The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-16 00:00:00

Room B.

The Committee met this morning at eleven, the Earl of
Lonsdale in the chair; Lord llawarden, the Earl of War-
wick, the Earl of Ellenborough, and the Duke of Grafton,
were also present.
LEICESTER AND BEDFORD.
Evidence was continued this morning in favour of this line,
for the most part respecting the effect of the railway on the
supply of coal to districts of very considerable populousness.
Mr. Rantsom, an owner of flour mills at Hitchen, said, in
giving his evidence, that he calculated that the proposed
line would accommodate from Bedford to Hitchen, 16 miles,
by 105 miles of country, and that that land would yield a
yearly produce of 602,112 bushels of wheat, out of which,
taking the yearly consumption in the district at 264,000'
bushels, there would be a surplus of 338,112 bushels for ex-
port. This surplus would yield 7,400 tons of wheat, and if
that were sent up to London, the railway would effect a
saving of 7,4001. He calculated that 10,500 tons of malting.
barley was sent up to London from the district, and that the
saving on the carriage of that would be 10,5001.
Other witnesses were examined, and gave evidence to the
same effect, but the evidence in favour of the Bill had not
been concluded when the Committee adjourned till eleven
o'clock to-morrow.

Room D.
The members of this Committee re-assembled to-day at
eleven o'clock.
IPSWICH AND BURY ST. EDMUNDS
(NORWICH EXTENSION).
Mr. Locke (engineer to the line) was examined by Ser-
geant Wa,txwm3r---The works were 2,749 yards, which
would cost 121,3881.; the bridges would cost 610,070/. ; the
permanent way would cost 202,6911., and the stations and
sidings would amount to a sum of 47,3941.
Cross-examined by Mr. ANDREWS, on the part of the pe-
titioners—There were six miles of railway at the next station
to Norwich. There were six miles of single railway. Could
not state the cost of maintaining a station at Norwich ; but
the whole cost of maintaining the entire railway was much
the same as any other line.
Mr. Watson was next examined as to the correctness of
the estimate of the population along the line, and in his
cross-examination admitted that he derived his knowledge of
the same from the map.
Mr. Pilch was examined by Mr. TALBOT, Q.a.,
and stated
that he had been employed to make out the traffic tables of
this line, which he stated included the revenue derived from
passengers, and he calculated that there would be an increase
in the amount of revenue from these sources, which were dis-
tributed along the line. There were four stage coaches
running between Norwich and Stowmarket last July, upon
which he based his calculations with respect to passengers.
The gross revenue would be 55,001., from which he deducted
40 per cent., which left a net revenue of over 33,000/.
Mr: AUSTIN cross-examined this witness with a view to
test the accuracy of the modes operandi in which he pro-
ceeded, which he stated was in the usual way, and on the
same data as such calculations are usually made.
After examining two other witnesses in corroboration of
the preceding evidence,
eluded.
Mr. TALBOT stated that the case for the Bill was con-

Mr. ANDREWS then proceeded to address the Commiktee,
and in the course of his observations said that the pre-
sent line, whether considered in reference to its connec-
tion with any other line, or solely with respect to its
own merits, was not entlitled to' the favourable considera-
tion of the Committee. He would not follow his Learned
Friend (Mr. Talbot) into the details into which he had
thought proper to enter, nor would he trouble their Lordships
with any lengthened observations. The Learned Gentleman
then proceeded to analyse the evidence, which he contended
was the most vague, general, and uncertain that had ever
been submitted to a Parliamentary Committee.
Mr. Bidder, engineer, was then examined, and stated that
the present line was totally unavailable for the purposes of
agricultural traffic; that the establishment of double termini
at Norwich would lead to an unwarranted outlay of money,
and be productive of considerable inconvenience to the
inhabitants of that town ; and that taking the minimum
cost as set forth by Mr. Locke, and looking to the want of
the necessary circumstances to render the speculation pro-
fitable on this line, it could never pay the proprietors at the
estimated cost.
Cross-examined by Mr. TALBOT Was of opinion,
without even seeing the signatures to the petition
in favour of the Bill, that he himself could obtain
signatures in Norwichto the same amount for a different
line. Did not think that there was any reasonable ground
of complaint against their station at Norwich.
After the examination of this witness the Committee ad-
journed till eleven o'clock to-morrow.

LA.W
INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, July 15.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Forri.ANgen.)
IN RE J. T. M. BAETLETT.
This bankrupt, ivho is an attorney and bill discounter,
applied for his certificate.
He was opposed by
Mr. Stephenson, counsel for Mrs.
Casse, who had discounted bills for the bankrupt, and sup•
ported by Mr. Cox.
vouched. There were creditors without
It appeared that his balance-sheet commenced in 1841, and
ended in the present year. His profits were stated at 8,1911,
and his capital was only 200/. His ex-
penses (1.6
enxotteonnteoift47B::
security to the extent of 7,245/., and those with security to
bill discounter, and had been solicitor
were not vouched.
Warner, about the year 1843. He
stated
de
thhaantkhruepwtaswaas then examined by Mr. STURGEON, and
to the British Hollands Distillery Company, which was con-
cocted by Colonel
(Warner) resided at 31, Orchard-street, Portman-square, and
his wife was not living with him. Mrs. Casse was a chief
promoter of the above company, and wrote articles (as we
understood) in the Court Gazette for the purpose of "shoving
the shares.' He (the bankrupt) was a loser to some thou-
sands in this company. The company had got his bond for
7,0001. Henry Goldsmith, Sir James Anderson, the well-
known steam-engine inventor, and a Mr. Mansell, were also
engaged in the company.
Mr. STURGEON—Do you believe Mansell contributed 100/.
to the company ? Bankrupt-4 do.
Mr. STURGEON—Was he not in the habit of sending to
you for Si. at a time for the uses of this " great" company ?
—He was.
time?—Sometimes,
The company was located in Broad-street and Whitechapel.
Mr. STRUGEON—Was the rent ever paid ?—No. The direc-
tors all ran away.
SunGxox —D id
when
Mr. Mansell was short of money.
he not contribute thirty shillings at
a
Mr. STURGEON—
And did Colonel Warner run ? H
away c
went abroad.
Mr. STURGEON—I believe Mansell is about another com-
pany ?—He is, but I am not.
Mr. STURGEON—No; you are only waiting for your cer•
tificate.
Bankrupt—Mr. Mansell was the manager. We did not
manufacture spirits.
Mr. STUROZoN—WiII you swear that you were worth 20/.
in 1843, beyond a reversion of 1,900/., which has now a
mortgage upon it to the extent of 4,0001. ? Bankrupt—l
was.
Mr. STURGEON—Was not a release of the mortgage of-
fered, upon paying five shillings in the pound? Bankrupt—
Not to my belief. I believe it was put down under the head
of losses ; but Mr. Lloyd made out my accounts, and I do not
understand them in the least.
The witness was here pressed as to certain policies of in-
surance, and, upon the balance-sheet being handed up,
His HoNoun observed that he never saw a balance-sheet
worse made up, and if it was intended for the purpose of con-
fusion, that intention was answered.
Mr. STURGEON—Your Honour, the accounts were all guess
work.
After a very lengthened discussion,
His HoNoun said—The case resolves itself into one of
reckless trading and insufficient accounts, and there is no
allegation that he has misapplied any of his clients' moneys.
If such had been the case, I should havo at once refused the
certificate. He has entered into that speculation of bill dis-
counting which is a most despicable branch of business, but
it does not appear that his transactions hare been very great
as a bill-broker, and there is only one single transaction of
eight gallons of gin in the other speculation of the British
Distillery Company's, the very names engaged in which
would have been enough to frighten any man, if they had
ever applied at this court. One had been an unfortuuate
brickmaker. Under all the circumstances of the case, having
regard to the youth of the bankrupt, and the protection of the
respectable branch of the profession,
the Court must suspend
the certificate for eighteen months.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Houtoyn.)

EM ExPARTE IDLNRY EJLiNUEL, IN - immANUEL AND ANUEL.

His Hoxona. JUDG
said--I have now to
ME NT.
on the give judgment up
application made by Henry Emanuel for certificate. No
opposition was made by the assignees or any other person,
and it was thereupon
suggested by Mr. Lawrence for the
bankrupt, that the Court was bound to grant the certificate
as a matter of course, and it was intimated that there was no
difference of opinion amongst the Commissioners on thig point.
I thought it right to mention the subject to my brother Com-
missioners before I finally disposed of the case. I am now
authorised by my
brother Commissioners to state that they
entirely concur in the opinion that it is the duty of the
Court, on the question of the allowance of the certificate,
whether opposed or not, to have regard to the conformity of
the bankrupt to the laws of bankruptcy, and to his con-
duct as a trader, as well before as after his bankruptcy ; and
that in the absence of any objection brought forward by
assignees or creditors, the conformity and conduct of the
bankrupt must be tested bye, in which the assignees
the balance-sheet and exa-
minations. In case; therfor
express themselves satisfied with the bankrupt, and
assent to the allowance of the certificate, the
Court will not be astute in discovering impropriety
in his conduct
; but wherever fraud or gross mis-
conduct are apparent, the bankrupt cannot be al-
lowed to have his certificate forthwith. Now in this case, the
bankrupts carried on a very extensive business as goldsmiths
'
and jewellers, and the father and a brother had both retired
with ample fortunes, and the circumstances of this case
would have led one to believe that these bankrupts would
have realised an independence in a few years. The miscon-
duct of one of the bankrupts (Henry Emanuel) caused a sad
reverse. Ile did not confine his attention to his own lucra-
tive business, but unfortunately embarked too deeply in spe-
culation and in accommodation, and as one false step often
suggests a second more faulty, under the delusive hope of ob-
taining the desired end, he allowed himself to have recourse
to means which must since have been to him the subject of
bitter regret, involving in their consequence not only his own
ruin, but that of his partner and brother, as well as a great
diminution in the amount of assets which might have been
applicable exclusively
to the payment of the bond fide part •
nership debts. The bankruptcy was then occasioned by
Henry Emanuel accepting bills in the name of the firm to a
very large amount (somewhat exceeding 50,0001.), for pur-
poses not connected with the partnership, and this was done
without the knowledge or consent of his partner. The greater
portion (about 30,0000 of the money raised on these bills-
was for the purposes of Henry Emanuel himself; and part of
it, about 6,4004 Wail taken for the We of a oPeculation in ‘

the exportation of preserved provisions, in which Henry
Emanuel was engaged with two other persons of the name
of Blogg and Lyon Samuels, and the remainder (about
14,000/0 was a balance of liabilities incurred for the ac
commodation of this same Lyon Samuels. Thus the joint
estate, by the act of Henry Emanuel, without his part-
ner's knowledge or consent, is charged with the 50,0001.
Such is the misconduct of Henry Emanuel appearing upon
the face of the balance-sheet, and how is it answered? It

is said, on his behalf, that the assignees believe he was the
dupe and tool of others. Whatever palliation of his conduct
such an excuse might afford in a poor, doltish, ignorant
offender, it can have no weight in the case of one of the first
traders in the city of London. Looking to the position of
Henry Emanuel in the mercantile world, the Court must of
necessity assume, that when lie used the name of the firm
for purposes foreign to the partnership, he was acting in direct
contradiction to the clear evidence of his own understanding.
He must have known and felt that he was committing
an act of gross injustice and fraud to.,vards his own
partner, and the creditors of the partnership. The con-
venience of commerce may require that in certain cases one
partner in trade should be able to bind another without his
previous knowledge or consent, but the incalculable mischief
which an abuse of this power may effect, and the facility
with which a partner may create such obligations on a firm,
make it imperative upon the Court, in regarding the conduct
of a bankrupt, to visit severely any breach of the confidence
thus unavoidably reposed in partners. Having then duly
considered all the circumstances of this case, an bearing in
mind the previous good conduct of the bankrupt, and the
course he pursued in conjunction with his brother, for the
general benefit of the creditors, as soon as he found the irre-
trievable ruin which he had brought upon the house, the
Court does not feel called upon to refuse the certificate alto-
gether, but " to do even law and execution right to all," the
case is one which demands a long suspension. The judg-
ment of the Court, therefore, is, that the allowance of the
certificate of the bankrupt, Henry Emanuel, be suspended
for three years from the day of passing his last exam.iation.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. ,
HOME ClRCUlT.—Chelmsford, July 15.
The Commission for the county of Essex was opened
on Monday, but owing to the pressure of business at
Hertford, it was postponed from the usual hour, and as
neither of the Learned Judges were able to leave
Hertford until very late in the day, the ceremony of
opening the Commission was performed by Mr. Sergeant
Dowling. Both Courts commenced business on Tuesday
morning; and Mr. Justice Coltman, who sat on the civil
side, was occupied the whole of that day, and the greater
part of yesterday, in disposing of a case which was made
a remnant from the last assizes, and in which the only
question involved was the title to a small piece of green
sward by the road side at Brentwood. Mr. Baron Parke
was engaged nearly the whole of yesterday in trying
charges of criminal assaults upon females, the details of
which are of course unfit for publication,

NORTHERN CIRCCIIT.—York, July 14.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.)
John Holmes, aged 30, was indicted for having, on the 13th
of December last, at Sheffield, forged a bill of exchange for
the sum of 39/. 12s. Gd., purporting to be a bill drawn by
George Harpur and Co., of Liverpool, upon James Simpson
and Co., of Chester, and endorsed by the former party to the
prisoner, with intent to defraud one William Carlile. There
were counts for uttering the bill with knowledge of the
forgery.
Mr. Overend and Mr. Phillips appeared for the prosecution,
and Mr. Bliss for the defence.

The prosecutor, William Carlile, is a table knife manufac-
turer of Sheffield, and the prisoner, with whom he had pre-
viously had dealings in business, was at the time of the
offence a buyer and seller of the same kind of goods. On
the 13th of December last the prisoner, being then indebted
in a balance to the prosecutor, sent for him to the house, and
told him that, having been buying some goods, he (the pri-
soner) was short of cash; but the prisoner then showed a
case, which he said contained the goods, and told Mr. Carlile
I that if he would cash a bill which he (the prisoner) had,
that would enable him to pay for those goods, and at the
same time pay something towards the prosecutor's debt.
The bill was accordingly given to Carlile, who, looking at
the name Harpur and Co., asked prisoner if that was " one
of their old houses." The prisoner replied, "No ; it was one
of his own finding." He added that Mr. Harpur was a gen-
tleman, and showed Mr. Carlile a printed card, on the back
of which, in manuscript, there was " George Harpur and
Co., ship-brokers, Fenwick Chambers, Liverpool." Being sa-
tisfied with this, the prosecutor took the bill, and procured
cash for it at the Rotherham and Sheffield Bank, where he
kept an account. He then returned to the prisoner, and paid
him the whole proceeds, deducting only the sum of 1/. 195.,
which before had been agreed on between them. This bill
was at two months, dated the 10th of December, aad would
come due on the 13th February. The prosecutor heard
nothing more until the 14th of February last, when the pri-
soner's daughter called upon him, bringing another bill from
her father for 45/. 12s. 6d. This bill the prisoner wished Mr.
Carlisle to procure cash for. It bore the name of R. Harri-
son and Co., Liverpool, as drawers, and that of James Baker
and Co., of Hereford, as acceptors. It was dated the sth of
February, and made payable in two months. Mr. Carlile
at first would not take it; but the daughter again came with
it on the 16th of February. He then took it, and carried it
to the same bank, where he learnt that the former bill had
been returned unpaid, and of that he went and informed the
prisoner, who said he was very sorry for it, but that if Mr.
Carlile could get the second bill cashed, the first might be
taken up ; that he, the prisoner, was going to Liverpool in a
few days, and would then make it all right. On being in-
formed that the people at the bank said it was a forgery, the
prisoner said that was owing to the difference in writing
caused by the difference in steel pens when used to sign with,
and took several pens to show Mr. Carlile how much variety
they would occasion in a signature. Referring to Harrisons,
the drawers of the second bill, he said they were respectable
persons, and shippers in Liverpool, and he exhibited a news-
paper, saying that their name was in it. Evidence was fur-
ther given, by which it was shown that all the names used
on the bills were those of fictitious parties.
Mr. BLIS3 submitted whether it was right to lay the facts
touching the second bill before the jury, they forming the
subject-matter of another indictment now pending against
prisoner;the but

His Laumine considered the evidence to be proper, and
coincided in the opinion of Lord Denman, who had already
decided the same question in the same way.
Mr. Biss then, in his address to the jury, insisted that there
was not only an absence of proof as to any act of forgery, but
also of any guilt in the fact of uttering. In the first place, it
was not at all improbable that the prisoner, being a factor,
and constantly buying and selling, might be imposed upon
by some other person, the real sharper representing himself
by the name of llarpur. The desire of effecting a sale of
goods very often induced the seller to accept a questionable
security for the money. llarpur was the only person with
whom he had pretended any acquaintance, and to verify such
acquaintance he had produced a card, which very probably
he might actually have received from some person in whom
he was induced by that means to put confidence. Secondly,
it was unnatural for the prisoner, if he had known the first
toll to be a forgery, knowingly to send his daughter with
another forged bill on the 14th, the day after the first be-
came due, and again to send the same bill on the 16th.

His Loßnsmi said, there had been no evidence of a
forgery by the prisoner, and left it to the jury as a case of
uttering with a guilty knowledge.
The prisoner was convicted.—Sentence deferred.

Jane Gregory, 21, Sarah Stocks, 17, and Hannah Grun-
well, 20, stood jointly indicted of having, on the 14th of
June last, at Leeds, feloniously and violently assaulted Joseph
Lund, and stolen from his person a half-crown, 35., and
two sixpences, his property.

Mr. Ellis and M. Hill appeared for the prosecution; the
prisoners were undefended by counsel.
Joseph Lund, a dyer, of Bramwell, near Leeds, stated that
on the night of the 13th of last month he came to Leeds
along with two others, a man named Duckworth and one
Leopold George Frederick Monks. They went to several
public-houses in the course of the evening, and finally to a
house in Mill Garth-street, where they saw some women at
the door. The prosecutor, who is a married man, went into
the house along with his companions, but finding it to be
one of disreputable character, he went out again, and re-
mained for some time in a yard adjoining. They were then
looking for a lodging. A policeman came up, and in con-
sequence of what he said, Lund again entered the house to
see his companions. He found them there, and also two
other men, and the three prisoners at the bar. Lund, and
the two men with him, were invited to go to bed there, and
had rooms shown them, hut he did not go to bed. He did
go up stairs, however, and while there the prisoner Grun-
well came into the same room, and wanted him to go to bed,
which he declined to do. Gregory followed her in, and en-
deavoured to put her hands into his pockets, and on his re-
sisting her attempt, she demanded sixpence of him, which
he gave her. Grunwell had then left the room, and then
the prisoner Stocks entered it ; and the latter and Gregory
both made attempts to pick his pocket. They said that
they would let him go if he would give them another six-
pence, which he gave them accordingly. Gregory then
called out for the poker, which was immediately brought
into the room by some female, and Gregory took
it, and after doing so, demanded a shilling_from
Lund. He refused that, and she struck him Eur
or
five times across the breast with the poker, the other two pri-
soners being present, one on his right and the other on his left
both beating him and pulling his hair. He was then stand-
ing against the wall, and while in that position Gregory got
her hand into his waistcoat-pocket, and took from it the sum
mentioned, which was all the money he had then left. They
then pulled him about the room, and pitched him upon the
bed. Having got up again, and towards the door, they
pushed him down stairs, and then he went out of the house
to seek a policeman. His face was covered with blood from
the ill-treatment he had received. The companion, Duck-
worth, proved that Grunwell was the person who brought the
poker into the room, and that Stocks pushed Lund down the
stairs.