The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-05 00:00:00

A fair business is doing in East India at Is 3d to is 3d
pror, :•tvi fi7C !q!_!:
maid for Brandy, and the market is in a firm pesttiou.
Cognac, best brands of the vintage of 1850, realised
4s 5d to 4a 7d; 1849 ditto, 4s 7d to 4s 9d; 1848 ditto,
5s Id to 5s 3d; older 5s 6d to 63 4d; low to mid quali-
ties 2s 9d to 3s 10d, and Bordeaux 2s 2d to 2s 3d. A
brisk demand exists for British made Spirit at 9a 5d to
93 6d cash; for Gin at 7s 10d for 22 under proof.
Geneva has been sold to a fair extent, common at is 6d
to is Si;, and fine at Is 9d to 2s.
COCHINEAL.—To-day rather lower rates were taken.
Of 250 bags Honduras at auction, rather more than half
sold; low to good silver 2s 93 to 3s 2d, good to fine
blacks 3s Id to 4s 6d. The value of Mexican silvers is
23 9d to 2s 11d, end black 33 24 to 3s 7d. Stock is 1,600
bags over that of last year, but there is an excess in
deliveries of 2,600 bags.
SALTPETRE.—TO day the market was more freely
supplied with Calcutta. and a reduction in prices of 6d
per cwt took place. Of 2,990 bags at auction a email
portion only sold; refraction 9 per cent went at 25s 6d
to 265. 8:1 to 12 do 24s 6d to 255, fine 5 ditto 27s 6d.
FRlllT.—Currants: New, 35s to 38s, and Old 23s to
33s per ewt. Valencia Raisins, new 38s, and old 27s to
293. Muscatels from 65s to 90s, and bunch 46s to 52a.
In New Turkey Figs the present value is from 38s to
653. Sultanas New can be obtained at 56s per cwt.
INDlGo.—Since the termination of the quarterly sales
of East India, few transactions have taken place for
shipping or home consumption. Spanish has been in
fair request at previous rates, Floras selling at 4s 10d
to 5s Id; Sobres 4s to 4s 9d; cortes good to fine 3s 8d
to 4s 3d; mid 3s to 3s 6d; ord to low Is to 2s 10d,
TALLOW.—Fine old Russian yellow candle can be ob-
tained at 36s 6d to 375, and new at 37s 6d. Home
melted has been in good request, but at 375, net cash,
there are sellers. Supply being plentiful, other
sorts of Tallow met with little notice and
• easier rates are acceded to. At auction , 300 casks
Australian were mostly disposed of : Beef at
36s 6d to 37s 9d; Sheep 33s 6d to 37s 6d; 290 oaks
American at 35s to 369 6d for mid to good, 100 tons
Petersburg Yellow candle 35s 6d to 36s 9d, and 150 caks
soap Tallow 35s to 35s 6d. For auction 500 packages
are declared.
Oms.—Prices have slightly given way for Sperm, but
a good business in consequence has been concluded, and
at auction 85 tons were sold at 841 to 861 ss. The limited
transactions in Cod have been at 33/ 10a to 341, and mer-
chants appear disposed to sell. A brisker demand prevails
for Seal, and rates are now firm, pale realized 32110 s to 331
At auction small parcels of straw yellow,_ and tinged
sold at 301 103 to 311 10s. Southern continues to
attract little notice, and the present value of low to
fine quality is from 291 10s to 30/. Of East India
Fish Oils 20 tons at auction were sold at 261. to
27/. There is a reluctance to purchase in
Linseed Oil, although there are sellers on the
spot at 29s to 29s 3d, and for delivery at 283 6d per cwt.
Rape Seed Oil met with a good demand, yet brown
can be obtained at 30s to 303 6d; pale 31s to 31s 6d, and
refined Foreign 32s 6d to 335. Cocoa Nut is not much
cheaper, but there is less doing, and at auction 500
packages were only in part sold, Cochin at 34s 6d
to 35s 6d; Ceylon 32s 6d; but English made 365; and
Sydney at 27s 6d to 31s per cwt; for Palm there are
sellers of fine at 37s
.to 37s 6d. Operations in Olive
have been important. Gallipoli at 41/ to 421; and other
sorts 39/ 103 to 401 103 per tun. Lard Oil is sold for
50s to 51s 6d; Ground Nut 31s to 3s, and Teel Seed
23s 63 to 32s per cwt.

an attorney carrving on horsiness at Crosbdcilie-mheee,
,Z„ g.-..:e-,.;;eo; :•/, V. The t.-
tormee, itlaria Harrison, weilst residing with her mar-
riA sister, a Mrs. Lock, in the neighbourhood of
Russell-square, was confined in the month of November,
1845, of an illegitimate child. Subsequently, being de-
sirous of obtaining employment, she applied to the bos-
pitals and other places for the situation of a wet nurse. Ul-
timately she was engaged in that capacity to take charge
of a male inCant of the defendant, at the rate of 128. a
week, which sum she was duly paid for the care of such
child up to May, 1846, when the boy became very ill.
By the advice of the doctor it was then removed for
change of air to the care of her mother, the present
plaintiff, who kept the child until the month of July,
1850. the defendant paying her from time to time various
sums of money .for the service rendered to it. The
plaintiff, however, claimed a balance of 91. kb being still
due to her in respect to the little boy, although this itein
formed no part of the subject matter of the present
action. After the boy had been committed to the care
of Maria Harrison, the defendant married his present
wife, by whom he had a female child, who was also con-
signed to the care the plaintiff. who now sought to
recover her claim for the services thus rendered to it.
Sarah Harrison, the plaintiff, having sworn to the
truth of the above statement, further said that in about
a week after the boy had been placed with her the de-
fendant called upon her, and agreed to pay her 108. a
week for him. Mrs. Dunn brought her infant to her for
the purpose of weaning her, and she was in the habit of
calling repeatedly to see the little girl. The defendant
had not called on her for a considerable time. When
the children were taken away from witness there
was 121. due to her for the care of the boy, but
she did not receive a farthing on account of the girl.
Whenever she spoke to the defendant upon this subject
he said ho should first pay up what was due for the boy
before he settled her claim for his daughter. After the
children had been taken from her she and her daughter
Maria called upon the defendant at his office, and there
received 3/. on account of what was due for the boy, and
he ordered a paper to be drawn up by his clerk, which
he said would show how much be owed her, in case of
the death of either of them. This paper she signed, but
she unfortunately left it in the office behind her. Called
subsequently upon the defendant, and asked him for 51.,
expressing at the same time her surprise that he had
not performed his promise to her. The defendant
stated that he was unable to give her any money. She
then threatened not to leave the office until she obtained
some money from him, when the defendant said if she
did not leave he would be obliged to remove her. She
did not ask him for anything for the girl because he
had often said that he should first settle for the boy.
Cross-examined—There never was any arrangement
made as to what I was to be paid for the two children.
Here a number of documents relating to the receipt of
various sums of money from time to time by the plaintiff
from the defendant, were handed to the witness, when
she acknowledged that the name signed to them was in
her hand-writing.
Her testimony having been corroborated by her three
daughters,
A female of the name of Jennings stated she bad
heard the defendant say that his two children cost 11. a
week-10s. for each, and that he should bring them
home in order to save expense.
In her cross-examination, it appeared that'the defen-
dant had brought an action against this lady's husband
in the County Court, to recover the sum of 201., being
money lent to him, and had obtained a verdict for that
amount.

Mr. PARNELL addressed the jury on behalf of the
defendant, and gave a very different account of the mat-
ter. He said that according as the little boy had grown
the original sum of 12s. a week was gradually reduced
to lOs , to Ba., end ultimately to 10s. fur the two chil-
dren. He read several of those documents to which the
plaintiff had affixed her signature acknowledging the
payment from time to time of sums of money for the
maintenance of the " children." One of those receipts
purported to be a final settlement of the plaintiff's claim.
The Defendant was then ex,imined, and deposed to
the truth of this statement. When he paid the plaintiff
at his office the 31. balance which he owed her, so tar
from her being dissatisfied, or making any further claim
against him, she thanked him for his kindness to her,
and said that the removal of the children would be a great
loss to her, as she had depended upon the money she
received for them for the payment of her rent. lie
thanked her for her attention to them, and
said that he would give her 21. more if she
brought back the little articles of linen belonging to
them. In the month of May last she and her daughter
came down to his private residence at Kingsland to see
his children, and they took tea there. She then asked
forgiveness for not returning the little things belonging
to the children, and confessed that they had been worn
by her daughter's boy. The first intimation he received
of any claim of this character being made against him
was in a letter from the plaintiff's attorney, which reached
him ou the 30th of June last.

In his cross-examination, several questions were pat
to the witness calculated to prejudice his character, and
as they were not quite relevant to the point at issue, and
as they were all satisfactorily answered, we do
not think it necessary to give them. It appears, how-
ever, that some former transaction of an unpleasant
character, in which the plaintiff's attorney and
defendant were concerned, had generated a feel-
ing of no friendly nature between these two gentlemen,
Wyatt, clerk to the defendant, corroborated the
above testimony, as far as it regarded the plaintiff's
claim. He drew up the account at the request of the
plaintiff, when she came to his master's office for the
balance that was due to her, and saw her sign her re-
ceipt to it on being handed the 31. He was obliged to
erase several of the figures which he had put down, be-
clause she objected to the account being drawn out in
the manner he at first had written it. She said it was
for nursing two children, and when she was paid the 31.
she expressed herself perfectly satisfied. The account
was fully completed before the defendant arrived at the
office. She called subsequently at the office for the pur-
pose of asking for the 21. present which she said the de-
fendant promised her upon her bringing back something
belonging to the children. She, however, never brought
them back.
On the defendant's wife being called as a witness,
Mr. PRENTICE took an objection to the wife being
examined, as he did not think that the late Act autho-
rised such a proceeding in a case of this kind.
Mr. Justice ERLE said that the exception in the Act
was in respect to the examination of a wife against her
husband in criminal cases. In other cases he thought
that the wife was a competent witness.
Mr. PRENTICE said that the ;wife was not excluded
giving evidence on the ground of interest, but of policy.
The Act did not say anything whatever as to the wife
giving evidence.
Mr. Justice ERLE observed that that the fact of an
exceptiongis,
atu irn e beingconsidered
si made in respect to a wife giving evi-
dence
criminalde the wife a competent witness in
matters showed clearly that the Le-
other matters.
Mrs. Dann was then examined in support of her hus-
band's statement.
Mr. PRENTICE, in his reply, commented most for-
cibly upon the fact of the bodies of these documents
red
given in evidence having been drawn up by the defen-
dant, with the exception of two, which were drawn •np
by the plaintiff. This accounted for the mention of
"children" in the former, and the absence of such a.
word in the latter. He also called attention to' the
number of alterations made in the figures in the -last
document, which purported to be a receipt for the en-
tireclaim.
this was the first c :se which came within the operation
of the important Act of last session, and although in the
judgment of the jury one of the parties must have sworn
to what was false, yet from the circumstance of all per-
sona
o p
thef
caseo being competent to give
evidence, netchteeyd
mustwi h
opinion that the inquiry was
Justice ERLE, in his summing up,
renia ed that
Mr.
n
more satisfactory than if any party or persons had been
excluded from giving evidence,
The jury retired, and after a short absence returned
into curt with a verdict for the plaintiff for the full
amount claimed.
be

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 4.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Baron MARTIN and a
Common Jury.)
MIDDLEMASB V. HOOKER.

This case derived its interest chiefly from being the
first in this court in which the parties themselves were
examined undor the recent Act for the amendment of
the law of evidence.

• Mr. James, Q.C., and Mr. Locke appeared for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Hawkins for the de-
fendant.

Mr. JAMES stated that the plaintiff was an engineer
and mechanist, and that an agreement was entered into
by him to make a 4-horse engine fur the defendant for
the sum of 1001. The defendant, however, who was to
furnish the boiler, sent one calculated for a 6-horse en-
gine, and the plaintiff was obliged to do the rest of the
work upon a corresponding scale. The question would
simply be whether the original contract had not been
rescinded and another substituted. It could not be that
the defendant was to have a 6-horse engine for the price
of a 4-horse. The plaintiff bad only been paid 1071. He
was entitled to 1501.
The plaintiff was then called as a witness.
Mr. KNOWLES took a preliminary objection, that the
Act did not apply
to actions commenced before it came
into operation.
His LORDSHIP ruled thatit applied to all actions com-
menced or to be commenced.
The plaintiff was then examined—l entered into an
oe 2 s
boiler.l 60. hors©3.f, r
eHeig boiler.
htmade
weeks,
I notoldanswer.
according
theco
agreement with defendant to make a 4-horse steam en-
L
gine on the 30th September, 1850. Hooker found the
patterns; he said they were for a 4-horse engine. He
sentr
rddenf defendant
to The
n
and then stopped. I stopped the work when defendant
stopped payment. That was six weeks before it was
finished. I told defendant I could not go on without
more money. He said I must finish the work, and then
he would see about the payment. He said I must stick
to the agreement. I said, I could not do it for the money.
I then went on with the work again but did not get any
money for a fortnight. I then got 21. I got 311. alto-
gether in money. When the work was finished I asked
for a settlement. He laughed at me. He said he would
abide by the agreement; he had paid me amply. I said
I had not had enough money for the job, because the
material came to more money than I expected. The
boiler, being a 6-horse one, came to more than a 4-horse
boiler would, nod as he furnished it he deducted a larger
price than he ought from what I was to be paid. A -
horse boiler requires the other work in proportion.
Cross-examined by Hr. KNOWLES—I began the work
directly after the agreement. I did not see the boiler
till the bricklayer came to fix it. That was six weeks
after. The materials were to be deducted from the 1001
He ordered the boiler, because I should not }rise got
credit. lam in a very small way. In fact the job has i
driven me to be a journeyman, so I could not be very;

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING,

NOVEMBER 5, 1851.

well Rtnaller• The en.ine wasi, un in Ftibrutr7

.11:usr3.rvas- littio jot, rrtp,,,--tt- ,:t% I
mig;.t have said words to the effect that tats would come
to more money than I had agreed for. I always told him
it was a good 6-horse engine. I don't know whether he
said that if I had made it a 6-horse engine it was my own
fault, as he only wanted. a 4-horse.
Re-examined—The labour which I did was from cast-
ings or patterns sent to me by defendant. After I had
been working some time I found these patterns were for
a 6-horse engine, and ho has get a 6-horse.
By the JUDGE —I did not give the dimensions to the
iron-founder tor the castings. The defendant did so. I
merely looked at the patterns. We look at the bore of
the engine to ascertain the power. I did not see till
the cylinder was bored that it was for a 6 horse. I
stop the work then, but I went on again when defen-
dant found. me more money. lie said h 9 would see
about the reyment.
William Anderson, an engieeer—l saw the work at.
the plain4f's factory when it was half-finished. I saw
that it was a 6• horse engine. _ _

William Antrobus, of cabinetmaker—l accompanied
defendant to the plaintiff's factory. Plaintiff Raid it was
a 6-horse engine. I asked the price. I knew what was
the price agreed upon. Plaintiff said he must have more
money for it. Defendant made no remark upon this.
This was when the cylinder went home.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. KNOWLES submitted that the plaintiff must be
non-suited, as there was no evidence that the agreement
was rescinded.

His LORDSHIP declined to stop the case.
Mr. KNOWLES then addressed the jury for the defend-
ant, and contended that even the plaintiff's evidence
showed that the contract had not been in any way re-
scinded. If a 6-horse engine had been made, it was the
plaintiff's own affair. He had no right to call on de-
fendant for more than the, stipulated sum; but in fact it
was no more than a 4 horse engine. Nothing had been
said to defendant of its being more until after the job
was finished. The defendant would be called, and it
would be for the jury to judge between the two parties.
He should say nothing as to the policy of the law which
had been recently passed, except that he feared the
man of strongest nerve would frequently appear the
best witness.

The defendant, Peter Hooper, was then called as a
witness. He said—l am a printing-press maker. Be-
fore entering into the agreement with the plaintiff, I
went to Mr. Parry, the founder, and was shown patterns
of 4-horse engines. I ordered patterns for a four-
horse engine. Parry said he had a set. Those patterns
were approved of by Mr. Middlemass. The agresment
was never varied by my cement. The moneys which I
advanced him after ho left off were to enable hint to get
the materials to finish with. Mr. Middlemass gave the
orders for the castings himself. I never heard before
the engine was set up, on the Ist of February, that it
was a 6-horse engine. The amount paid by me for
the materials was 761. When the engine was put up, I
said it was done in a slovenly manner. Plaintiff said,
" Slovenly as it may be, I shall make you pay a great
deal more than was agreed for, for it is a 6-horse, not
a 4." I said if it was he had made it on his own re.
sponsibility. I never heard from him again till this
action was commenced. Till then it had never been in-
timated that it was a 6-horse.

Cross-examined—l have offered to let a part of my
premises with steam power. I have no engine but this,
and have not represented that it was a 6 horse engine.
When the plaintiff left off, he said he did so because he
wanted money. He said nothing about the agreement.
tliddlemass gave the orders to Parry in my presence.
I offered the plaintiff 101. and the costs to settle the
matter. I had then had a verdict against me. When
Antrobus was present at plaintiff's, nothing whatever
was said about. the engine being a 6 -horse. Nothing of
the kind was said.

Mr. Hooker, the father of the defendant--I wlia pre-
sent when the engine was put up. The plaintiff said to
my son, "It will come to more than you are aware of,
for it is a 6-horse engine." My son said, "If it ie, you
have mule it on your own responsibility. I only ordered
a 4. and only wanted a 4."
Mr. Horton, butler maker—We made the boiler for
this engine; it was 12 feet by Bi. I should say ic would
not do for a 6-horse engine. It was a good 4-horte

Mr. Parry was again called, and said—The plaintiff
and de endant came to me and asked fur the patterns for
a 4-horse engine. I show. d them some I had bought as
a 4-horse. One of the patterns was marked as far a 4-
horse. Mr. Middlemas gave me the order, awl Mr.
Hooker said he would see me paid.
Mr. Farmer, an engineer, stated that he had known
the patterns for many years; they were standard pat-
terns for a 4-horse engine.
Mr. JAMES having replied,

His LORDSHIP summed up, and said that it had been
hitherto thought that plaintiffs and defendants were not
proper persona to be examined in their own cause; that
their interest Was ton strong to allow them to be relied
on to tell the truth; but now, in coneequence of the ex-
perience of the County Courts, a relaxation of the old
rule had been introduced; and certainly, the judges were
all anxious to give the new law a fair trial, and would be
glad to find that it was an improvement in the law. His
Lordship then went through the evidence, and left it to
the jury to say whether there had been anything to put
an end to the agreement which had been entered into
between the parties. If a 4-horse engine had been or-
dered, the plaintiff wits not entitled to be paid for a 6,
though he might have made it.
The jury, after a lengthened consideration, returned a
verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 4.
IN RE ROBINSON.

•1

(pin. au! plaintiff to prove what Conlideradou gftve
for the 13111. . .

The bankrupt was a cornfactorand bill broker, of
Brompton and Trinity-square. His accounts commenced
on the Ist of April, 1847, when he had a capital of
13,2151., his debts were about 6,000/., and the assets are
estimated to realize about 1,0001.; the losses are about
14,0001.; expenses, 5,5921.
Mr. Hilleary appeared for the bankrupt, and Mr. Link-
later for the assignees, who did not oppose; and
The bankrupt passed his examination.
IN RE J. WESTLEY.

The CHIEF COMMISSIONER thought there was siruply
a case made out against the insolvent, but divested of
every circumstance ordinarily attendant upon such cases,
and it was question whether the amount of injury
which the creditor had sustained was not fully satisfied
by the length of time the insolvent had already been in
prison at his suit. a period of between tour arid five
naontlis. Tiimugh the kindness and liberality of the
father, all the bond fide tradesmen's debts were paid, and
the case relieved of their pressure. A judgna,nt would
be pronounced for having put the creditor to unnecessary
expense by a VP/011.0111:4 plea. hut the sinoun: of injury
tieing but small, thf, judgment would be but a in,re
nornmel reiniurt. If it had not be,--m for the fact
the meritorieus creditors born paid iird rem,sod
from the schedule, the case would h:tve assumed a dif-
ferent aspect, and the Court would have gone into the
whole schedule snd the dealings with all tl,e creditors,
and they would have formed a matter for serious consi-
deration. The case must be adjourned, but when the
insolvent came up again a mere nominal remand would
be pronounced at Mr. Cooke's suit. _ _ .

The bankrupt'was a bookbinder in Playhouse•yard.
An adjournment was asked for and granted. The debts
are said to be about 16,0004, and the assets are un-
certain.

The cane was then adjourned to complete a defective
service.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Nov. 4,

(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, Astlitaat-Ju.lge, and a

Bench of Magistrates, at Clerkenwell.)
Edward Foy, who was found guilty at the last ses-
sions at Westminster of a series of violent assaults, was
placed at the bar to receive judgment. The assaults of
which the prisoner was convicted, it will be recollected,
were committed while he was under the influence of
drink; and it was urg,d on his behalf that he had just
prior saved the lives of several persons from a fire in
Hayes-court, Sobo.
The Learned JUDGE said this did not excuse the pri-
soner's extraordinary conduct, but it was a matter which
went a long way in extenuation of his offence. The sen-
tence would be one month's imprisonment in the House
of Correction.

Mr. Linklater appeared for the assignees, and Mr.
Lawrance for the bankrupt.

William Ford, 25, and Thomas Hillier, 21, were in-
dicted for assaulting Thomas Cottle.
It appeared that the prosecutor was potboy at the
Harrow public-house in High-street, Poplar; and on
the 20th ult. he was a witness at a police-court against
two men named Drew and Palmer, who were afterwards
tried and convicted in this court for a robbery, and a
man named Sotcber for an assault. It appeared that
Ford had before Drew and Palmer were tried threatened
the prosecutor. The defendants having taken umbrage
in consequence of his having given evidence against
their friends committed a violent assault upon him while
on his way home. The injury sustained was very severe,
the instrument used being an iron pipo.

BRISTOL COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 4.
(Before Commissioner Mr. Sergeant STEPHEN.)

The jury found the dt;iendants
Ford was sentenced to 12 months', and Hillier to 6
months' imprisonment, both with hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Robert Martin was brought up charged with stealing
a watch and guard, value about 61., the property of Mr.
Henry, of Francis-street, Waterloo-road.
Thomas Childs said—l am a groom, and have lately
been in the employ of a gastitter on Snow-hill. I met
with the prisoner last night, who requested me, after
some conversation, to go and drink with him. A gen-
tleman who was standing by offered to join us, and we
went into a public-house and called for some gin, which
the gentleman (prosecutor) offered to pay for, but on
feeling his pockets he discovered he had no money, and
offered his ratch and guard to the landlord as security
for payment. This the landlord refused, neon which the
prisoner took the watch and guard from the gentleman'a
hand and said,'• No, you shall not do that; I'll pay for
the gin myself." We left that house and went into
another, where we had something else to drink; after
whieh we went to a third house, where the prisoner
a►krd the gentleman to stand some brandy, which was
boon drunk; and we then proceeded down the Old
Bailey, about the middle of which the gentleman ,at
down on a door step. being too drunk to proceed any
further. The prisoner left him there. and wag
walking off with the watch and guard, hur,
called him back and desired hun to see the gentleman
home. I asked the gentleman where he lived, but he
was unable to tell me distinctly, and prisoner then in-
sisted upon leaving him to take care of himself. I fol-
lowed prisoner and demanded the watch, but he refused
to give it me. I continued to follow him until we
reached Fleet-street, when he turned round, and, giving
me the guard, said, " There, take that, and go a►oeg."
I refused to leave him, and when we got to St. Pant's
prisoner took the guard trona me, and said, " Now you
shall have nothing at all, and if you follow me I'll knock
you down." I however kept him in view along Cheap-
side, Lombard-street, Fenchurch-street, and a variety of
other turnings, until at length we arrived at Hoxton.
Prisoner offered to fight me, and I said, " Well, Jack's
as good as his master at that," and prepared to have a
fall with him; but he declined, and then entered a public-
house in the High-street, where he proposed to deposit
the watch with the landlord, upon which I offered to do
the same with mine, as a guarantee to the landlord to
keep the gentleman's watch till I called for mine, as I
intended to restore it to the owner. Prisoner then re-
fused to do so, and left the house; and when we got out-
aide he struck me on the face, and I gave him into cus-
tody for stealing the watch.
Alderman LAWRENCE—Then you did not charge him
with the assault? Witness—No, Sir.

RE WILLIAMS AND CO.-NEWPORT OLD DANK:

Alderman LAWRENCE—But why did you not give him
into custody when you were in St. Paul's Churchyard?
Why, Sir, because I followed him about.
Alderman LAWRENCE—What induced you to leave the
gentleman in such a helpless state? Witness—Because
I wanted to get his watch from the prisoner.
Alderman LAWRENCE—Did you know the gentleman,
then? Witness—No, Sir; he was an entire stranger
to me.

Alderman LAWRENCE—Then why not have given the
prisoner into custody in the first.instance, instead of fol-
lowing him about from half-past five in the afternoon till
nine o'clock? Witness—Because I knew prisoner was
in the same line as myself, and did not like to charge
him while I thought I could get the watch from hiss
without.
Alderman LAWRENCE—If you know the prisoner,
there was no occasion for you to have left the gentle-
man. Witness—The prisoner was a stranger to me. I
never saw him before.
Cross-examined by prisoner—l did offer prisoner 10s.
for the watch. Ho did not say he would not take it
because he intended to return the watch to the gentle-
man. He promised to give me his address, but did not.
He was drunk, but I was sober at the time when I gave
him into custody.
Prosecutor said—l recollect nothing whatever of this
transaction ; but the watch and guard produced are
mine.
Alderman LAWRENCE—Were you so drunk, then, as
not to remember when you last hat your watch safe?
Prosecutor—l know I had it safe while I was in Barbi-
can, at halt-past four o'clock in the afternoon.
Alderman LAWRENCE—Did you lose any money be-
sides? Prosecutor—l cannot tell, for I did not miss tay
watch till I awoke from a long sleep and found myself
locked up in the police-station. I could not have lost
much, as I took but a very little out with me in the
morning. _

This was a meeting for the choice of assignees. A
sitting for proof of debts was also held yesterday and to-
day, when proofs were put in making, with the sum
proved before the registrar (Mr. Tuckett) at Newport
last week, a total of upwards of 61,0001.
At the sitting yesterday the points raised were of a
purely technical character, and do not call for a report.
Mr. John Bates, banker, of Bristol, and Mr. Samuel
Homfray; of Monmouth, ironmaster, were appointed as-
signeesto the estate.

During the course of the proceedings it was intimated
that application would have to be made to the Court to
allow further sittings for proofs of debt, to be held at
Nosvp!at, as there was a large number of persons holding
54• notes who had not yet proved, and to whom it was
&Arable to save the expensa of coming to Bristol for
that purpose. Many of the parties were ill, and many
lived at a distance. They bad had sent in quite as large
•
iszkup;it.%ur of proofs as could be expected in four days.
`IE/V:SOL VENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 4.
~.(Belore the CIIIEF COMMISSIONER
'.4 IN RE ALFRED WALKER

Tnis insolvent, a young man of 24 years of age, de-
scribAd es of Trinity College, Cambridge, was opposed
by Mr. U:good on behalf of Mr. Robert Cooke and Mr.
Knight.
The iniAvent, upon being examined, said his debts
amounted to 4,1001., contracted since 1848, of which
amount about 3,5001. were debts arising from bets upon
billiards and horse-races, and upon bills for which no con-
sideration had been given.
Mr. COOKE informed the Court that the insolvent's
father had ptitd all the tradesmen's debts for goods sup-
plied, and they might be struck out of the schedule.
The insolvent further stated, that during the period
over which his debts extended he had been in receipt of
an allowance of 1501. a year from his father, but, finding
that insufficient, he tried to increase it by speculating
upon horse-races and billiards, and by the discount of
bills of exchange;
Mr. SARGOOD submitted, upon the authority of a case
decided by Mr. Commissioner Law, that the insolvent,
having resorted to betting and gambling as a source of
income, must-describe himself as "seeking to gain a
livelihood by batting upon horse-races, &c."
Mr. COOKE replied, that the case alluded to difftTed
materially from the present, as in that the insolvent
had really lived by his speculations upon the turf, while
in this the insolvent had a yearly allowance from his
father.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER said he shoUld not require
the description to be amended.
The insolvent, upon further examination, said he had
5921. owing to him on account of winning at cards,
billiards, and horse-races.
A clerk to the solicitor of Mr. R. Cooke proved that
the insolvent had pleaded to an action brought upon a
bill for 150/., accepted by him in favour of one William
Robinson. The costs amounted to 17/. 13s. 4d., and
would have been only 71. or 81. if there had been no plea.
Mr. COOKE read a statement in the schedule, admit-
ting the creditor for 201. only, except as to liability, the
insolvent having intrusted the bill to one Wallis to, get
discounted, who only gave him 20/. on account.
The witness stated that Mr. R. Cooke, the creditor,
was a gentleman who sometimes discounted bills, but he
could no tell what Wallis received for the bill. Wallis
was now a bankrupt.

Alderman LAWRENCE—If it's a fair question, pray,
bow much money did you take out? Prosecutor—Only
45., your Worship.
Alderman LAWRENCE—That is not such a great deal
to get so gloriously drunk upo❑ as you appear to have
been. You re4lty de,ervt,d to lose your cv:ach.
Prosecutor—l certainly do deserve 17, Sir.
The officer said when he took prisoner into custody.
he (prisoner) was perf-ictly sober, and on being
searcued a knife and a pair of pliers were fund upon
him.

The insolvent, upon examination by Mr. COOKE, said
he put his name to a bill for 1501., and gave it to Ro-
binson, who handed it to Wallis. He (insolvent) wished
to raise 1201. upon it, but Wallis only gave him 201.
His father hid, he believed, paid all the tradesmen's
debts, but refused to nuke any arrangement with the
other class of creditors, having dune so on a forn3er
occasion.

Alderman LAWRENCE--I am thoroughly satisfied that
the witness Childs and the prisoner were concerned to-
gether to rob this gentleman of his watch. I believe
that they may ❑ot have had any such intention in the
first instance, but, having obtained possession of the
watch they took him about from house to house until he
became stupid and insensible as to what might become
of him, and then left him to his fate. Childs could not
have had any honest intention in following the prisoner,
or why not have given him into custody at the first op-
portunity? instead of which ho accompanies him from
place to place for several hours. 'evidently not satisfied
with the guard as his share, and with the view of ob-
taining a more equal division of the spoil, but, meeting
only with disappoinquent, he then charges prisoner with
the robbery. Under these circumstances I shall order
Childs into the duck, and remand him with the prisoner
upon the same charge.
The witness Childs was then placed by the side of the
prisoner, and both were remanded.-

LAMETW.
Alice Brooks, a respectaß
ble-looking young woman,
was brought before Mr. Elliott, charged with uttering a
counterfeit half-crown to Richard Boor, a grocer, resi-
ding in Richmond-street, New Kent-road. She was
also charged with uttering a counterfeit crown piece to
Ann Thomas, the keeper of a general shop in Wey-
mouth-street.
Mr. Boor stated that about eight o'clock on the pre-
vious night the prisoner entered his shop, and requested
to be supplied with an ounce of tea and a pound of sugar,
for which she tendered a half-crown. Having lately
read a paragraph in the newspapers, cautioning persons
to be particular in taking half-crowns, as a vast number
of counterfeits were in circulation, he closely examined
the one she tendered, and discovered that it was a coun-
terfeit. As soon as he found it out the prisoner at-
tempted to run out of the shop, but he jumped over the
counter and detained her until a constable could be
procured, when he gave her into custody. She told him
that she lived in George-street, round the earner, and
that her husband gave her the half-crown a few minutes
previously. "%instantly suspected that she was a re-
gular smasher, after her statement, as George-street was
quite opposite his shop.
Police-constable 347 P said he took her into custody,
and received the counterfeit half-crown from last witness.
Ann Thomas was next called. She said she kept a
general shop in Weymouth-street, and on Friday even-
ing, about dusk, the prisoner entered her shop, and was
supplied with some wood and candles; she tendered her
a crown-piece in payment, which she carried to her has
band in the back room fir examination, as she also had
irrn eedd7 pronouncedoto" e
t}l.
heard so much of counterfeit
irtaei Her husband,
estopthaantdita wasav e
a whoseo good
sightoi
Iwaswhe muchwhen
s he
the prisoner the change. A few minutes after the latter
was gone a young man who reAided near her hou.,,e en-
tered the shop, to whom she showed the piece, which
he at once pronounced to be a counterfeit. She tut it
on one side, and on the f
owing morning handed it to
' a• police-sergeant. gea t
She was positive the prisueer wil3
the woman woo pa,5,,,t it.
Sereeant QuintiPar, 1 P, said be received the crown-
piece from last rime% and, tis soon Ps ow the pri-

The CHIEF COMMISSIONER inquired what amount of
debts the father had actually paid?
The attorney replied 16,81. 18s. 11d.
Mr. &Almon') submitted that the schedule exhibited a
class of debts which the Court ought not to sanction by a
forthwith dischargo: Remarks were often made about
bill discounters and their charges, but in this case it was
clear Mr. Cooke had given consideration for the bill, and
whether Wallis kept it or not was nothing to him. Be-
sibs the loss of his money the creditor was made to bast
increased waits by. insolvem's vexatious plea.
Mr. 00011 E thought that as the creditor had not
th,,ught tit to attend hiimself, especially after the stcAe-
ments in the insolvent's schedule, the Court would be
little inclined to detain the young man at his suit, the