The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-06 00:00:00

rn SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EV.b_INENG, NOVEMB

the unimpeachable professional purity of those by
whom that law is administered.

The discussion on the address was resumed in the
Spanish Chamber of Deputies on the .29th, when
Senor ISTURITZ brought forward his amendment, but
he appeared to speak as one not in earnest, or who
had no hope of success. He declared that if he
thought his amendment would lead to confusion, he
would at once withdraw it, because he was anxious
to see revolution at an end, and order and peace
restored. He could not, however, help thinking that
the present time was very unfavourable for such im-
portant changes, and that it would have been more wise
and prudent to have established first of all organic laws
which might have worked well, and thereby have
rendered any inroad upon the Constitution of 1837
unnecessary. Senor MARILLO defended the Go-
vernment scheme, and reminded the House that no
Minister had been able to govern within the limits
of the Constitution of 1837. He, therefore, contended
that it was absolutely necessary to remodel the ma-
chine of Government. The President of the Council,
in reply to a question relative to the affair of the '
Razo schooner, said that they had received from th 9
English Ambassador at Madrid the assurance that ,

every necessary satisfaction should be given. The
discussion was adjourned. Preparations for the trial
of PRIM were going on. No more arrests had taken

place.

The Three per Cents. were done at 274 for cash,
and 274 at 60 days ; the Five per Cents. at 211 for
cash, and 20 at 60 days; and the Floating Debt at
64/ at 60 days.

The Paris papers, especially those of the Opposi-
lon, are still occupied with the affairs of Spain. In
fact, the only political articles are on the Reform
Bill and the conspiracies said to have been discovered
at Madrid and Barcelona. The National, Siecle,
and Quotidienne, throw the blame of the late inroad
on the Constitution upon the French Government;
and the articles which appear in some of their jour-
nals amply confirm the fact. Yesterday we pub-
lished a long account, taken from the Journal des
Debats, of the late proceedings, in which a most un-
justifiable attack was made on ESPARTERO, as if the
man who had conducted himself during the whole of
his regency with the strictest honour, and a scru-
pulous regard for the laws, would lend his name and
influence to murder NARVAEZ, and bring about, for
his own selfish interests, a second St. Bartholomew.
We give the following from the National, as a reply
to the atrocious article :
" We fully expected the Ministerial journals to utter
fine phrases upon ,the frightful plot, of which Narvaez
had so much need, in order to strike terror into the
hearts of the Deputies, who were determined'to contend
against his counter-revolution. The Debuts did not fail,
yesterday, to place this affair in its most dramatic light.
It says that the manifesto of Espartero gave the signal.
Several refugees attempted to return, but were stopped
by the French police. Nevertheless the conspiracy fol-
lowed its course, and this time it was assassination—
systematised assassination that was resorted to—a sort
of Saint Bartholomew—which was to extend to the
Ministers, Captains-General, and principal functionaries
of the Government. Let Narvaez and his allies put
forth as many such fables as they please—they and
their object are well understood. Let them mock the
people of France by repeating these odious stupidities--
let them represent a great man, who has been invested
with the government, as being enrolled in a systematic
plan of assassination—let them have the courage to accuse
a late Regent of having organised and directed a
St. Bartholomew for public functionaries—this is
an impudence so glaring, that it needs but
to be seen to meet with justice. 'We can
treat accusations of this nature with nothing but dis-
dain, and we are doing them too much honour by
noticing them. The only important thing to tell the
public is, that the Progressist party has never, either in
France or Spain, disguised its firm resolution to move in
defence of the Constitution and liberties of its country,
against allthe enterprises of re-actors. It has not con-
spired in secret, but in open day. Espartero has loudly
eeclared that he would place himself at the 'service of
the cause for which he fought during seven years. Let
the men who seriously enter into politics separate en-
tirely the action of parties, the march of events, from
these insidious attempts, whether true or false, which
are wished to be made use of to delude public opinion.
There is some consolation, however, in the fact that the
Generals said to have been thus threatened have neither
of them received the slightest scratch. Narvaez and '
the Baron de Meer are both in the enjoyment of perfect
health. The first, to keep his hand in, has already shot
four persons, who were arrested one day and eys,euted
T.--.lent sitting,
the next His court-martial is in per
and he is said at the same stroke • e
so nave sent nine
I's seems that these people
other men to the gallies I I.
may be left to their own vengeance, which they
follow up with so touch ardour, promptitude, and
ferocity, so devoid of all that bears the semblance of
the calm forms of justice, that our Ministerial jour-
nals have no occasion to stimulate them by their decla-
mations. Far be it from us to entertain the thought of
encouraging assassination; if it be true that any man
has rendere himself guilty of this crime, we shall never
express a wish that he may escape the chastisement of
the law. But is it the law that has decreed the san-
guinary executions at Barcelona ? To seize a man in
the evening, and to shoot him the next morning at day-
break, are these the regular proceedings of Etny tribunal
—even of a court-martial ? Is not this another murder,
no less infamous than the first ? If the first justly
merits severity, how can any indulgence be shown to the
second ? These reflections are applicable, even if there
has been a premeditated insidious complot between a
sisall number of persons. But how could it be, should it
turn out that this business was got up by a police capable
of any crime ? We do not put this question unadvisedly.
The man who is put at the head of the police of Madrid
has a character which warrants suspicion. This Avira-
neta, of whom our correspondent has written to us, has
passed his life, his whole life, in conspiracies and secret
plots. There is not in all Spain a single cut-throat of
whose services he has not on occasion availed himself.
He has himself boasted, as we can confidently affirm, of
having the precise statistic of all the elements which are
disposable for any dark manoeuvre—any coup de main.
It is I alone,' he has said, who am able to be the
most terrible revolutionist in Spain.' "
The Siècle thus winds up an article on the same
subject :
"The honour of Narvaez does not shine forth with so
pure a brilliancy that Prim, Who is accused, may not
stand in face of it. It is already known who is the con-
spirator and the perjurer, and it will be speedily known,
if score great injustice does not throw an obstacle fu the
way of the defence, which of the two is an imposter.
These troubles, which announce a general explosion,
show how mad and criminal is the enterprise in which
the Spanish Government has embarked. That Maria
Christina, to cause her weakness to be forgotten, to
obtain from the Pope and the absolute monarchies a
dearly-purchased pardon, should arm the crown against
the laws and factions against the crown ; that Narvaez
by audacity, the military qualities which he does not
possess, should push on his fortune, and endeavour to
ensure his safety by coups d'etat, is a blind self-deceit,
which does not go beyond the common measure of
follies that have stained unhappy Spain with blood but
that a grave Minister, recalled for the third time from
exile, tried if not matured by political revolutiont, kbett
Martinez de la Ross, upwards of 60 years of op, should
follow in the train of these adventurers is unparsLnable.
If there remains to this latter, as we sue; 0„ se
Puni`'Ometif 'com'msoeinneeets
his
se
fault
117 hiso
timcnt of generosity, his
pret•ent. It is, in fact,. cr, • et
insurrection around
cause,cit' ttntlTa
and
even pepiaps suppose mimes ;to be led, in fine, in
an in",ll.us struggle, to adopt measures of violence and
which h legitimate defence does not warrant.
' Here we she the prisons filled, and courts-martial as-
sembling ; Narvaez declares that the army is faithful,
anti that the executioner is ready. That is enough for
him to be at ease, but the conscience of M. Martinez de
la Rosa will, without deubt, inform him that condem-
nations passed in the name of a perjured Government
against the defenders of national rights and liberties are
also assassinations."
The Carlist Qnotidienne is equally indignant,
though for a different reason :
" The grand conspiracy announced was so probable,
and had broken out i•o apropos, that every one was, with-
out doubt, at the windows to see it pass. In the printing-
offices of the good press there had certainly been com-
posed beforehand the consecrated phrase, "Ilie discovery
appears to have rendered the position of the Govern-
ment stronger,' or this, ' They find in them (happy
words of M. Dupin) that they only draw closer the
ranks of the Conservative party.' But a sanguinary
conclusion is always required in regenerated Spain to
these odious intrigues. Scarcely has a new military idol
been raised up by the sad imitators of the Prwtorians of
the Bas-Empire, when all watch for the sun which is
soon to arise. The young general whom the public in-
stinct designated as the nearest hero or the nearest
victim—inevitable alternative—was Prim the new Count
of Reuss. His turn was about to come on, and the end
is hastened. He might have a fortune similar to that
of Narvaez against Espartero. The fate of the unfortu-
nate Diego Leon is prepared for him. What matters a
sanguinary stain the more, if the madmen of the Mode-
redo party disgrace the Government some days longer—
if what is called Constitutional reform is voted by accla-
mations of fear—if they are at liberty to afford an ap-
pearance of satisfaction to the French dynastic interests,
a real satisfaction to the national interests of England ?
A strong moral presumption weighs on Prim. It is the
Debats which very coolly says so. We recommend the
French Opposition to well consider this system of moral
presumptions. It is pregnant with the future, once that
the Bastille constructions shall have been completed."
The French Funds rose 30 centimes on Monday,
from a report that the Government loan would not
exceed 150,000,000 f, one-half of that said to have

been intended.
82f. 30c.

The Three per Cents. closed at

ITTIE BOURSE—MONDAY, Nov. 4.
First Highest Lowest Last
Price. Price. Price. Price.
French Five per Cants...... 119 .. 119 20 .. 119 .. 119 10
Four-and-a-Half.... 112 50 .. 112 50 .. 112 50 .. 112 50
Three per Centa..... 82 10 82 30 .. 82 10 82 20

•
B ink of France • 3072 50 —3072 50 —3072 50 ..3072 50
Laffitte Bank, I,ooof. Sharesll2o ..1120 ..1170 50 ..1170 50
5,000 f. Sharesso3o —5040 ..5030 ..5040
Belgian Bank.... •• ••• • • • 655 .. 655 .. 033 .. 650
Belgian Fives,lB4o •• •• • • 1031 •• 1031 • • 1031 •• 1031
Two-and-a-Ht 62 • • 62 • • 61 85 .- 61 95
Dutch Two and-a-Half 63 •• 63 •• 63 .63
Spanish Threes •• • • •••• •• •• 341 .. 311 .. 314 .. 341
Active.• ••••• • •• • • 324 .. 321 • • 324 • • 321
Old Deferred .....• 65 .. 61 .. 61 .• 61
Portuguese Five per Cents 53
.. 53 .. 524 .. 52
Neipolita.n— •• •••••••98 80 .. 98 85 98 80 .. 98985
Roman .• .....
RAILWAY SHARES.
Versailles, R.B. • •
L.B • 286 25 .• 286 25 246 25 .. 286 25
Rouen ••••• ••••• • •• • •1035 . 1035 ..1035
—1035
Rouen to Havre •• • • ....... . 768 75 .• 768 75 • • 767 50 -. 767 50
Orleans •• •• ..... •••••• • • • •1012 50 ..1020 ..1015 ..1015
Strasburg to Bale•• •• •• •• 275 • 278 75 .. 275 . 276 25
Avignon to Marseilles.... . 807 50 817 50 .. BC7 50 .. 815
RAILWAY SHARES FOR SETTLING, Nov. 4.
St. Germain ..... •••• • • 920 .• 920 .. 920 .. 920
Versailles, L. 8.• •••••• • • • •• 286 25 . 286 25 .. 286 25 .. 286 25
Rouen ••• • • • ...... • •1030 • • 1032 50 ..1030 -.1030
Rotten to Havre.• ..... •• . • 768 75 .. 770 .. 768 75 .. 770
Orleans • •1012 50 —lO2O ••1012 50 .•1020
Strasburg to Bale ...... .• 275 .. 278 75 • • 275 .. 278 75
Avignon to Marseilles.... • • 807 50 .• 816 25 .. 807 50 . 815
RAILWAYS FOR THE ACCOUNT, ov. 15.
Versailles, L. 8.• • •• • • •• •• •• 287 80 .. 287 50 .. 287 50 •• 27 50
Rcrten • 1032 50 ..1035 ..1030 ..1030
Rouen to Havre• •••••• • • • • • 770 . • 772 50 .. 770 • • 770
Orleans... •• .• •••• • • • ••1015 ..1025
.• 1015 ..le2o
Strasburg to • •• •• 276 75 .• 280 .• 276 25 .. 278 75
Avignon to Marseilles...... BO7 50 .. 817 50 807 50 .. 816 25
THIS _DAY'S NEWS

FLANDERS MAIL.
Lord Westmoreland, Envoy Extraordinary and Mi-
nister Plenipotentiary of the Queen of Great Britain to
the Prussian Court, arrived at Brussels the day before
yesterday, from London, on his way to Berlin. Soon
after his Lordship's arrival here he paid a visit to Count
Goblet, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and to Mr. Van
Praet, member of the Icing's household. His Lordship
set out yesterday morning fur Cologne.
Madame lola de Saint Elme, authoress of the " Me-
moires d'Une Conternporaine," has, for some years past,
resided at Brussels. After a life formerly brilliant, and
always agitated, she is now, towards the close of her
career, abandoned by her former friend-,. She is now
seventy-five years of age. Her face retains some traces
of her former beauty, and the various scenes in which
she has been a witness and an actor are still present to
the imagination. A noble family, feeling an interest in
the state of destitution to which she is reduced, and
seconded by her Majesty the Queen, has made arrange-
ments by which Madame Saint Elme will find an asylum
in a hospitable family at Brussels.

AUSTRIAN FUNDS.—VIENNA, Mir 29.
Five per Cents. Metalhques- 109%
Four per Cents
100%
Three per Cents.
75
Bank Shares ... l6Ol
Allgemeine Zeitung, Nov. 1.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.
(RECEIVED THIS DAY.)
BETTING AT MANCHESTER—TUESDAY.
DERRY.
11 to 1 agstAlarm—(taken)•2B to 1 agst Fitz Allen
16 to 1 agst Kedger 30 to 1 agst Connaught
22 to 1 agst Cobweb c—t Ranger
25 to 1 agst Old England 45 to 1 agst Clear the Way
25 to 1 agst Newsmonger 50 to 1 agst Seaman
25 to 1 agst Idas 50 to 1 agst Brother to At-
-25 to 1 agst Brother to E.O. taghan
—(taken) 15 to 1 agst Forth's lot (bar
28 to 1 agst Rebecca c Irish horses).
COURSING.
BENDRIGG MEETING.—Lord Bective's Cup (12 dogs)
was won by Mr. Christian's Cerberus ; Mr. Michell's
Mameluke ran up.—The Puppy Stakes (8 dogs) were
won by Mr. Thompson's Turner ; Mr. Michell's Milo
ran up.—The Puppy Stakes, for 6 bitches, were won by
Mr. Turner's Fly ; Mr. Smith's Lightning ran up.—The
All-aged Stakes were won by Lord Bective's Tearaway.
—The Puppy Stakes by Mr. Thompson's Young Ben-
digo ; and the Moresdale Hall Stakes by his All round
my Hat.
WENSLEYDALE MEETING.—The Cup (16 dons) was
won by Mr. Wilkinson's Ace of Trumps ; Mr. Maxwell's
Agnes ran up.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir JAMEs WIGRABI.)
WOODS V. WOODS.—OPINIONS OF COUNSEL.
His Hosoun pronounced judgment in this case. This
was a motion by the plaintiff's in a cross suit for the pro-
duction of documents contained in the schedule to the
answer, and admitted to be relative to the matters con-
tail:red in the bill. Amongst the documents were a case
submitted by the defendant to his counsel, and the
opinion thereupon. The defendant had submitted to
produce the case, but resisted the production of the
opinion; and the only question upon which he was called
upon to exercise his judgment was whether the opinion
should be produced or not. According to the admissions
in the answer, and to the issue in the taus.
be no doubt that this opinion. mit.
be at
- nerial to the;,
plaintiff's case, and the there could
prima facie, upon tL plaintiff, therefore, would,
lave it prod e
general principle, be entitled to
-
unless the defendant had shown by his
that the document was privileged. If his answer
showed that, it became unnecessary to consider whither
the document might be material or not-to the plaintiff's
case, in either ease it would be protected. It was
stated by counsel in the argument that Lord Langdale
had lately decided a case, in which he stated
that he considered the opinions of counsel as not en-
titled to privilege where it appeared that it might be
material to the plaintiff's case. On referring to the case,
however, which was that of Robinson and Wright, it
appeared that Lova Lae,gclalc i-eu-ognlseil the authority
01 the cases which determined that such documents were
generally privileged, and that he afterwards carefully
excepted the documents that fill within the s'ope of the
decided cases which established . that principle. That
case, therefore, left the authorities precisely where they
stood before. In order to avoid the repetition of his
own opinion on this subject, he would refer to the case
of Lord Walsingham against Goodrich. He remained
of the opinion which he then expressed, that while the
state of the law rendered it impossible that parties should
be their own lawyers, and act without professional ad-
vice ; it was indispensably necessary that the privilege
conceded to professional communications should be main-
tained, at least to the ecteht to which it was at present.
He had looked into the bill and answer in this cause, and
by the answer it appeared that the opinion in question
was taken after the dispute had arisen which was the
subject of the original and cross cause then before him;
and that it was taken for the purpose or obtaining the
opinion of counsel for the guidance of the parties in re-
spect to that very suit. There could not be in his judg-
ment any doubt that an opinion taken under such cit.&
cumstances was privileged at the time when it was
taken ; and he thought it clearly retained its privileges
in that suit. He gave no opinion as to the obligation of
the defendant to answer any particular charge in the
interrogatories. llis present judgment was confined
exclusively to the production of the opinion itself.

EtIISIV"

QUEEN'S BENCH:J.(TMS DAYI)
CSittings its haheo.)
AthlS tl. OAIIWNER.
This Was an action brought against an attorney for
negligence in investing a sum of money belonging ttl the
plaintiff, in consequence of which the nibll4 had been
lost. The Iletier! WWI tried at Liverpool; before Mr.
Justice Cresswell; and' the jury found for the plaintiff
Mr. IiNoWLEs no* mbved for hew
trial, on the grouod that the 'ierdiet was against evidence.
The deiAlithttion alleged in the usual manner that the
defendant had been retained by the plaintiff as an at-
torney for fee and reward, and that he had tiegleeted
his duty. The pleas were, first, hot guilty, and;
secondly, that the defendant had heVer bebh
etti
ployed as an attorney: The plaintiff was an artiet,
who had received, rnaty hat of Kindness from
defendant, Wiwi had been a patron to him
6r t.,9..tt. In February, 1840, the plaintiff wrote to the
defendant asking him to invest abotit int for hits;
w!.:;cn he had eared from his earnings. The money
was lent to a person named I.3inel! to *horn the deftd-
ant had subseottently lent 0(:)t. &Ines) father was
joint tecutity with himself for the repayment of plaintiffs
money. The younger Baines died insolvent, and the
elder Baines gave up his property to his creditors, which
only yielded six shillings in the pound; Ito moved to
set aside the verdict, Eiti ilid groiind that there wits no
evidence whatever to show that the defendant had ever
been retained as an attorney. There was no bill of costs
put in—there. was no proof given of any payment of
fees from plaintiff to defendant, and all that appeared
on the trial went to negative such a supposition.
Lord DENSIAN—You had better hand up the letters
which passed between plaintiff and defendant, and we
will see my brother Cresswell on the subject.
THE QUEEN V. THE MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL

RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an indictment against the defendants for a
nuisance, for obstructing the public highway in New
Bailey-street, Salford, by the erection in the carriage-
way of that street four pillars, on which they had erected
a bridge, over which they had carried a portion of their
railway. The case was tried at Liverpool, before Mr.
Justice Cresswell, and a verdict passed for the Crown.
Mr. WORTLEY now moved for a rule nisi to set the
verdict aside, and have it entered for the defendants, or
for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection by the
Learned Judge, or at all events that the verdict should
be confined to that part only of the works which were the
subject of the indictment. The bridge had been erected
in the course of the construction of a railway joining the
Manchester and Liverpool, and Manchester and
Leeds, and Manchester and Bolton Railways, in
one common terminus. The Act of 1826, which was
the original Act forming the Company, gave them
power to erect bridges over public highways and streets,
for the purpose of carrying on their works. An Act
was passed in 1839 empowering the Company to con-
struct a junction railway, which gave them all the powers
of the first Act. That road was not constructed, and
in 1842 an Act was obtained for the construction of the
present railroad, continuing to them all the powers of
the two former Acts, and under these Acts they had the
power, as he contended, of erecting these pillars. He
had to complain of the summing up of the Learned
Judge at common law. He had told the jury that no
jury would be doing their duty who could find the erec-
tion of an obstruction in the public street to be anything
but a nuisance.
Lord DENMAN—I doubt if he went far enough. He
ought to have told the jury that any obstruction what-
ever, preventing the passage over a public highway, was
a nuisance in the eye of the law. •
Mr. WORTLEY apprehended that there must be some-
thing more than mere obstruction to make a nuisance,
Besides, he contended that, under a proper constructir,n
of the Company's Acts, they were authorised to erect
these pillars. There was only one single pillar in the
carriage-way, and he submitted that, at all events, the
writ of abatement ought only to issue as to tha", one
pillar. He trusted, that if ouch were the case, sore corn-

i. r".i.

promise might be come to, as had been suggested by the
Beamed Judge at the trial.
Lord DENMAN—Prubably it had better be turned WO

a case.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
EINNERSLEY, AN OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE, V. CROUCH
Mr, CROWDER moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict returned for the plaintiff in this case should
not be set aside, and a non-suit entered, or the damages
reduced to such a sum as the Court should direct, by
leave of the Learned Judge who tried the case.
This action was tried before Mr. justice Patteson at
the last Bristol Assizes, when a verdict was returned for
the plaintiff for 1531. 13s. It was an action for money
bad and received on account of a bankrupt named Brown,
who had carried on the business of a currier in Bristol.
The defendant was Brown's foreman. On the 28th
of October Brown left, his shop for the pur-
pose, as he alleged, of going to Cheltenham, but
he never returned to his shop. It appeared that he
went to Cheltenham, as he stated, but that he ultimately
left this countay. A fiat of bankruptcy was issued
against him on the 9th of November following. Crouch
conducted the business of the bankrupt from the time of
his leaving it till the issuing of the fiat. The action was
for money received by Crouch, on account of the de-
fendant, during that time. An account was produced at
the trial, in which the defendant debited himself to the
amount of 1531. 135., and for various other sums, on
account of the business of the bankrupt,and to the work-
men employed in it. The Learned Counsel had con-
tended at the trial that the defendant acted in the capa-
city of a servant, and that he did not come under
the cognisince of certain sections of the Bankruptcy
Act, and could not be answerable for money which he
had received and paid on account of his emplo3 ers. Ile
now reiterated these arguments, and instanced the case
as one of considerable importance to the mercantile
world. 'Was a servant to be liable for moneys so paid,
and for the acts of a bankrupt, of whose actions and
intentions he was wholly ignorant ? The decision of the
jury seemed to imply that the defendant was placed in
the position of the bankrupt..
After considerable discussion, the rule was granted.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES CARDS WILSON -A PPLI,

CATION FOR A HABEAS CORPUS.
Mr. PEACOCK, in this case, applied for a writ of habeas
corpus, directed to John Kanditch, the gaoler of one of
the prisons in Jersey, commanding him to bring up the
body of Charles Carus Wilson. Mr. Wilson went to
reside in Jersey on the 23d of September, and was shortly
after arrested and imprisoned. He stated that he was
advised, and verily believed that his imprisonment was
illegal, and applied several times for a copy of the war-
rant under which he was arrested. The gaoler told him
he had no such document, but on the 29th of September
he brought in a paper and left it in the deponent's cell,
which stated that he was condemned to pay a fine of 101.
to her Majesty, and to make an apology to the Court for
contempt. This did not state what the contempt was,
what the Court was, nor to whom the apology was to be
made.

Mr. Justice PATTESON asked what the Court was ?
Mr. PEACOCK replied that he believed it was the Royal
Court.—Application granted.

COMMON PLEAS..--(THIS DAY.

(Sittings in Banco.)
HUNTER, APPELLANT ; THE TOWN CLERK OF WEN

LOCK, RESPONDENT.
Mr. KEATING applied to the Court under the 6th and
7th Victoria, c. 18, to remit to the revising barrister the
case prepared by him in reference to a decision come to
during his revision of the list of voters for the borough
of Wenlock. The application involved an important
question as to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court
over the decisions of the revising barristers. The appel-
lant alleged now that in the statement transmitted to the
Court by the barrister, facts had been omitted which
were essential to the case. lie had applied to the bar-
rister to insert those facts, but the Learned Gentleman
refused to do so. Mr. Keating now moved their Lord-
ships to remit the case, with the order of the Court for
the insertion of the omitted facts.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN said, perhaps those matters
which you aver to be facts, were not proved to the satis-
faction of the revising barrister ?
Mr. KEATING said that was not the case. But the
barrister said they were not material to the case ;
whereas the appellant maintained that they were so.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that the Court might,
perhaps, send back the statement for the insertion of
facts, which, after hearing the appeal, they might deem
to be material. But they could not interfere as to those
matters at present.
Mr, KEATING was preparing to proceed with his ar-
gument, when

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the object of the
application was to put the Court in the place of the
revising barrister, whereas their Lordships were re-
quired to decide upon the statement made by the bar-
rister. If, upon the hearing of the appeal, they found
any insufficient, they would send back the statement to
have the insufficiency supplied ; but they could not an-
ticipate the hearing of the appeal.
The other Judges concurred, and the Court refused
to interfere.

COURT OF REVIE W--; THIS DAY.)
His Honour Sir J. K. BRUCE was engaged during the
day in disposing of bankruptcy cases, none of which pos-
sessed any public interest.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commission Gonntritiv.)
THE DRAPERY TRADE.—IN TIIE MATTER OF ROBERT BAN.
SISTER, OF PORTSEA.
The bankrupt, whose capture in the island of Madeira,
and examination at this Court, had excited such interest
in the commercial world, was again this day brought up
for re.atainitiatioti,
Mr. EDWIN JAMES, before proceeding with his exami-
nation, briefly recountered the facts of the case to the
Court. The bankrupt, he stated, had delivered a balance-
sheet which was perfectly untrue, and it bore internal
evidence of ita fictitious CluttaCteh The bankrupt had
been In business with his brother, and, upon dissolving
partnership, he withdrew 7221. as his share of the proceeds.
He then commenced trade again in Portsea in the
month of April, 1844, and the flat of biuulituptty was
issued on the following July. lle had in those four
months got
,goods to the -value of 17,00/. Os. 4d.; and
had disposed of Vieth dojo for 11,321 t, thus allekihg a
loss of 4,8791., or 43 per cent. Among other sales effected
by him in this period was one to Moses and Son, of Ald-
gate, of goo& veiled itt I,o4tit;, Mit which they per-
chased for t CO. 3s. sd. Another sale to fledge and
Lowman- of Regent-street; of Oath intoieed at 2001.,
and eolt Air 1001. The ptfttflilisH 444 boWever
denied by that firm. A third sale to a person
named Williams, of goods valued at 2,454 was effected
for 140 f. The baiderfipt s e2itiengeit, during the period
ho WAS In trade, amounted to the enormous stiiii of
i;80ot, being
,an aVerfige of 20/. net week. Ile (Mr:
James) Os hatipy to state that a Of iOOOl. had
been rescued from the bankrupt, his wife, and a person
named Quin, who was a sort of general vouchee, in
cases of sales and purchases. He (Mr. James) would
i-ienl rki ltt detailo of Matters which would he ren-
dered suiticiently clear by the bankrupt's own eltamilia,
tidn, and he would therefore at once proceed to question
hilt upon the subject of his schedule.
Mr. JaNEN—What arnotint of gouda did you sell to
Moses and Son, of Aldgate ?—The amount stated by file
already, 1,040/
Mr. JAMES—What amount de you mean to say you
received from them P—Por ono lot 2001. and for ano-
ther 180/.
Mr. JimES:—litrill you Sweat that you received more
from them than Mt. as. 3d. Will you swear after look-
ing at these invoices thatyou received more ?--I thought
there was mote; but unless there are other receipts this
iniist be the ittnetint,
Mr. JAMES—DO you mean to represent that the goods
you sold to Moses and Son for 269/ 3s. 3d. cost you
1,0401. ?.==l shotild say not, decidedly not. They cost
about two-thirds Mae than they Were sold at.
Mr. JAMES—What do you believe they cost you then?
—About 7501.
Mr. Commissioner GoULBURN—What induced you to
put cloWn rt diln?,rent sum then?—l have given up every
farthing, and made the Oest StatCtiaent I could,
Mr. JAMES—Answer his Honour's question.—;-,Those
amounts were correct to the best of my memory.
Mr. JAMES—What made you fix on 1,0401. for Moses
and Bon ? What was your particular reason for so
doing believe to the best of my memory I thought
it correct.
Mr. JAMES—You have put down to Hodge and Low.
man goods coating 2001. at 100/. When did you make
that sale ?—Either in May •or June. The goods were
not invoiced in my name, and they have therefore denied
the purchase. I sold iem in the name of Williams,
which is a fictitious name.
Mr, JAMES—Did you take the goods there ?—Yes, in
a cab, which I took only to Oxford-street, and the goods
I took into their place in separate parcels.
Mr. JAMES—Do you mean to swear, then, that these
goods cost you 200/., and that you sold them 50 percent.
under cost ?—Yes, I should think there was a loss of
50 per cent.
Mr. JAMES—You have charged in balance sheet sales
to a person named Williams of goods which you say cost
you 245/. Who is Williams ?—I believe he was in the
drapery trade, but I cannot say where he is now.
Mr. JAMES—When did you sell him these goods ?
In June of this year.
Mr. JAMES—Where did he live then ?—I do not know.
I met him in Cheapside. I had met him before. He
had lived in Birmingham some years before.
Mr. JaisiEs—Where did you effect the sale ?—When
I met him I said, I've got a lot of goods for sale ; and we
went in a cab to the wharf, got the goods, and went to a
public-house in Oxford-street. I left the goods, and
met him at three o'clock, by appointment. lie told me
that a hawker had given him an offer for them. I ac-
cepted the offer, met him again, and he paid me the
money.
Mr.JaatEs—Where did you meet him again ?—At the
house in Oxford-street, where the goods were sold. I
do not know the house, but it was on the right hand
side going westward, between Tottenham-court. road and
Regent. circus.
Mr. JAMES—How much did he pay you?-To the best
of my knowledge, 1051. I gave him no receipt.
Mr. JAMES—How was the money paid P—ln Bank of
England notes and gold.
Mr. JAMES—In what part of the house were the goods
sold P—ln a private room.
.Mr.Ja mES—W hat did you do with the money?—Took
it to Portsea.
Mr. (TAMES—How long previously did you meet Wil-
liams before this transaction ?—About nine or twelve
months before.
Mr. Commissioner GoIILBORN--What was this Wil-
liams, and where did yea !met Ng, ?-iu the Jobw;ort's