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

IN RE WHITEHEAD.

This day being appointed for a meeting of creditors
under the fiat against the bankrupt, who was an extensive
printer in Fleet-street, _

Mr. CHAMBERS (the Barrister) applied to have the
bankrupt out of Court during the examination of Mr.
Chandler, an annuity broker, who was a nephew of the
bankrupt, and concerning whom there was much dis-
cussion, as to whether he was a debtor or creditor to the
estate. His object in makir.g this application was to
prevent the bankrupt from having any unfair advantage
in giving his answers on a future occasion.
The bankrupt's solicitor said, if the Court required
the bankrupt to leave the Court, he should take a note
of the examination, which would be available to the
bankrupt.
Mr. Chandler's examination (which the Court decided
was private) was then proceeded with.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Dec.l7.
GRUBB V. BOXSINS.
This was an action brought by Moses Grubb, against
A. Boxsins to recover a sum of 10/. 3s. 5d., for goods
sold and delivered.
The defendant pleaded first, that the goods were sold
under an agreement for two months' credit, which time had
not expired at the time the action was commenced ; and,
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 dealer in hay, straw, &c., had, 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
for 4/., who replied that it was not then convenient to let
him have the money ; upon which plaintiff proposed to
send 61. worth of goods more, and to draw upon 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, plaintiff rectified it by
causing a 1 to be inserted before the 9, thus making it
the 19th, and defendant accepted it. On the 20th the
bill was brought back to defendant, and the person
bringing it back told him it was worthless, because the
date had been altered after it had been drawn. A great
deal of contradictory testimony was given as to whether
or no defendant had offered to give another bill, but r.o-
thine.6 turned upon that fact.
Mr. Secondary JAMES, in summing up, told the Jury
there 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. &WES conducted the case for the plaintiff, and
Mr. THOMAS appeared for the defendant.

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 f;ouniel, and Mr. Nicholls ; and support-
ed by Mr. Cooke and Mr. Woodrutie.
The insolvent examined by Mr. PLATT—I believe you
are a sculptor?—l am.
Did you formerly carry on business in the Edgeware-
road ?—I did.
During what time did you so carry it on?—For seve-
ral years.
As far up as 1831 ?-0h 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 ?—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 ?—He 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
gave 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 Petre caused me to be introduced to the Earl of
Egremont.
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.
What were the next statues ?—The next were Alci-
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 Is3l7—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 P—l 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 7—He did.
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 ?—I 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 ?—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. Wigney'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 hare had an account with Marten, Call, and Co.
How long did you reside in Brighton ? —From the
time I left the Edgeware-road, with the exception of the
occupation of the 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.?—' 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 timel received from the Government 1,2001., and to
the best of my recollection I called on Messrs. Marten,
Call, and Co., to know 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 thea 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 P—l did.
Is this the letter ?—lt is.
The leiter 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 excused 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 5,326/. lls. 11d.
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 views in everything in
my power." _ _

-The examination was then continued by Mr. PLATT.
Did you forward a letter again on the Ist of December,
1837, dated Grafton•street, Brighton?—l 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, 1836, containing a statement
of account, by which he charged the Earl of Egre-
mont's estate as indebted to him in the sum of 22,4851,
and stated as the reason why he claimed compensation
beyond the mere payment for works in sculpture, that he
had sacrificed all his other prospects by devoting himself
to the service of the Earl.
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 seen that
account befoi e.
A letter was handed to the insolvent addressed by Mr.
Bankes to Colonel Wyndham.
Has the account been sent with that letter to Colonel
Wyndham ?—I have no recollection of it.
Who showed the account to you ?—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 transac-
tions with the late Lord Egremont ; that the latter had
examined several vouchers and receipts, together with
the banker's book and correspondence of th insolvent
with the late Earl of Egremont, the result of which he
now submitted ; and the letter concluded with an offer
to meet any gentleman whom Col. Wyndham might ap-
point, for the purpose of settling the dispute between the
parties.
The statement of account, which was dated the 24th of
December, charged for various works, executed for
theecelmatbree' 83
Earl; of
f Egremont, 21,2381, 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 11337, at
the rate of 2,0001. a-year, including men, wages, and '