for the amount.
It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff,
who is a deeper in hay, straw, &e., bad, during the
months of June, July, August, and September last,
supplied the defendant with goods. That some time
in the month of October he applied to defendant
'br 41, who replied that it was not then convenient to let
him have the money ; upon which plaintiff
proposed to
send 6/. worth of goods wore, and to draw uron him for
101. at two months. To this proposal the defendant ac-
ceded; the goods were supplied, and on October 14 the
plaintiff. brought the defendant a bill at two months,
for acceptance; that bill was dated Oct. 9, and when defend-
ant observed this error to plaintiff, plaintiffrectified it by
causing a 1 to be inserted before the 9, thus making it
the nth, and defendant accepted it. On the 20th the
bill was brought back to defendant, and the person
:cringing it back told him it was worthless, because the
late had been altered after it had been d 4 rawa. A great
,Ica) of contradictory testimony was given as to whether
no defendant had offered to give another bill, but ru-
ching turned upon that fact.
31. r. Secondary JAMES, in summing up, told the Jury
here could be no doubt but that the bill of exchange

was worthless, not because it had been altered after it .
had been drawn, for an alteration made in a bill by the
consent of the drawer and acceptor before the bill
was put into circulation would not necessarily
vitiate it, but because the bill was dated the
19th, when, in fact, it was drawn on the 14th.
It was, consequently, for a longer period than two
months, and was, therefore, an improper stamp, which
rendered it worthless. Whether the bill could be con-
sidered as evidence that the agreement between the par-
ties was for two months' credit, was a question for the
Jury to determine. If they were of opinion that such
an agreement had been made between the parties, then
the action was brought too soon, and the verdict
in the first issue must be for the defendant. On
the issue relating to the bill of exchange, the plaintiff
was entitled to their verdict.

The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant on the
first issue, and for the plaintiff on the second.
Mr. C. JONES conducted the case for the plaintiff, and
Mr. THOMAS appeared for the defendant.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 17.
WILLIAM HITCHCOCK'S BANKRUPTCY.

In this case an application was made to the Court to-
day by the bankrupt's solicitor for a copy of all exami-'
nations taken under the bankruptcy.
The COURT granted the application as far as it re-
ferred to the bankrUpt himself, and also as far as it re-
ferred to his two servants, Mr. Churchhouse and Mr.
Hayward, but said it would be sufficient time to consider
the application as respected the examinations of Messrs.
Cook and Gladstone when it was seen whether at the
next sitting in this case it was intended to put those
gentleman into the box for examination, for it was under-
stood that that would be the course pursued by the gen-
tleman who conducted their case. The reasons, as en-
tered upon the proceedings, which induced the Commis-
sioner to adjourn the examination of the bankrupt in
this matter, were as follows :—" The proceedings of the
Court having been interrupted-by great noise and clap-
ping of hands, similar interruptions (though to a less
extent) having previously occurred, and there being no
power inherent in the Court of enforcing order and de-
corum, I adjourn the said last examination sine die, with
liberty to the bankrupt to apply for a further sitting
when he shall be prepared. '• EDW. HOLHOYD."
Mr. NIAs applied to his Honour to-day for a warrant
to enforce the attendance of Mr. James Clark, late one
of the official assignees of this Court, with certain books
and papers, to undergo an examination for the benefit
of the estates of which he had the superintendence while
in his official capacity. It appeared that a summons had
been served upon Mr, Clark at Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
and nolPhaving appeared to it at the expiration of the-
hour to-day allowed for such appearance this application
was made. -

Sir C. F. WILL3AMS granted the application, and the
warrant was forthwith issued.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dec. 17.
IN THE MATTER OF JOHN EDW. CAREW, SCULPTOR.
The insolvent, who is a celebrated sculptor, applied to
be discharged under the Act, and was opposed by Mr.
Platt, Queen's Counsel, and Mr. Nicholls and support-
ed by Mr. Cooke and Mr. Woodruffe.
The insolvent examined by Mr. PLATT—I believe you
are a sculptor?—l am.
Did you formerly carry on business in the Edgeware-
road?—l did.
=During what time did you so carry it on?---For seve-
ral years.
As far up as 1831 ?—Oh no, not so lately as that. I
cannot charge my memory as to date, but I should think
up to about 12 years ago.
Had you a studio of your own up to 1831 ?—lt is
eight or ten years ago since I had one of my own.
I believe you went down to Brighton, for the purpose
of establishing a studio there ?—I did.
At the Earl of Egremont's desire 2—Yes.
He was your patron at that time ?—He was my patron
up to the year 1823 or 1824.
Did his Lordship ever give you a piece of land, on
which your studio was to be erected ?-lle did.
For 99 years, I believe, at a nominal rent ?—Yes he
did.

Did you for some years after you went to Brighton
continue your studio in the Edgeware-road ?—No; I
gaits it up.
I understood you to say. that you went to Brighton in
1824.—1 had not my studio at Brighton and the Edge-
ware-road at the same time.
Were you performing works for his Lordship prior to
1831 ?—Certainly.
What was the first work you were employed upon ?
I was upon a statue of Arethusa, and in consequence
Lord Metre caused me to be introduced to the Earl of
Egretnont.
What was your next work ?—The next was the statue
called Adonis, which was a commission the Earl of Egre-
mont gave me.
In what year was that ?—I can't tell whether it was in
1825 or 1826, but I think it was the early period ; I
think it was immediately after the Arethusa was finished.
Did his Lordship order the statues of Vulcan and
Venus ?—The next, I believe, were those.
Was that in 1827 or 1828 ?—I dare say it was about
that time; but, unless I had the book to refer to, I cannot
say positively.
W hat were the next statues ?—The ne:..t were Alei
biades and also the Falconer. There were also three
models of statues.
Were those all completed as early as 1831 ?—Yes.
Were those models made in Brighton or London ?
They were made in Brighton.
Were all the other statues completed before you left
Brighton ?—Yes, I believe they were.
They were all completed before 1831 ?—Yes, they were.
How soon were the models completed after you went
to Brighton?—They were not all done in one year.
Were they done as early as 1832 ?—I believe those
things were as late at 1836.
What, those three models ?—lf you mention any par-
ticular models, I can give you the information, perhaps.
The models of Satan and Dido, and a colossal statue of
William the Fourth ?—Those models were commenced
about 1832, and terminated, I should say, about 1835
or 1836.
I believe his Lordship resided principally at Peg-
worth, in Sussex ?—He
And you resided at Brighton ?—I did.
Did you from time to time receive money from him ?
—I did.
Although you resided at Brighton, did you during
part of that time reside at Pegworth, at a house of his
Lordship's there?—l did, at New Grove-house.
Were you at that time engaged upon any work at
Pegworth ?—I was.
Did your family live there any time 7—They did.
Resided there, I suppose ?—Resided there.
What length of time ?—About a year and a quarter, I
should think.
Did you keep a banking account at Messrs. Wiggly's,
of Brighton ?—I did.
Did you keep any account at a London banker's also ?
—Not at the same time.
Have you had no account with a London banker ?
I have had an account with Marten, Call, and Co.
How long did you reside in Brighton ? —From the
time I left the Edgevvare-ro..d, with the exception of the
occupation of ths. house, New Grove-house.
You told us just now that you had a banking account
with Messrs. Marten, Call, and Co. before you left
town ?—That was before I went to Brighton.
What, have you never paid any money to Marten,
Call, and Co. since?—All the money I had to carry on
the business was carried through . Messrs. Wigney
and Co.
That is not my question. Did you bank with Messrs.
Marten, Call, and Co. after you were at Brighton ?
Why, no.
Is not the proper name of that firm Sir William Call,
Bart., and Co.?—l believe it is. I did not mean to mis-
represent ; but I believe that is it.
Now, do you mean to say that you have never paid into
their hands any sum of money since 1831 ?—I think at
one time I received from the Government 1,200 L, and to
the best of my recollection I called on Messrs. Marten,
Call, and Co., to krow if they would have the cash for
me, as I had business out of town. In a few days I
drew 2001. for present use, and theft I drew the other
1,0001. to deposit in the banking-house at Brighton.
What year was that in ?-1833.
How long did ;,you allow the money to remain in the
hands of Messrs. Marten, Call, and Co. ?—Perhaps a week.
Now, upon the occasion of the death of the Earl of
Egremont, or shortly afterwards, did you direct a letter
to the executors now in Court ?---I did.
Is this the letter ?—lt is.
The letter was then read. It was dated Pegworth,
Nov. 28, 1837, and ran as follows :
"From the very unexpected and painful situation in
which I am placed by the lamented death of the Earl of
Egremont, I am induced to request permission to give up
New Grove-house, as the object for which I was
placed in it no longer exists ; and as my present cir-
cumstances will not justify my continuing the .occu-
pation of a house of this magnitude, I hope I may
be excus:d for writing thus early, in order that it might
be placed at your disposal. lam requested by General
Wyndham to send in my account, which I beg to subjoin."
The account was then read, with the items, which left a
balance in the favour of the insolvent of 5,3261. 1 Is. lid.
The letter then went on :—" The circumstance which
induced me to take the late position I occupied
was the fact that I believed the late Earl had pro-
vided for me in case of his death ; and it is my
belief that the Noble Earl whose memory I shall
ever revere, and whose loss to me is irreparable, had
so intended. I return you my best thanks, and it will
ever be my study to forward your stews in everything in
my power.''

The examination was then continued by Mr. PLATT.
Did you forward a letter again on the Ist of i)ecember,
1837, dated Grafton•street, Brighton ?—I did.
This letter was also read.
Did you receive a letter from Mr. Murray, one of the
executors?—l did.
This was a letter to the insolvent, requesting a full list
of the items in his account.
A letter was then handed up to the insolvent, and
identified as having been written by himself to Mr.
Murray, dated March 13, 1838, containi:ig a statement
) toe mere payment 1•••
I.';'esueusn• estate eb)a's whichid b t 1111 ai
nrgs e
ind thethe s Earlo f of
22,4351,
and `fated Egre-
uwr
as the reason wh • he claimed compensation
be •
had sacrificed • 11 his" r works d • himself
a-other prospects by devoting
to the service of the Earl.
in sculpture, that he
Examined by Mr. PLATT—Did you consult Mr.
Bankes about that account (handing a paper to the wit-
ness) ?—To the best of my recollection I have seen that
account before. •
A letter was handed to the insolvent addressed by Mr.
Ban k es to Colonel Wyndham.
Has the account been sent with that letter to Colonel
Wvndham.?—l have no recollection of it.
Who showed the account to you P---Mr. Bankes.
The letter was then read. It stated that Mr. Carew,
in consequence of hiS ignorance -of such matters, and
his,.pressing professional engagements, had requested
Bankes, as a friend, to make an account of all his trawac•

tions with the late Lord Egremont ; that the latter had
examined several vouchers and receipts, together with
the banker's book and correspondence of the insolvent
with the late Earl of Egremont, the result of which he
now submitted ; and the letter concluded with on offer
to meet any gentleman whom Col. Wyndham might ap-
point, for the purpose of settling the dispute between the
parties. •
The statement cf account, which was dated the 24th of
December, 1838, charged for various works, executed for
the late Earl of Egremont, 21,238 L, to which was ap-
pended the following item :—" Compensation for profes-
sional and other labour in the service of Lord Egremont,
frOm the commencement of 1823 to November 1837, at
the rate of 2,00C1. a-year, including men, wages, and
materials, 31,0001., making a total of 52,2381. From this
there was deducted 1,9271. 14s. Bd. for cash received,
leaving a balance of 50,3101. ss. 4d.
A letter was then put in, and acknowledged to have
been received by the insolvent from Mr. Murray, in be-
half of Colonel Wyndham, dated Dec. 24, 1838, de-
clining to comply with Mr. Bankes' proposal, and offer-
ing to pay the costs if the insolvent would prosecute his
Claims in a Court of Law.

By Mr. PLATT—Was there an action commenced
against the executors of the Earl in your name ?
There was.

And I believe your Counsel withdrew the case from
the Jury ?—He did.
Were you present in Court at that trial ?—I was.
i
I believe you admitted, n your answer to a bill of
discovery, that you had received certain checques from
his Lordship ?—I did.
A cheque was handed to the insolvent, dated Sept. 28,
1835.

The Insolvent—l know nothing of this cheque; I have
no means of recognizing it.
Another cheque was handed to the insolvent for 1,0001.
dated the 20th September, 1828.
Mr. PLATT—What do you say to that ?—There is
nothing upon either of those checks to prove that they
were ever paid to me, having never kept an account with
Lord Egremont as to the moneys he paid me.
Will you venture to swear that neither of them were
paid to you ?—I will not venture to swear that.
The COMMISSIONER—To whom are they made
payable

.Mr. PLATT—TO " bearer."
A cheque was then handed to the insolvent, dated the
18th of December, 1833, for 1,000/.
The Insolvent—l will not undertake to swear that
they were not paid to me, but there is no evidence that
they were.

On another check of the 13th December, 1834, for
1,2001. being handed to-the insolvent, he said, " I have
a recollection of 1,`2001. being paid tome by Lord Egre:
ment, by cheque. In examining the bank book, with
Messrs. Wigney and Company, and from other sources
of information, I recognised the amount of that
cheque. I have no means of ascertaining that sums
were paid to me except through my bank books.
By Mr. PLATT (handing a paper to the insolvent)—
Does not that refresh your memory that 1,200/. was lent
to you by Lord Egremont, to enable you to purchase
some land to build a cottage upon ?—I did pay that sum
to Mr. Furnall, but I am not sure that it was by that
cheque.
A latter was then read, dated the 12th December,
1834, in which Lord Egremont consented to advance
1,200/. to purchase some ground.
By Mr. PLATT—Does not that enable you to say that
the cheque was received for that purpose ?—ln my judg-
ment it was.

A cheque was handed to the witness, dated the 14th
of April, 1837, for 50(1., payable to the bearer, at Messrs.
Masterman and Co.'s bank.

Was that paid to you by Lord Egremont ?—I should
say it was, from Masterman s name being indorEed upon it.
Were they the agents of Messrs.Wig•!ey ?—They were.
The insolvent was then examined as to whether he had
not, in his answer to the bill of discovery, refused to
admit the receipt of the cheques in question, and he re-
plied that he had refused.

The COMMISsIONERS thought that was rather a matter
for the Court of Chancery.
Mr. PLATT said the insolVent had claimed a sum of
19,0001. as due to him from the estate of the late Earl;
whereas it could he shown that the schedule was a
total fiction. He had 'not given any particulars of ac-
count. An action had' been brought by the insolvent
against the executors; a bill of discovery had been filed,
and in the answer to that bill he denied several large
sun's which they could prove him to have received.
The Learned Counsel then examined the witness
at some length as to his engagements during
his connection with the Earl of Egremont, from
which it appeared that during that time he had been
engaged in executing works for Earl de Grey, in addi-
tion to those which he executed for the Earl of Egre-
mont. His object in doing this was to show that the in-
solvent had not devoted hiniself exclusively to his en-
gagements with that Nobleman. The Learned Counsel
also examined the insolvent as to his sources of income
in 1833, which were a house iu the Edgewttre-road, at a
net rent of 601. a-year ; and another, formerly used as a
studio, at a rent of 35/ per annum. His object, he said,
was to show that the insolvent could 'not have received
such large sums as appeared in the bank-book, from any
other person than the Earl himself.
The examination was then adjourned until to-morrow.

FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE.
DOWNING-STREET, Due. 16, 1841.
The- Queen has been pleased to appoint Lieutenant-
Colonel George Macdonald to be Captain-Geneial told
Governor-in• Chief of the Colony of Sierra Leone and
its dependencies.
WHITEHALL, Nov. 23.
The Lord Chancellor has appointed John Alderton
Bush, of Bradford, in the county of Wilts, Gent., to
be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery.
WHITEHALL, Dk.c. 4.

The Lord Chancellor leas appointed Oswald Cheek, of
Evesham, in the county of Worcester, Gent., to be a
Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery.
WHITEHALL, DEc. 11.
The Lord Chancellor has appointed Evan Thomas, of
Brecon, in the county of Brecon, Gent., to be a Master
Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery.
WHITEHALL, DEc. 13.
The Lord Chancellor has appointed Joseph Denison
Cort, of Blackburn, in thecounty of Lancaster, Gent., to
be Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery.
The Lord Chancellor has also appointed Saunders
Nash, of High Wycombe, in the county of Baits, Gent,
to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of
Chancery.