The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-13 00:00:00

Tti etn4. Ltit4Bol4ll TURADAY pV.ANI.NI4, JANUARY Is, 101 V,

" Accountant-General of the Navy, Admiralty, Somerset
House."

Agents and other persons holding powers of s.ttoi ney,
prize orders, assignments, or other instruments, by vi the
of which they rav be legally entitled to claim the share of
any captor, serving in the above-named ships, are re-
quested to present the same at this office.

- Any officer, seaman, marine, or other person, who may
desire to receive his share from the Collector of Customs or
Inland Revenue within the United Kingdom, is required to
intimate the same by letter to be addressed "On Prize Busi-
ness, to the Secretary of the Admiralty, London," in which
letter his own place of residence is to be precisely stated,
as well as the place of the nearest Collector of Customs
sr of Inland Revenue, from whom it would be convenient
to receive such share of prize money,

THE CFIRISSYS.

Flag share
Commander 33 7 8
Third class
Fourth class 4 13 8
Fifth class 2 12 1

Sixth class
Seventh class
Eighth class 0 15 7
Ninth class
Tenth class

THE HA
£ s. d.
Flag share

Commander
Third class
Fourth class 9 7 5
Fifth class 6 4 0

THE GREAT GOLD ROBBERY.-PIERCE A
DEFENDANT IN THE LORD MAYOR'S COURT.

A good deal of interest was excited yesterday in the
Lord Mayor's Court by an an action—Saward, plain-
tiff ; Williamson, garnishee, aid Pierce defendants—
arising out of the great gold robbery, the plaintiff being
an attorney, and brother to Saward, the barrister, known
otherwise as "Jew, the penman," now in custody on a
charge of forgery, and whose name first became familiar
to the public through the evidence of Agar, the convict
witness for the prosecution in that extraordinary case.
It will be remembered that, according to Agar's stat-
ment at the time of his apprehension upon a charge of
forgery he invested upwards 'of 2,0001. (some of the
money being a part of his share in the proceeds of the
robbery) in Turki,h Rinds, and left them in Pierce's
care for the use of his child and her mother, his former
mistress, Fanny Kay, according to whose evidence,
Pierce, after Agar's conviction, turned bar and her
child out of doers, retaining possession of the property,
including a gold watch, with Agar's initials, and a pic-
ture of Windsor Castle on its face, for his own use ; an
act which led her to divulge what she knew in connection
with the robbery, and which being communicated to
Agar himself, caused him to make a full revelation iu
connection' with the robbery and his accomplices iu its
perpetration.

The case now before the court was one of attachmen
of these Turkish Bonds.

Mr. Robinson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Henry James for the garnishee.
The plaintiff sought to recover from out the custody
of the police-412er, Williamson, certain property
alleged to belong to the defendant.
It appeared that, upon the arrest of Pierce, William.
son, who is the officer to whom the case ip entrusted,
proceeded to Pierce's residence at Kilburn, for the pur-
pose of discovering anything that might be there in con-
nexion with the case, and that upon searching it he found
three 5001. Six per Cent. Turkish Bonds, four 1001.
ditto, six 501. do., awl a gold watch and guard, with
three seals, the watch bearing the iritials " E.R.A." It
was this property that the plait.tiff sought to make an-
swerable for the payment of his debt, upon the proof of
the fact, Williamson admitting, upon cross-examination,
that he took the property, and held it without Pierce's
consent.

Mr. James took objection, Srst, that the goods were
goods in the hands of a trespasser ; and secondly, that
they were goods in the custody of the law, and therefore
mot attachable.

The Recorder held the second objection to be valid,
and that the goods were not attachable—at all events
until after the trial of the defendant.
A good deal of speculation has been excited by the
connexion of the plaintiff in this case with Saward, the
alleged forger, and it is supposed that he acted on behalf
of Agar's child.

It is thought that a revision of the county magistracy
is not unlikely to take place in Ireland—no party to be
re-appointed whose income is not independent of his
farming pursuits or trade, or whose social position is
not on a par with the gentry of the district.—Linzeriek
Chronicle.
MR. ROEBUCK.—Mr. Roebuck, M.P., has consented
to attend and address a public meeting of the Liverpool
Financial Reform Association on the 22d inst.
ACCIDENT TO THE TYNE ROYAL MAIL STEAMER.—
SOUTHAMPTON, Tuesday.—lntelligence has been received
here to-day that :the Tyne steamer (R.M.C.), from the
Brazils, is ashore off St. Alban's Head. A steamer has
gee to her assistance.
LENGTH OF DAYS.--Some few years since we beheld
the strange sight of an old woman, • aged one hundred
and two, bent double, crooning over the fire, and nurs-
ing in her lap an infant but a few days old. The infant
was the grandchild of the old woman's grandchild. The
only remarkabie circumstance in the veteran's history
was that she had nursed Wordsworth in his infancy.
She had lived the greater part of her life in Westmore-
land, near the poet's residence, and there her descend-
ants had been chiefly born and lived.—The London
Quarterly Review.

[ADVERTISE3IENT. —Holloway's Ointment and Pill
cared a wound in the Le; ~f Eleven Years' Standing.—
Mr. Welch, a chemist, of Brighton, states, in a letter to
Professor Holloway, dated Sept. 6, 1855, that Mrs.
Catherine Hudson, of Cavendish-place, in that town, bad
been suffering from 11 years from an ulcerous wound in
the leg, for which she had been under medical treatmeLt
at the London and Brighton dispensaries, but derived no
benefit therefrom. The application, however, of Hollo-
way's Ointment and the use of Holloway's Pills have
effected a perfect cure.--Sold by all medicine vendors
throughout the world, at Professor Holloway's Estab-
lishments, 244, Strand, Andon, and 80, Maid, n-lane,
New York; by A. Stampa, Constantinople; A, Guldich
timyrna ; and E Muir, Malta.

LA W INTELLIGENCE—lan. 12.

COURT.OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

THE QUEEN V. SIR J. DODSON (JUDGE OF THE COURT OF
THE ARCHBISHOP OF THE PROVINCE OF CANTERBURY).
Mr. H. Hill, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Coleridge)'
moved for a rule calling upon the judge of the Court of
the Archbishop of the province of Canterbury to show
cause why a mandamus should not issue commanding
him to admit a libel and appeal from the archbishop, the
appeal being from the Archbishop of Canterbury, sitting
in the diocese of Bath and Wells as statutory substitute
for that bishop. The question turned entirely on the
construction of the Act for Better Enforcing Church
Discipline (the 3d and 4th of Victoria, chap. 3d), and
did not involve any question as to the merits of the
case. The question simply was, whether an appeal
was given by the statute to the court of the arch-
bishop, for if so there was a legal right involved,
and a mandamus ought to issue. The learned C3OO.
sel said it war important to bear in mind the state of
the proceedings which had been instituted against the
Rev. Mr. Denison, the Archbishop of Taunton. A com-
mission had been issued by the Archbishop of Canter-
bury, directed to five per`sons, under the third section of
the Church Discipline Act, two of whom were rural
deans in the diocese of Bath and Wells. In the month of
January, 1855, they reported that there were sufficient
prima facie grounds for instituting proceedings against
the archdeacon. Upon that report the Rev. Mr. Dit-
cher, the party complaining, caused articles to be filed
against the archdeacon, under the 7th section, and he
then called on the Archbishop of Canterbury to take
such proper steps as the act required, in order that the
case against the archdeacon might be heard. The arch-
bishop, conceiving that he had a discretion to exercise in
the matter, declined to take such steps ; and in conse-
quence an application was made to this Court for a man•
damus to compel him, and eventually the judgment of
this Court was pronounced in Easter Term, 1856,awards
ing a peremptory mandamus. The next step was most
important to be noticed. On the sth of May, 1856, the
archbishop cited the archdeacon to appear before him
in Ductors -commons on the 27th of May, to answer the
articles exhibited against him by the Rev. Mr. Ditcher.
The archbishop was then ruled by Mr. Ditcher to return
the writ, and the archbishop returned that he had cited
the archdeacon to appear in Doctors'-commons. A mo-
tion was then made to this Court to quash the return,
on the ground that the archbishop was only acting in
the place of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who was
the patron of the preferment held by the archdeacon,
and that the case ought therefore to be heard in the din-
csse of Bath and Wellr.
Lord Campbell—The archbishop was acting as the
judge of a diocesan and not of a provincial court:
Mr. Hill—On that ground the Court of Queen's Bench
quashed the return. The archdeacon attended according
to the summons in Doctors'-commons, when he re-
ceiTed notice from the archbishop of what had taken
place the day before in this court. The archbishop then
gave notice to the archdeacon to appear before him (the
archbishop) and his assessors. The 11th section of the
act pointed out who those assessors were to be. They
were to be three in number, and appointed by the bishop
(or in this case by the archbishop) ' • and one was to be
an advocate who had practised net less than five yea's
in the court of the archbishop of the province, or ser-
geant at law, or a barrister of not less than seven years'
standing ; and another was. to be the dean of his cathe-
dral church, or of one of his cathedral churches, or of
one of his archdeacons, or his chancellor. In this
case the archbishop appointed the Ja Ige of the Admi-
ralty Court (Dr. Lusbington), the Dean of the Cathedral
Church of Wells, and the Professor of Divinity at Ox-
ford, to act as his assessors. The case was heard before
them, and finally sentence of deprivation was pronounced
against the archdeacon upon the charge of impugning
certain doctrines of the Church of England, contrary
to the statute of the 13th of Ras beds, chap. 12. The
sentence of deprivation was made imperative by the
statute, there being no discretion allowed in the matter.
An appeal was then made to the court of appeal of the
province, but it was there argued that no appeal
fay to that court ; and Sir John Dodson, the
judge, being of that opinion, be declined to receive the
libel, or to hear the appeal. The learned counsel stated
that the question now was, whether the learned judge
was right in refusing to hear the appeal, and proceeded
to conteud, upon an examination of the several sections
of the act of Parliament, that the learned judge had mis-
taken the law upon that point, and that this Court
would set him right by granting the writ of mandamus.
The substance of the learned gentleman's argument was
that the appeal now sought to be enforced was not dn
appeal from the archbishop to his own judge (Sir John
Dodson), but from tb 3 archbishop sitting iu the stead of
the Bishop of Bath and Wells to the court of the arch-
bishop, in which Sir John Dodson acted as judge. When
acting as diocesan in his own diocese the archbishop was
in the habit of sending cases by letters of request to the
judge of his own court, and according to the form of let-
ters of request long in use they were addressed, not to
the archbishop, but to the judge of his court.
Lord Campbell—The appeal is not oh coders ab eundem.
Mr. Hill—The 16th section threw great light on the
subject, for it enacted, among other things, that any
archbishop who had sent any case by letters of request
to the court of appeal of the province should not sit as a
member of the Judicial Committee on an appeal in that
case. The learned counsel concluded by saying that the
question was of the highest importance to Archdeacon
Denison as well as to the public in general, and the more
so because it bad been argued before Sir John Dodson
that no appeal at all lay in this case.
Lord Campbell said the learned counsel was entitled
to a rule to show cause.
Rule nisi granted.
HENDERSON V. THE ROYAL BRITISH LINE.
Mr. Aspland moved for a rule to show cause why the
plaintiff; who had ()blamed judgment against the Royal
British Bank, and which judgment remained unsatisfied,
should not be allowed to issue execution against the
goods of an individual shareholder named Goddard.
Goddard was one of the sharebarers of the bank who
alleged he had been defrauded, but it was not alleged
that the plaintiff was any party to the fraud. The sum
of 1251. had been paid into court by the defendant, and
part of the learned counsel's application was that the
plaintiff should be allowed to take that sum out of court.
Mr. Justice Coleridge said he believed a point of she
same kind had been made elsewhere.
Mr. Aspland said the point either had been or would
be raised in several places.
The Court granted a rule nisi.
THE QUEEN V. MARIA CLARK-IN RE ALICIA RACE.
In this case a writ of habeas corpus had issued, di-
rected to Maria Clark, the matron of the Sailor's Orphan
Girls' School at Hampstead, to bring up the body of a
girl named Alicia Race, with a view to her being deli-
vered up to her mother, of the same name. It is under-
stood the applicant is a Roman Catholic, and objects to
her child receiving a Protestant education.
Mr. Sergeant Shoe (with whom was Mr. Finlason)
stated the nature of the application.
Lord Campbell inquired if the child was in court ?
Mr. Serjeant Shee said she was, and he was instructed
to move that she be delivered up to her mother:
Mr. O'Malley, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Lush), said
he was instructed to show cause.
Lord Campbell said be thought the law applicable to
the case was very clear, and was decided a short time
before he (Lord Campbell) left the bar, in a case in
which he himself was counsel.
Mr. O'Malley said the arguments must occupy some
time, and as it was now late he hoped the case might
stand over till another day. He wished, however, to
state that the matter had already been before a judge at
chambers (Hr. Justice Crompton), but the merits of the
case had not been at all gone into. Nevertheless, the case
had been reported in the newspapers, and one of them
had had a leading article founded on a report of what had
not taken place. He wished to say that the
one
was entirely ex parte, and there was not one word of
truth in the report ; for the facts of the case were not
stated before the learned judge at chambers. It was a
mere attempt to influence opinion.
Lord Campbell said it would not influence the opinion
of this Court, though such publications were always to
be regretted.

Sergeant Shee said be had not heard of the report
before he was informed of it by his learned friend (Mr.
O'Malley).

Mr. IjOvill said he appeared on the part of the Royal
Oommissioners of the Patriotic Fund, who bad placed
the child In the asylum, where she now was, and he
trusted that all public discussion of the question would
be stopped until after it had been discussed in this court
and decided.

Lord Campbell said it was to be lamented when dis-
cussions in public journals took place on questions about
to be adjudicated upon in this court.
Some conversation then took place as to when the case
could be heard ; and it was suggested that it might be
taken on Saturday after the Crown paper.
Lord Campbell said, as it was a case in which the liberty
of the subject was concerned, it might be taken on
Saturday, at the sitting of the Court.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. CommisEioner Holroyd.)
IN RE THE ROYAL BRITISH DANK.
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE SHAREHOLDERS.

The assignees under this bankruptcy have commenced
to put in force the powers of this court as against the
shareholders. This morning a number of them wore
summoned to appear before the commissioner, in
order to ascertain whether they admitted their lia-
bility. This is a necessary preliminary to suing the
shareholders. The following is a list of the parties
summoned, with the amounts which they have been called
upon to pay under the directors' call of 501. per share:—
Mr. William Burchett, of 29, Cheapside, 1,000/. ; Mr.
Thomas Clarke, of 30, Chancery-lane, 5001. ; Mr. Ben-
jamin Dixie, of Pelican House, Peckbam-road, Surrey,
500/. ; Mr. Alfred Dorey, of Hungerford-market, 500/. ;
Mr. Edmund Goddard, of 103, London Wall, 1,8001. ;
Mr. John Thomas King, of Queen-street, Cheapside,
4501. ; Mr. A. J. Mayer, of No. 8, Ashly-crescent, City.
road, 1,0001.; Mr. Richard Michell, of 93, Oxford-street,
1,8501. ; Mr. George Ragsdale, of the Strand, 6001. ;
Mr. Andrew Stewart, of Sidney-square, Commercial-
road, 1,2001. ; Mr. Robert Edwin Williams. of Lower
Thames-street, 300/. ; Mr. James Brand, builder, of
Bromley, 2,5001. ; Mr. John Arundel, of Gutter-lane,
Cheapside, 5001. ; Mr. William Barnett, of the National
Debt Office, Old Jewry, 800/. ; Mr. Henry Beech, of 11,
Hanover-street, Hanover-square, army tailor, 500/. ; Mr.
Thomas Martin, 9, Hamilton-place, Brixton-road, 150/
Mr. Thomas Matthews, 73, High-street, Camden-town,
5001. ; Mr. Frederick Valiant, of 7, Pembfridge-place,
Bayswater, 1,0001. ; Mr. W. H. Boulton,mor Quadrant-
road, Lower-road, Islington, 7501. ,
1. . ma
Dunn, of St. Peter's-road,oo/. ;
Mr. hass.
Lee, of Alpha-cottage, Canonhury, 250/ • Mr Adolphus
•e
Schermann, of George stret Minozl iOO/.;. Mr.Tll Thos.
e -
Chester Mills, of Camden-cottages, Camden-town, 3001.
Mr. Bagley aid Mr, H, Linklater appeared in sup.

_ -
port of the summonses. Some of the shareholders were
represented by professional men, but the majority of
them appeared without advisers.
. The first case taken was that of Mr. T. C. Mills, of
Camden-town.
Mr. Kennedy said he appeared for Mr. Mills, who
was a shareholder and also a creditor of the bank. A
call of 501. per share had been mats upon him by the
official assignee, and also one of 751. per share by the
official manager. He denied that the call was a good
one, but if it were decided to be good, would not give
any trouble, but was content to pay it. All he said
was ho did not admit the call to be a debt. The
question was whether the as,ignees were entitled to
examine Mr. Mills at all under these circumstances. The
claim could hardly be said to be a debt.
The Commissioner—That is the question that is to be
determined. Nothing that is taken down will at all pre-
judice your client. You can take the examination under
a sort of prote-t as to the validity of the claim.
Mr. Kennedy —But we have really a bona fide answer
to this claim. They owe us 4501. on a drawing account,
but I am told we cannot set that off here; and I under-
stand the official manager has objected to allow those
who have paid this call to set it off against the call of
751.

The Commissioner—All that we require now is merely
to get the facts. This gentleman may now state, if he
chooses, that he disputes the validity of the call. He
merely admits that he holds so many shares, on which,
if the call be good, he will have to pay so much money.
He can further state that he is a creditor of the bank
for so much money.
Mr. Kennedy-- I would suggest that the examination
should stand over till the question of the validity of the
call is disposed of. We have no desire.to liti ;ate.
The Commissioner—Simply getting the facts will do
nobody any harm.
Mr. Bagley—That is all we propose to do.
Mr. Mills was then examined and deposed as follows:
—I am a clerk in the London and North-Western
Railway. I hold six shares in the Royal British Bank.
They are all transfer shares, and I produce them. I
received seven dividends, I believe on the above shares,
the last being for the half-year ending June 30, 1856.
I paid the amount of that dividend to the credit of my
drawing account with the bank. The dividend warrants,
dated 18th of February and 15th of August last, are
respectively signed by me and were paid into the Royal
British Bank to the credit of my drawing account.
Mr. Bagley—Did you have notice of the oall made by
the directors of the company for 501. per share.
Mr. Mills—l had notice that they had passed a reso-
lution to make a call.
Mr. Bagley—That was before they became bankrupt ?
Mr. Mills—lt was after they had stopped.
Mr. Bagley—Can you E tate the date when you received
that notice ?
Mr. Mills—No, I could not. It was some days after
they had stopped. I think the bank stopped on the sth
and this was about the 17th of September.
Mr. Bagley—You have never paid that call, I sup-
pose ?

- Mr. Mills--I have not.
Mr. Bagley—Nor any part of it ?
Mr. Mills—Nor any part.
Mr. Bagley—Are you prepared to pay it now, or any
part ?

Mr. Mills—l have been prepared to pay it to the par-
ties who may be decided to be the proper and legal
parties to receive it ; but I have been confounded and
confused with the accounts that I have received of two
courts applying for the same. AU I want to know is
who are the proper parties to make the call.
The Commissioner—You mean to say, you are ad-
vised that the call is not a valid call ?
Mr. Mills—Yes. My impression is that it was not a
call, but only a resolution to make one, but they did
not make it.
The Commissioner—And you had better say, subject
to the set-off.
Mr. Bagley—ls that so ? Are you a creditor to the
bank ?
Mr. Mi is—l am.
Mr. Bagley—To the amount of how much ?
Mr. Mills-4291. 193. 3d.
Mr. Bagley—ls that the balance of your drawing
account ?
Mr. Mills—lt is. It is a little more than the actual
balance ; something, I suppose, has been added for inte-
rest. The balance in my pass-book is 4901. 163. 7d.,
but my debt has been admitted by the official manager
to be 492/. 19s. 3,1.
The Commissioner—You have no claim against the
British Bank, but upon a drawing account I
Mr. Mills—No.
Mr. Bagley—Do you desire to set off the claim that
you have against the call?
Mr. Kennedy—I object to that question. Ile has
already stated that you have a claim, and he is ready
to settle it.
Mr. Mills—l should be quite ready to settle from the
balance thatl hold as a creditor ofthe bank provided I am
shown who are the proper parties to receive the amount.
I don't want to give any trouble. I have very little to
pay with. I have paid 3001. for my shares.
Mr Bagley—The set-off is a matter of discretion with
the parties, whether they choose to set off their claims
or not.
The Commissioner—But the act of parliament directs
that if the debtor& to a bankrupt estate. have a set-off,
the court shall go into the account.
Mr. Bagley—Just so, if the party comes to prove a
debt.

Mr. Mills—This is a case of great hardship upon me.
I have earned my daily bread ; and here are the savings
of many years.
Mr. Bagley—Nobody can help feeling for you and
persons in 3 our position.
Mr. Kennedy—Perhaps your Honour will put upon
this examination, " without prejudice."
The Commissioner—lt cannot prejudice him in any
way ; he has said nothing to prejudice hirnsel.
The next case taken was that of Mr. Adolphus Scher-
mann, of George-street, Minories. This was the share-
holder who first petitioned the Court of Chancery for a
winding-up order.
Mr. Solomon appeared on behalf of Mr. Schermann,
who was examined as follows by Mr. Bagley :
Are you a shareholder in the Royal British Bank ?
I am, unfortunately, what is called a shareholder, but I
consider that the money which was :paid on the new
shares has been obtained by fraud. I consider that those
shares are not shares at all ; that the money has been
obtained from the shareholders by fraud. lam a share-
holder in respect of 10 shares issued on the Bth January,
1855.

Those shares were granted you upon that application
(handing a paper to the witness) Is that your signa-
ture ?—Yes. I inquired of the manager, and I had his
advice personally to recommend these shares. He
promised that they would pay 6 per cent. interest.
You say you took those shares on the recommendation
of the manager ?!--Yes, Mr. Cameron ; and Kr. Craw-
ford was likewise there at the same time.
But whose recommendation had you ?—That of Mr.
Crawford.
Was he one of the managers?—lse was the secretary,
I believe, at that time. I happened to have a deposit
of money there.
What did Mr. Crawford say ?—He said that the bank
was in a thriving state, and would pay a good dividend.
On there representations I was induced to take the
shares !
Did you receive any dividends on those shares !—I
twice received dividends. I call it only interest ; I
don't call it a dividend. It was my profit at the bank.
It was paying me my own money back again.
Did you sign those warrants, dated Feb. 18 and Aug.
15, 1856 ?—Yes.
Did you receive the amounts specified in those war-
rants ?—I did.
Mr. Solomon—What were you told that those war-
rants were for ?—As interest.
Mr. Bagley—By whom were you told that ?—From
Mr. Crawford.
That was oa the money you paid for the shares ?
Yes.

Are you aware that the directors made a call of 501.
per share I—l am aware of it.
Had you notice of it ?—I had.
Mr. Solomon--Do you know when you had that
notice ?—About a fortnight after the bank stopped pay-
ment.
By Mr. Bagley—Did you pay that call, or any part
of it ?—I did not. There were likewise two other calls
made, one by the C iurt of Chancery, and the other by
the ourt of Baukrupty after that.
Did you ever offer to pay any part of that call ?—I
did not.
Did you make an offer of 1001. I—l made an offer of
1001. to Mr. Linklater after I received the notice of
call. I said I would find a friend to pay that if they
would give me a release altogether.
You offered to pay 1001. if they would give you a
release altogether ?—Yes.
Mr. Solomon—Ob, yes, I offered that.
Mr. Bagley—Did you add that if the 1001. was not
accepted it would do to take you through the court, or
words to that effect ?—I said something to that effect. I
said at the time that I was not liable, because I corm.
dered that the bank would not issue new shares then.
Did you say that at the same time ?—I did. I con-
sidered that the bank was at that time dissolved.
Have you since then transferzed or made away with
any of your property ?
Mr. Solomon—l do not think you need answer that
question. You are summoned here to show cause why
you do not pay the debt or admit it. Ido not think you
can inquire into his private affairs.
Mr. Schermann—l did threaten.
The Commissioner—l don't think it is material for the
present inquiry.
Mr. Solomon—The wording of the summons confines
the inquiry to the debt be owes.
Mr. Bagley—Are you ready now to ay this 501. call,
p
or any part of it ?--I am not.
Why not ?—ln the first place, I am not in a position ;
and secondly, I object because there have been different
calls.

The whole or any part of the debt ?--The whole or
any part of the debt.
jiAre you a creditor of the'bank ; do they owe you any
money
?—I drew a cheque the day before the stoppage,
and paid it to a party for 701. odd. If this cheque was
honoured it would exhaust .ny balance within a few
shillings.
Are you ; creditor or are you not ?—That cheque was
not presented until the next day, when the bank stopped ;
so I don't know whether I am or not.
How much was it for ?-701. odd.
If that was paid there would be no further balance due
to you -There would not, except some few shillings.
If that was not paid you would consider yourself a
creditor of the bank for that amount ?—Yes.
This concluded Mr. Schermann'e case.
Mr. Blunt Eaid no appeared on behalf of Mr. James
Mackay, of Richmond, who was one of the unfortunate
shareholders of the class B. He was a teacher of lan-
guages; and, though he had nothing but hie furniture, he