The Sun.
London, England, 1834-09-20 00:00:00

lIUNGERFORD.

Coarse Meadow Hay £3 10 to £3 15
New Meadow Hay 4 0 4 10
Useful Old Ditto 4 0 4 15
Fine Upland Meadow and Rye grass Hay
Clover Hay 3 15 5 10
Oat Straw ..... ....... X 1 16 to X 1 12 1 Wheat Straw

COAL MARI
Per Ton s. d
Adair's
6
Chester Main
15
15 6
East Percy
Wbburn Main
18
6
18 0
Holywell
Kenton West
Ord 's Redhugh l5 9
Pontop Windsor l7 66
Picton • l5 0
19 6
Tan field
West Hartley
Willington )9 9
i)

.ET.—Sept. 19.

Per Ton s. d.
Walls End Killingworth
Walls End Northumberland lB 3
Walls End Braddyll's lietton 2.2 0
Walls End Helton 22 0
Walls End Russel's He ton , 25 0
Walls End Stewart's
Walls End Adelaide
Walls End Gordon l9 3
Walls End Musgrave l7 6
Walls End South Durham l9 3
Walls End Tees 2l 0
Walls End Howard's Main l4 0
Howard's Netherton Main
Hartley
North Hartley l5 0
Silkstone Field and Co
Walls End Elgin l6 0
Walls End Henderson l5 0
Heaton Trader 20 0
last market-day, 4

Wylarri
Walls End Bell, Robson &Co lB 3
Walls End Bewicke and Co 2O 0
Walls End Clark and Co. l6 0
Walls End Gosforth
W.:lls End Heaton
Walls End Hilda lB 9
Ships arrived since

COUNTRY CORN MARKETS DURING THE WEEK.

Vuarter. Wheat. Barley. uats. I Beans. Pease
47 58 29 34 18 23 38 44
Basingstoke 36 56 31 38 2;1 28 36 42
l 3; th 44 54 26 34 91 28 38 44 42 46
111 idgewater « 48 56 26 20 25 32 34 42 46
48 56 9e
28 32 16 20 34 38
Chesterfield 44 52 28 33
16 22 44 48 —•
Derby 46 -49 31 33 25 26 40 42
Doncaster 48 60 27 38 17 27 40 46
t 0 27 26
56 24 32 16 24 52
50 25 32 20 28 37 42 29 54
Hungertbrd 31 57 22 30 24 28 34 40 36 40
r_ 4,7 -- 31 24 37
Newbury 32 • 28 40 17 28 35 44 36 38
Remsey 52 58 27 38 22 26 32 37
Shaftesbury ^^ 54 —_ 25 41
Mallet 48 57 28 42 24 32 40 44
shcPtcm 43 54 26 32 22
4_
27 28
38
41
l'aunton7. 1 :15 _
Yarmouth
eov 48 52 23 28 20 27 1 3R—
-44 52 28 30 22 26 33 40 -- l^—
Per Bushel. s. 6
d. s. d. s. d. S. (1. S. (1. s. d. a. 4. s. d. s. d. s (I.
0 73, 00 0 0 56 70, 00 00; 00 00
Shrewsburi
DEVIZES CORN MARKET —Sept. 18.
Per Sack. s. d. s. d. Per Quarter. s. (1. s. d.
Best Wheat.... 25 0t032 6 Barley 2O oto3B 0
Second
22 0 24 0 Oats 23 0 i 8 0
Thirds l9 0 20 0 Beans (per sack)... 19 0 22 0
1334 Sacks of Wheat sold] 4 Flour (per bag) 'l6 0 42 0
at the average of Bread (per ga11.)... 1 1 0 0

BIRDS

'INGHAM CORN MARKET, Sept. I.

Wheat, 62 lb. . ss. 4d. to 6s. 4d.
Barley, imperial quarter
Do. Grinding, 49 lb.
Oats, 391 b
Old Beans, (i6►k lb l5 6 17 0
New ditto
New White Boiling Pease, 3 imp. bush.
Ditto Grey ditto

MEETINGS OF CREDITORS AT THE COURT
BASINGHALL-STREET, ON MONDAY..

(From the London ) id.
J. Andrews stock-broker, Threadneedle-streetGazette
1 at 12
H. W. Rich, wine-merchant, Joiners'-hall-tuildings, City 1 1

THE STANDARD NOVELS.—The public is in-
debted for this popular series of works of fiction, second only
to the delightful novels of Sir Walter Scott in popularity,
to the enterprize of Mr. Bentley. This collection of modern
novels and romances (chiefly by living authors), of which
forty-two volumes have been published, the whole of these
being the copyrights of the publisher, includes the far-famed
" Vathek," by Mr. Beckford, and " Eugene Aram," by Mr.
Bulwer, besides the complete works of Miss Austen, and the
principal productions of Cooper, Godwin, Mrs. Brunton, Ba-
nim, Grattan, Victor Hugo, Madame de Stael, Miss Porter,
Mrs. Shelley, Schiller, M. G. Lewis, Horace Walpole, Galt,
Brockden Brown, Hook, the Misses Lee, the Rev. G. R.
Gleig, &c. The cheapness of this collection far surpasses
any thing of the kind ever published, and places them within
the reach of even the cottager. A real benefit has, indeed,
been conferred on the community at large, by thus presenting
them with so fertile a source of amusement and instruction.

TAXES.—We have heard some impatient persons
exclaiming that the reformed House of Commons has done
nothing. We request all such grumblers to compare their tax
notices of four years ago with that for the present year. A
respectable tradesman assures us that his has been reduced
from 56/. per annum to 16/. Is this doing nothing? Has
reform, we ask confidently, brought forth no fruits ? Look at
your tax papers ; and this is but a beginning. Some people
say that, should there be an election, and a Tory candidate,
they will go to the poll with the Tory and Reform tax papers
side by side in their hats. A happy thought, which would be
more effective than the longest speech.—Sherburne Journal.

BANKRUPTCY COURT, SEPT. 19.

(Before Mr. Commissioner FANE.)

IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK CRANWELL WESTLEY.

A meeting of the creditors of the above-named bankrupt,
who had been a bookseller and newsvender, formerly carry-
ing on business in the Strand, took place this day, for the
purpose of proving debts and appointing assignees.
The first proof of interest tendered was for a sum of
2,4001., claimed to be due upoti promissory notes and a
bond to Mr. Westley, sen., the father of the bankrupt.
The COMMISSIONER inquired how the claimant could get
rid of the difficulty placed in the way of his proof by the
statute of limitation, the two promissory notes being dated
in 1824 ? Mr. Westley said the interest upon these notes
had been paid up to June last.
COMMISSIONER—What proof is there of that ? Mr.
Westley—My bill-book will show it.
Mr. Wilkinson said he appeared on the part of Mr.
Gumersell, bill-broker, of the firm of Gumersell and Glen-
dell, who was by far the heaviest creditor, and he wished
to be allowed to prove in order that he might be in a con-
dition to examine the proofs before they were admitted.
This was assented to by the Commissioner ; and after
some little delay Mr. Wilkinson tendered the proofs of
Messrs. Gumersall and Co. to the amount of 5,7761. ls. Bd.

Mr. Lumley, the solicitor under the fiat, objected to the
proof, on the ground that these bills had been drawn by
Hindmarsh and Arthur, and accepted by Westley the
bankrupt, on account of the True Sun newspaper ; and
although Mr. Gumersall was aware of this, he never ten-
dered these bills to be proved at Arthur's bankruptcy. If
these proofs were admitted, the estate of Westley would be
saddled to the amount of this 5,0001., to the prejudice of
the other creditors.

The COMMISSIONER—You say that Mr. Westley never
received any benefit from these bills ? Mr. Lumley—
None whatever ; and the estates of Hindmarsh and Arthur
will be quite sufficient to secure Mr. Gumersall.
The Co rd MI ss Io NER—I don't think that objection of any
value. Is Mr. Gumersall to be told that because he has
the promise of Hindmarsh and Arthur, he shall not have
the promise of Westley also ?—Mr. Lumley submitted that
Mr. Gumersall should have made his application to prove
under Arthur's estate, or have applied to Hindmarsh's
executors.

The COMMISSIONER said, whatever the estate of West-
ley paid to Mr. Gumersall on account of those bills, the
assignees would be entitled to recover from the estate of
Hindmarsh, in an account supposing Hindmarsh to be in-
debted to Westley, but he (Mr. Lumley) could not refuse
Mr. Gumersall his right toprov,e under this fiat.

Mr. Lumley said he had anoilier ground of opposition.
Shortly before Mr. Westley's bankruptcy, he took a bill for
1001. to Mr. Gumersall, for the purpose of getting it dis-
counted. When Mr. Westley called for the money, ac-
cording to promise, Mr. Gumersall said, " No, I shall re-
tain it in respect of the amount due to me." That was
prejudicing the other creditors to the amount of that 100/.
The bill was subsequently paid, and Mr. Gumersall placed
the amount to the credit of Mr. Westley's account.
The COMMISSIONER—You have an action in trover
against Mr. Gumersall for the amount of that bill.

- Mr. Wilkinson said this transaction had taken place
more than three months ago, and the balance due by Mr.
Westley to Mr. Gumersall was so much the less.
The COMMISSIONER-But the objection is, that you
have contrived to get 1001. in full, instead of a dividend, to
the prejudice of the other creditors.
Mr. Wilkinson—The fact of its being a discount trans-
action is denied.

Mr. Gumersall said .he had the bill from a third party,
and he had never promised to discount it.
Mr. Westley, the bankrupt, was then examined by the
Commissioner, and stated that the bill had been sent by
him to Mr. Gumersall, by a clerk of the True Sun office,
who was going into the City.
Mr. Gumersall said he had asked the clerk whose pro-
perty the bill was ; the clerk replied, it was Mr. Wcstley's ;
Mr. G. then said he should keep it, as Mr. Westley owed
him a large sum of money. The transaction happened
three months ago.
The CommlssioNEß said the question was one of very
great nicety, and he did not see how he could decide it
without further consideration. _

Mr. Lumley—That 1001. has been paid to Mr. Gumer-
sall to the prejudice of the other creditors.
The COMMISSIONER—I don't think Mr. Gumersall had
any right to retain that money.
Mr. Gumersall—Mr. Westley directed the third party
upon whom the bill was drawn to pay the money to me.
Mr. Westley said he did not wish that the name of a
third party should be introduced, and when he found that
Mr. Gumersall would not give up the bill, he had written
to that party requesting that the amount of the bill would
be paid to Mr. G., which had been done.

The COMMISSIONER entertained very great doubt as to
whethes Mr. Gumersall was entitled, under all the circum-
stances, to keep that hundred pounds. Looking into the
case, it appeared to him that it did not come within the pro-
tection of the doctrine of mutual credit. If the bill had
been put into the hands of Mr. Gumersall as the agent of
Mr. Westley, for the purpose of having it discounted, and
if before the money was paid Mr. Westley had been de-
clared a bankrupt, then Mr. Gumersall would have been
entitled to keep the money. But, if Mr. Westley sends the
bill to be discounted, and that Mr. Gumersall received the
bill with that understanding, he had no right then to retain
it, as he had not received it in a proper way. Having re-
ceived it on the terms of discounting. he had no right then
to keep it as his own property. He doubted much whether
the property of the bill had ever passed to Mr. Gumersall,
and he could not, therefore, admit the proof of Mr. G.'s
debt until he was in a situation to dispose of the question
respecting that bill.
Mr. Wilkinson said the transaction, as he had already
observed, had occurred three months ago, and no objection
had been made to it up to the present time.
Mr. Lumley—That does not bind the other creditors.

The COMMISSIONER.—If I am of opinion that a creditor
must do something for the benefit of an estate, the neglect
of which would prejudice the other creditors, I must insist
upon its being done. If a creditor seeks equity he must
do equity.-
Mr. Gumersall said when the bill had been brought to
him he said he should not give it up. Mr. Westley subse-
quently came and told him that he (Mr. G.) might put it
to the credit of his account, and Mr. W. actually wrote to
a third party to pay him (Mr. G.) the amount.
The COMMISSIONER.—That makes no difference if the bill
was retained by you without his consent in the first instance.
Mr. Westley.—l never sanctioned the act of Mr. Gu-
mersall.

Mr. Wilkinson said they had a gentleman who was pre-
sent, and who would prove that Mr. Westley did consent
to Mr. Gumersall retaining the bill.
Mr. Arthur, the gentleman alluded to, was then sworn.
Mr. Lumley wished to know, if Mr. Westley sanctioned
the retention of the bill, would that bind the creditors ?
The COMMISSIONER.-1 think it will.

Mr. Arthur was then examined by Mr. Wilkinson.—He
recollected the bill transaction alluded to ; it took place
about three months ago. Mr. Gumersall and Mr. Westley
were together, and an explanation took place in reference
to the 100/. bill. Mr. Gumersall said he had a large claim
upon Mr. Westley, and would deduct that amount from
it. Mr. Westley admitted the propriety of his doing so. ,
COMMISSIONER.—Can you recollect what Mr. Westley
said ? Mr. Arthur.—l can't recollect the precise words
but the substance was that Mr. Westley said he might do
so : Mr. Westley 'left the office, with the understanding
that the amount should be deducted from his account.
COMMISSIONER.—IIid he complain of its being a hard-
ship ? Mr. Arthur.—At first he did, but he afterwards
consented that it should be put to his credit.
Mr. Wilkinson.—Are you quite sure that he assented to
its being put to his credit by Gumersall? Mr. Arthur.—
Most certainly.
COMMISSIONER.—Why should he assent after complain-
ing that it was a hardship ? Can you recollect any single
word he said ? Mr. Arthur.—Not precisely. There was
no difference about the amount of the accounts, or of the
balance due to Mr. Gumersall.

The COMMISSIONER.—Mr. Westley, did you assent to
Mr. Gumersall placing the amount of that bill to the credit
of your account ? Mr. Westley.—l never consented to it.
I always complained of its being a hardship. Mr. Gumer-
sall said, " How can you think it a hardship, when I have
a parcel of bills of yours overdue and unpaid ?" I deny
that I ever assented ; but I gave orders to have it paid
when I could not help it.
The COMMISSIONER.—This matter must stand over. I
cannot admit Mr. Gumersall's proof, because my present
impression is that he had no right, in point of law, to deal
with this bill as be has done ;—that it is the impression upon
my mind at present ; but I would wish the matter to stand
over for further consideration.

Mr. Wilkinson.—Then, under these circumstances, I
shall apply to adjourn the choice of assignees.
The COMMISSIONER.—Perhaps you can agree now as to
the choice of assignees.

Mr. Wilkinson.—l fear not. I shall,- however, now
state my objections to the claim of Mr. Westley, sen. In
the first place, I contend that the two bills of exchange,
one for 300). and the other for 350). are barred by the
statute of limitations. The other sum of 1,800)., which is
claimed in virtue of a bond drawn and endorsed by the father
to the son, I decidly object to until I see a statement of the
accounts between them. _ _ _

After some discussion between Mr. Lumley and Mr.
Wilkinson,
The Court decided that he should admit the proof for
the 1,8001. bond, and exclude the proof of the two bills.
Mr. Wilkinson said as that point had been decided, he
would propose an adjournment to the choice of assignees.
Mr. Lumley thought there was no necessity for such a

itep, as the great bulk of the creditors were satisfied as td
the choice they should come to.
Mr. Wilkinson—The aggregate c'aims of all the cre-
ditors alluded to by Mr. Lumley do not amount to half the
sum due Mr. Gumersall.

The COMMISSIONER—I really cannot exclude Mr. Gu-
mersall's proof, and reject his application for an adjourn-
ment of the choice o assignees.

(The Commissioner here handed a letter to the Soli-
citors and others interested in the bankruptcy, which he
requested them to read.)
The COMMISSIONER—It appears by this letter that it is
very material that some person should be chosen at once,
otherwise some other party may come in and sweep away
the whole of the property.
Mr. Wilkinson said the 623/. which the letter referred
to, would ,be sufficiently secured by Hindmaash or Arthur.
The COMMISSIONER said, that it appeared from that
letter that Mr. Tarquand, the official assignee, was appre-
hensive that the property was likely to be swept away by
another party.
Mr. Lumley thought assignees should be appointed that
day.
The COMMISSIONER (to Mr. Gumersall)—Are you wil-
ling, to run the risk of delaying the appointment of assig-
nees ? Mr. Gumersall—My clerk will be here presently,
and he will be able to satisfy you respecting the 100/. bill,
and then my proof being admitted, we can proceed to the
appointment of assignees.
The CommissioNEn said that he would now admit Mr.
Gumersall's proof on his giving an undertaking to pay over
the 100/. to the assigness of Westley, provided his (the
Commissioner's) decision should be against the right of Mr
G. to retain it.

Mr. Gumersall said he had no objection to give an u.)-
dertaking to that effect, which was immediately drawn u
by his solicitor, and signed by Mr. Gumersall.
Mr. Wilkinson then proposed Mr. Gumersall and Mc.
Kerr as assignees. _ _ _

Mr. Lumley objected to Mr. Kerr, as he was assignee
under the estate of Arthur, whose interests were quite op-
posed to those of Mr. Westley.
The objection was overruled by the COMMISSIONER.
Mr. Lumley then named Mr. George Berger as the
third assignee, to which no objection was offered.
The COURT was extremely crowded during the whole of
the investigation, which appeared to excite much interest.

REVISING BARRISTERS' COURT.

BOROUGH OF FINSBURY.

The Barristers resumed their sittings at White Conduit
House yesterday morning, at. ten o'clock.

ST. JAMES'S, CLERKENWELL.

Mr. Mason, an inhabitant of the parish, claimed to be
inserted in the list of voters, and in proof of his qualifica-
tion produced his receipt for the King's taxes ; the receipt
was dated on the 20th of July, which was the last day for
payment to become entitled to the qualification, and that
day was Sunday.

The collector stated, in answer to questions put by Mr-
Chapman, the barrister, that the claimant came to his house
on Sunday, the 20th of July, and tendered to him the
King's taxes ; he, however, refused then to receive the
money, not feeling himself justified in accpting it on that
day. The taxes were paid on the next day, and he (the
collector), having left town on the Sunday, left the receipt
dated on that day, which was given to the claimant when
he paid the tcxes.
Mr. CHAPMAN said the tender made on Sunday was not
strictly legal, but as it was his wish to construe the Act
liberally he should admit the claim.
The whole of the King's tax-collectors in the parish of
St. James,' Clerkenwell, had been omitted by the over-
seer from the list of voters, on the ground that he believed
them to be disqualified in consequence of holding the office
collector.

yv.
Thomas Garner, one of the collectors, in answer to Mr.
Chapman's questions, said that he was appointed under a
local Act of Parliament, and that it was compulsory upon
him to serve office, or incur a penalty of 1001.
Foster, another collector, said the appointment was quite
distinct from Government, and in proof of which he said
that on one occasion, when he made a levy, a complaint
was made to the authorities at Somerset House, who re-
ferred the complainants back to the Local Board, and said
they had no authority over the collector.
Mr. Chapman allowed the claims of the collectors to be
placed upon the list of voters, observing that Government
never contemplated disqualifying persons holding office,
which office was compulsorily imposed upon them.