The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-12 00:00:00

SciE.FiRIES HARBOUR OF REFUGE.

A strong effort has been made to induce the new Lords of
the Admiralty to construct a harbour of refuge on the north-
east coast of Ireland, and Skerries is suggested as possessing
great natural capabilities. The Drogheda Improvement
Commissioners state in their memorial to the Lords of the
Admiralty
" That between Kingstown and Belfast there are several
sites possessing more or less natural capabilities that would
involve but a moderate cost of constructing a harbour
of refuge, and that would afford, in the opinion of the
mos'. intelligent masters of vessels, the best possible
protection to the large amount of shipping frequenting
the ports along the north-east coast, and to emigrant and
other vessels from various ports of the United Kingdom.
That it is a well-founded opinion of your petitioners, in
which they are sustained by those of able and experienced
navgators, that Skerries Harbour, situate on the north-
east coast of Ireland, would form the most eligible and ad-
van'anous position for a harbour of refuge. That it pos-
"wa great natural capabilities from its depth of water,
"Pr.rior holding ground, regular soundings, and other. im-
Porlant requisites, that would render It capable of accom-
sucelatlng the largest merchant vessels, or even the royal
navy, having besides the primary and essential advantages
of direct accessibility from the sea along as even line of
coat,' indentations
of free from sunken rocks and dangerous
ef the coast—circumstances that are regarded by marine
eng,eeers as indispensable conditions in fixing the position
of a harbour of refuge. That there is no other point on
the north-east coast more frequented by ships passing and
repnssing from the different ports of the United King-
dom (including Liverpool, the greatest naval port of
Greet Britain) than the Island of Rock-a-Bill, situate about
font miles seaward of Skerries. That a lighthouse is now
Ia course of erection on Rock-a-Bill that would distinctly
indicate to vessels the course they would be enabled to steer
der'. ng violent gales in making their approach to a harbour
of refuge that would be so advantageously situated in so
many essential particulars as Skerries. That but little
remains to render Skerries a complete safety harbour, where
nature has already done so much and art has also been em-
ployed, having abundant materials close at hand to convert
it into a capacious harbour of refuge at the least possible
cost of construction."

The petitioners, iiierefore, fully coinciding in the petitions
already adopted at a public meeting of the inhabitants of
Drogheda, praying for a harbour of refuge on the north-east
coast, humbly pray the honourable House of Commons
that such may be constructed at Skerries, the petitioners
being fully peesuaded that this position would afford the
greatest amount of protection to the interests of commer-
cial navigation along a coast so proverbially dangerous.
The decision of the Government does net appear on the re-
cord.—Freeman's Journal.

FATAL GUN ACCIDENT.—On Wednesday morning
William Robinson Bower, the youngest son of Mr. Samuel
Bower, manufacturer, of "The Hey," near Marsden, was
acci lentally shot by his own gun. About half-past nine
o'cl.ck in the morning, the deceased, accompanied by a ser-
vant named Frank Bamforth, went upon some billy pasture
ground, the property of his father, and situate behind Mr.
Borer's residence, far the purpose of shooting sparrows.
The man had been sent forward to start the birds, and the
deceased, with his loaded gun, prepared to cross a fence.
To accomplish this he passed his gun over the fence, hold-
ing it by the muzzle, the butt end resting upon the ground.
He leaned forward with his breast upon the gun barrel, and
'yak in the act of springing over, when, owing to some cir-
cumstance, the gun went off; and the entire charge was
lodged in the youth's breast. He placed his hand upon the
place, exclaimed " Oh, Frank !" took three or four paces
forward, then fell upon his face, and all was over. The de-
cu-ed was 18 years of age, and a fine vigorous youth.—
IluilderBfield Chronicle.
AD ACCIDENT.—A mother and her son, aged
four years, came to Liverpool from
father Manchester by an
at e
ni arly
train an Saturday morning; the ester
o'cl,,ck, to learn on his arrival that his son had been killed,
having been run over in the street by
a cart, through the T
carelessness of the driver. The deceased was John Henry
Riddell, son of Mr. William Riddell, bookkeeper, of 2,. As-
wot th-terrace, Regent-road, Salford. On asrtroive, ing a
pool, Mrs. Riddell and Mr. Samuel ec e oveirLlolovkeer;
0
at Mr. Harter's factory, Irvvell-street, Salfordnw who accom-
Phn'ed her, partook of breakfast at Elston's spirit vaults, in
Roe-street. The account for breakfast was being settled
wit( n alarm was given that a child had been run over in the
street. Mrs. Riddell missing her little boy, exclaimed, "Go
and see If it is our Johnny ;" and her misgiving was in-
stantly realised. The little fellow had wandered out of the
door upon the flags, at the edge of which he stumbled and
fell at the corner of Roe-street and Murray-street. Just at
that moment there cane along Murray-street a one-horse
cart, driven rapidly and carelessly, and close to the kerb-
stor 3,. by William Jones, who sat in front of the cart, with
the fetris in his hands, and unconsciously drove over the
Hirt', breaking some of his limbs and jamming his head be-
tween the rim of the wheel and the kerbstone. The child
died almost immediately from the injuries received and
general shock to the nervous system. The inquest was held
in the afternoon. The jury coupled with their verdict a
presentment of severe censure upon the driver for his reek-
...euesse..,Liverpool Mercury.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Arta. 11.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
IN RE PARKER MERCHANTS BEWARE OF ADTEN-
TUBERS.
This was an application for discharge from custody of
Benjamin Parker, of No. 1, Adelaide-place, London-bridge,
trading as Truman, Parker, and Co., as merchants.
Mr. Bagley (instructed by Mr. Tripp, acting for Mr.
Bebb) opposed on behalf of Messrs. Lingenbrick, mer-
chants of Vienna; and Mr. Sturgeon supported the appli-
cation.
Mr. Bagley stated that the bankrupt bad traded as
Truman, Parker, and Co., and had sent out circulars,
showing the advantages of consignees sending their goods
to him, although at the time he was an uncertificated bank-
rupt. Mr Bagley here read the circular :
"1, Adelaide-place, London-bridge, London,
Ist December, 1856.
" Messrs. Lingenbrick, arc.
" We take the liberty by the accompanying to acquaint
you that we have established a commission and expedition
(agency) business, and to offer you our services, supported
by sufficient funds, with an intimate knowledge of English
and transatlantic affairs. We hope to be of essential use to
consignors, and to justify their confidence by our punctua-
lity and strictness. We will wait on you with our refer-
ences, as soon as you will let us know that you are disposed
to enter into correspondence and treat with us, and remain
in the meanwhile—Obediently,
" TRUMAN, PARKER, & Co.
"We beg you will send us your sample of velvet with
fixed and cut border."
He (continued Mr. Bayley) traded as Truman, Parker, and
Co., because if he had been known as Benjamin Parker, so
well were his antecedents known from his appearance at
law courts and other places, he would not have got credit
for 6d. in the commercial world. He had been insolvent,
twice bankrupt, his certificate being suspended for 12
months, and at that very time he was sending out circulars
boasting of his unlimited funds. He had also accepted two
bills without having funds to meet them.
The bankrupt was then examined—His real name was
Benjamin Parker. He never denied that, although he had
gone by other names. He had written letters in the names
of "James Parker" and "Truman, Parker and Co." He
had:never been in business as " Hadlow, Parker, and C 0.," or
" Neal Parker." Had gone by the name of " James Phil-
lips." He gave an order for goods to Mcssrs. Lingenbrick,
and did not return them. Sold them to Messrs. Nicholson
and Co., of Cannon-street. Sold them at 30 or 40 per cent.
under cost price, because there was no market for the goods
in this country, and it was the best price he could get for
them. Messrs. Lingenbrick were informed by letter of that
fact. He bad been a colonial merchant, a builder, a sur-
veyor and architect, but not a wine merchant or a bill dis-
counter.
Mr. Bagley produced the schedule from the Insolvent
Court, which had been sworn to by the bankrupt, in which
he described himself as a bill discounter.
The bankrupt said that probably arose from his having
got two or three bills done through agency.
The Commissioner—Never mind, sir, you have sworn
to it.

Mr. Bagley asked the bankrupt whether be had ever been
In a criminal court ?
Mr. Sturgeon objected to the question.
The Commissioner thought it of the first importance to
the commercial world to know what this man's antecedents
were.
The bankrupt, on being pressed, said he bad been in-
dicted two or three times but never convicted. He was
once advised to plead guilty, and was then discharged. Did
not remember how he was discharged.
Mr. Bagley—How long after you pleaded ?
The bankrupt, with evident reluctance, replied two
months; he had been charged and out on bail; he absconded
from his bail; be was caught, convicted, and sentenced to
six months' imprisonment at Maidstone, in 1851 ; he was
convicted in the name of James Parker; he had been con-
victed for conspiracy 15 years ago.
Mr. Bagley then read the following correspondence :
" Gentlemen,—We are in receipt of your favour of the
9th first., and we have only at this moment occasion to give
you an order for velvet ribbons with fixed borders; send us
on the conditions stipulated. (Here follow particulars of
goods ordered.) We tract that the quality of the goods will
be satisfactory to us, and that a reletiouship may spring up
between us.—Yours obediently,
" TRUMAN, PARKER, AND CO.
" Messrs. Lingenbrick and Co."
" 1, Adelaide-place, London-bridge, March 25,1857.
"Gentlemen,—We are in possession of your leter dated
the 20th inst., and see with much astonishment that you
have sent us an invoice fur the £357 18s., and sending us
boxes of unusual large size. We expected to receive boxes
of the usual size, of 25 to 30 pieces, No. 2. Under these
circumstances we must refuse the surplus of the goods,
seeing that we had not a larger order than we gave yet.
However, in order not to give you any inconvenience, and
so as not to delay the execuiion of the order of our employer
any further, we will accept the case as it is, provided the
conformity of the contents. We will also accept your bill
for £BO at eight days' sight. The remainder will be honoured
at three months' date. We are obliged to ask this, as we
keep the greater part of the goods in stock.—Obediently
yours, " TRUMAN, PARKER, AND Co.
"Messrs. Lingenbrick and Co."
The bankrupt was then questioned by Mr. Sturgeon. lie
had premises at Millbank, which were very valuable, having
been valued by one surveyor at £14,000, and by another at
£12,500. Part of the manufactures was for ladies' dresses;
it was a new fashioned whalebone to supersede crinoline. He
had been offered a mortgage of £3,500 upon the premises.
His object in seeking his discharge was to realise his estate
for the benefit of his creditors. He had had them altogether
and made that statement to them. He had offered 20s. in
the pound, with a charge upon two patents he possessed as
security, with interest at the rate of 5- per cent. until all
was paid. Could have had an advance on the patent of
£l,OOO.
Mr. Bagley apprehended that he had Entirely established
a case that the debt had been contracted by fraud. The
bankrupt began by avowing himself as having sufficient
funds to enable him to take other persons' goods on consign-
ment while an uucet tificated bankrupt. 1. February, 1851,
he ordered these goods, giving these gentlemen to under-
stand that he had an employer in one place, saying "we re-
gret the relationship has begun so badly; our employer com-
plains bitterly of the quality of the goods," and acain "we
are obliged to rebate 5 per cent. to our employer," making
out that he obtained the goods for somebody else. The
learned counsel then read as follows :
" Adelaide-place, London-bridge, London.
April 11, 1857.

" Messrs. Lingenbrick.

" Gentlemen,—We regret exceedingly that the relation
between us should have begun so badly ; our employer com-
plains bitterly of the quality of the goods, and with justice,
for it is mixed with cotton, and is not pure silk. Besides,
the pieces are so forced and compressed in the boxes that
the quality and exterior of the goods have been much preju-
diced. We were obliged to rebate 5 per cent. to our em-
ployer; however, not to keep your bills an longer, we have
accepted the odd £:237 14s. 3d., while we will only accept
£B9 10s. more, and that even only at three months, from
the 20th of March, which will be the amount, in reckoning
the 31 per cent. loss of the 5 per cent. before mentioned.—
Obediently yours,
"TRUMAN, PARKER, AND Ce."
The bankrupt had assumed the false name of Truman,
Parker, and Co., because he knew that as Benjamin Parker
he would not be trusted. His whole deeds during his life-
time were tainted with fraud, whether it were as a colonial
merchant, a tea dealer, builder, architect, or surveyor. lie
now took his real name and came to the Court with this
assumed story about the patiute. He called on the Court
to refuse the application.

Mr. Sturgeo.n remarked that he felt a difficulty in meeting
the case, from the extraordinary way in which it had been
shaped. Here was an attempt to keep this unfortunate man
in prison by raking up his whole conduct for the last 15 or
20 years. Mr. Bagley had chosen to give the go-by to all
legal requisites, and began by opening a case with what
might be called libel and slander, and going into the history
of the life of the bankrupt. Who would venture to come
to that court for protection if they were to rake up 20 years
of the life of a merchant of the City of London ? The ques-
tion was, if these parties were aggrieved, had they a legal
judgment, showing he was in custody for fraud, upon which
the Court could withhold the bankrupt's relewe. This had
not been shown. If such matters as those gone into to-day
were allowed to be discussed, any question might be asked ;
even if there had been a marriage with a deceased wife's
sister, as suited the fertile brain of the counsel. If the judge
allowed his mind to be poisoned by such matter, who could
get relief? The Legislature, in passing the Act of Parliament,
never Intended such matter to be gone into. As the bank-
rupt's only desire was to assist his creditors, he asked the
Court to grant an order for his release.
His Honour said it appeared to him that the learned
counsel had altogether forgotten one part of the object of
the statute, which was to give the Court a discretion—the
court might discharge the bankrupt if it thought fit.
Having regard to that discretion, nothing could be so
eceo df e tnht es
im-
portant for the Court to cpornobsiadbeirlitays antecedentsftrhoemthoseant
man imprisoned, and
a rpguer
pfoo
sr e the
of pduoripnogs e h oisf
oasfswishtientgherhihseewreidsihteodmforor
hifsordistchhe
of
fair
utmost to prevent them from having a full dttoscleoosunrseideorf
his estate and effects. It was necessary
whether he was in prison under circumstances
conduc.t,Boragwlehyethhaedr he was
properly aremarked man whose lifedand his
shown,
as Mr
honour did not think it too strong an assertion), that he
had been from first to last living by imposing on others,
and obtaining credit without the smallest intention
to defray his debts. It appeared the bankruptlmdunde
various names, assumed generally for the purpose of decep-
tion, been bankrupt three times; his certificate had been
suspended and refused ; and he had sent the circular which
had been read, full of untruth, at the time when he was an
uncertificated bankrupt soliciting credit in the name of
Truman and Co., while the bankruptcy under which the
certificate was refused had been under another name. Was
it, therefore, not necessary for the Court to know the ante-
cedents of such a man? Discretion was given to the Court
that it might deal with such cases. It was therefore a
mistaken view of the Act of Parliament to put it as simply a
question whether the debt was contracted by fraud or not.
The question was would the max's antecedents justify the
Court in believing for one moment that which he thee
swore, that he desired to assist his creditors? His Honour
believed that oath to be wholly untrue—quite as untrue as
the gross falsehoods with which his conduct seemed to have
been marked for several years, and his discharge would,
therefore, be refused. As to the argument that the man
was not in prison for any debt contracted by fraud ; he ad-
mitted that it should be shown that that appeared either In
the record, the judgment, the pleadings, or in some equally
unequivocal shape, on the proceedings under which the bank-
rupt was in custody; but it was unnececsary to consider that.
The defendant only desired his release for the purpose of
evading his creditors; and therefore it would be quite idle
to order his di,eharge, for it would be doing injustice to
all the creditors if he were allowed to escape from custody
upon any such pretence as that advanced. It was important
the public should know the kind of characters by whom they
were imposed upon. If the detaining creditor had been an
Englishman, his Honour would have made some observa- ,
tions upon his giving credit so heedlessly to the bankrupt;
but he was a foreigner, who was unacquainted with our
laws, who had relied on the statements in the circular, and
had not had the means of investigating their truth as a
native would have done; his intended observations would
not, therefore, apply. It was not to he tolerated that
foreigners should be victimised, and that such persons as
the bankrupt should be permitted to escape, to go and do
likewise. The application for discharge would therefore be
refused.
Discharge refused accordingly.

IN RE LAIDLAW.
This bankrupt, Alexander Wentworth Laidlaw, was a
dealer in cigars, of No. 3, Bury-court, St. Mary-axe, and
he now applied to pass his examination on accounts
prepared by Messrs. Hart Brothers, showing : To
creditors, £1,587; do. holding security, £25; profits on
trad.ng, £1,812; liabilities, £212; do., being amount of
debts of Vse firm of Broad and Co., of which I was a mem-
ber, which were compromind for Gs, in the pound, which

I have since received, owing to the composition not
being fully paid, £1,553. Debtors, good, £9; thubtful
£34; property, £l5 ; do., held by creditors, £36 ; trade
expenses, &c., £546 ; house, £537 ; losses, £834 ; deficiency
March 1, 18.54, £1,316.
Mr. Doria, for the assignees, in reply to the commissioner,
stated that no trade assignees had been appointed, but
the accounts had been approved of by the official assignee,
and were vouched by the books, which were well kept.
The official assignee (Mr. Graham) confirmed the state-
ment of the learned counsel, and
The bankrupt passed, the certificate meeting being fixed
for the 19th October next.

IN RE CUESTERMAN.
This was a sitting for the choice of assignees in the case
of the bankrupt, a builder and contractor, of Banbury.
A preliminary statement, prepared by Messrs. Paul and
Turner, exhibits—debts and liabilities, £2,000 ; assets,
£1,200.
Assignees having been chosen, upon the application of
Mr. Linklater, by whom they were represented, a weekly
allowance of £4 was ordered to be made to the bankrupt.