The Sun.
London, England, 1856-08-07 00:00:00

IRELAND,

DUBLIN, WEDNESDAY MORNING.
JAMES SADLEIR AND THE MASTER IN CHANCERY.

-In consequence of observations made in the case
of the Tipperary Bank, Mr. Murphy, the Master
in Ohaneery, before the close of the recent sittings,
places on the tile of proceedings iu the winding-up
a minute, of which the fdlowing is a copy :

"TIIE TIPPERARY JOINT-STOCK BANK.

" Certain observations having been made during
my. absence with reference to two matters in the
conduct of this case, as to which I deem it neces-
sary to remove all misconception, I do so for many
reasons in the most formal manner, by placing this
explanation of them upon the file of proceed-
ing% :

1. It was stated in court that the private ex-
amination of James Sadleir had been much disap-
proved of, and the Court was pleased to add that
it was sure I now regretted that such examination
had taken place.
" It is to be observed that none of the parties
before the Court complained that James Sadlier
had been privately examined. They mild not,
because he was so examined at the direct instance
and request of the official manager and his solicitor
and with the full knowledge and concurrence of
Messrs. Gibson and Adair, who had been ap-
pointed solicitors to the proceedings, and also of
the eminent English solicitor who represented the
great mass of the English alleged shareholders.
"It was known that James Sadleir had in his
possession a most important deed, executed in the
early part of the year 1856, by which John Sadleir
had agreed to convey his Irish estates to trustees
to receive the very large balance then due by him
to the Tipperary Bank, and which deed was not
then registered, and of which no copy could be
procured. It was further known to us that he had
in his possession and within his knowledge other
documents and information connected with John
Sadleir and his own subsequent transactions with
certain English banks, which was all important for
us to be furnished with. It was also ascertained
that he had been recommended by one ofs his pro-
feSsional advisers to leave the country at once, and
there was some reason to fear that he would not
submit himself to any examination.
" The official manager and his solicitor were ap-
pointed on the 17th of March. On the same day
they attended the chamber and represented the
importance of Mr. Sadleir being immediately exa-
mined. under the foregoing circumstances. It was
then suggested to me, most properly, that the pro-
ceedings in' this case were analagous to those in
bankruptcy, in which, at the instance of the as-
signee, private examinations are constantly had.
At their instance, and upon full consideration, I
assented to the private examination. I felt, and
so stated at the time, that I was aware that in
doing so I would sul ject myself to misrepresentation,
but that it was my duty to disregard, as I hope I
always shall, any such consideration when the real
interests of any suitors of the court requires it.
"A subpceua was immediately issued, accom-
panied by an intimation from the solicitor that the
examination would be private.
" Mr. Sadleir accordingly attended on the 19th
of March. His person even was thn unknown to
me. I never had any previous communication
with him directly or indirectly, and I saw him then
for the first time.

" His examination occupied about five hours ;
it related to the matters above referred to. It had
nothing whatever to do with the frauds afterwards
in question ; and the duty of cautioning him, in
case he was about to state anything which could
subject him to criminal or other proceedings, was,
as the Court justly observed it ought to have been,
always present to my mind ; but it did not become
necessary to act on it.
"The examination resulted in James Sadleir's
handing over to the official manager the deed
above referred to, and giving other useful informa-
tion. I should also add that he confirmed what
we had heard, that lie had been advised to leave
the country ; and he further stated that, from the
manner he had been d€.ilt with, he had given ten
times the information which could have been
wrung from him by a public examination, and that
he would nlw remain and 'give any further assist-
ance and information in his power to the official
manager` towards the realization of the assets.
" fam therefore satisfied that this private ex-
amination was bona fide, prudent, and useful, and
that it would have been a weak and unworthy ab-
andonment of my plain duty not to have acceded to
it. For these reasons I cannot and do not regret it.

" 2. It has also been stated in court that the
public were at a loss to understand the grounds
upon which I exonerated James Sadleir from the
frauds relating to the issue of the English shares,
and it hasbeen stated elsewhere that I acquitted

James Sadleir and the other parties sought' to be
implicated. I did not exonerate nor did I acquit
James Sadleir; the case, as it came before me,
was, in fact, a case between the admitted and what
have been called innocent shareholders and the

English shareholders.
"To enable the latter to make their case their
solicitors were afforded inspection of every book
and document, and ample time, and they had the
ablest profasional assistance.
"In not one line of their affidavits produced
before me did they allege that James Sadleir had
been a party to the fraud.
" When the matter subsequently came on appeal
before the Master of the Rolls this difficulty was
felt ; and in the exercise of the discretion which
the law allows he permitted a further affidavit to
he ni4de.

" This affidavit, which was sworn on the 6th of
June, charges, on the belief of deponent, fraudulent
concert and combination on the part of John and
James Sadleir, as the managing director of the
bank, and concludes in these words And depo-
nent says that, if he had been as fully informed of
the facts and circumstances of this transaction when
he made his former affidavit as he is now, he would
have stated the belief therein expressed in his for-
mer affidavit.'

" It was contended before me, on behalf of the
official manager-Ist. Ttiat no fraud on the part
of James Sadleir had been alleged. 2d. That it
had not been proved.
" Upon a mostcareful consideration of this point
of the case I arrived at the conclusion (which I still
consider to be correct) that although there were
against James Sadleir strong grounds for suspicion
there was not before me sufficient legal evidence to
sustain the charge, and I accordingly find that the
terms of my original judgment, which is now be-
fore me, and from which I copy them—.
" On this point lam of opinion that, as between
the alleged and admitted contributories, the fraud
as imputed to James Sadleir, has not been sutli,
ciently established by strict legal proof so as to
form a ground for legal decision.'
" And in the next passage I state—
" I decide the question before me indepen-
dently of this point, to which I, however, con-
sider it my duty to advert.'
" I used these last words, as I observed at the
tiste, in order that the parties might have it in
their power to lay further evidence before the Mas-
ter of the Ras.

" I should here state that I have been informed
by counsel that the case before the Master of the
Rolls assumed :a very different aspect from that
in, which it was presented to me, and that,,mpre-
over, the letter of John Sadleir, of Dec., 1855, was
I not discovered 'until June last, when, without ever
having read ,or even seen it, I directed it to be
handed to his; Honour. My duty was merely
niinisterial-Lto decide .the question between the
parties upon the case`and evidence adduced before
me. Nothing was further from my intention than
to exonerate or: acquit James Sadleir, and I con-
sider it, with all: respect, to be a mistake to say
_that I did so'. The ground upon which I conceived
that the English shareholders had not made out
their case, so far as it depended on the question of
fraud, was insufficiency of strict legal proof, and
this I endeavottred to state with what appeared to
Hie sufficient pieCision.
" July 29. ; ' c,J. J. MURPHY."
Mr. M'Dowell, the official manager of the Tip-
p'erary Bank, :who was appointed by the Lord
Qhancellor receiver -over-the estate of Ja,ties Sad-
leir, in the case of "O'Flalierty petitioner, James
Sadleir-respondent;"- lias perfected his security, the
amount being 3,7001.
The Tipperary Free Press of yesterday states
that Clouacooty, the residence of James Sadlier,
near Fethard, has . been very recently visited by
the authorities, who, on one occasion, were said to
have been close upon the trail of the fugitive. The
Free Press also states that the rumour of James
(and even John) Sadleir being still in Ireland is
daily gaining ground and becoming more generally
credited.

. ,VENMEDIN BONDS.—The Committee of Spanish
American Bondholders have submitted to Dr. Robert
Phillimore a case referring to the position of the holders
of Venezuelan Bonds. Dr. Phillimore is of opinion that
tbe bondholders have a right to claim the intervention of
the Briti9h Government for the recovery of the entire
slim •f 586,9831., being the arrears with interest accru-
ing from the money which has been unlawfully ab-
stracted from the revenues appropriated to the liquida-
tion of the debt.
ELECTION -OP BOYS, JULY, 1856, FOR ETON COLLEGE
AND KING'S COLLEGE :—Eton.—Lewis, 10 yearA ; Cole
11, Goodrich 14, Palmer 15, Bodkin /1, Hidden 12,
Liddell 12,-gattyn .11, Tbackeray 11, Croft 15, Haw"
,trey 10, Snow 14,'"Carter 10, and Wace 10. King's.—
• Hodgson, 18 ye rs ; Nelsop)18, Boys 18, Motley, ma.,
15,- Barrett 18, Parnish 17, A. Leigh. ins., 17, Willis
17, Routledge 17, Sizith 13, Btozo 17, Wilson 17, 17,4 d