The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-31 00:00:00

ditors any opportunity to effect this ; but even
if he had, there were many of them whose judgments
were either too old, or who had not obtained j udg-
wilt.. These had no power to arrest him. It was
said he had been in London since November. He
would protest against the present application as an
absurdity, and such as the Court, in the due exercise
of its dignity, would unhesitatingly reject.
Mr. SA.RGOOD said, the application at that time
was obviously premature, and it must necessarily be
dismissed.

Mr. NICHOLLS said he was sorry that any errors
had crept into the affidavits made by the insolvent,
but he submitted that the explanations which had
been given to his Learned Friend Mr, Dowse would
be deemed satisfactory by the court. He was sure that
there had not been, on the part of the insolvent, any wil-
ful intention to deceive the creditors or the Court. It was
true the insolvent's debts were large, but he had known
many insolvents whose debts were much larger that Mr.
Capers were who had obtained their immediate
di,charge. It should be recollected that the amount
of 32,000/., included 6,0001. on account of railway,
liabilities, for which no consideration had been re-
ceived ; also a sum of 5,0001. td his brother (the Earl
of Risex) ; 4,0001. to Mail Woodhouse, and other
sums to private creditors, leaving the amount of trade
debts between 11,0001. and 12,0001. Some of these
had been contracted in the course of eight years next
preceding the insolvency, and not in four, as stated
by Mr. Bagley. There was no evidence that the
insolvent had been guilty of any fraud or misrepre-
sentation irecontracting these debts. The creditors
knew that he was, although a member of a noble family,
only a younger son. On the last occasion 43 credi-
tors opposed; that number was now reduced to fif-
teen. He would submit that the insolvent had suf-
fered great inconvenience by being obliged to live se-
parate from his family, and that he had been so long
in the hands of his creditors that he was now entitled
to receive his protecting order.
His Iloriouß said that when the insolvent first
came up for his protection, whether be regarded the
amount of his debts or the period in which they had
been contracted, he felt it would have been an entire
dereliction of his public duty if he (the Commis-
sioner) bad not then refused him the protection of
that court. He had heard nothing to alter his opinion
that those debts had been recklessly incurred, not in-
curred fraudulently or by misrepresentation, hut
without any reasonable expectation of payment. He
should have been ashamed of himself had he refused
protection to a poor tradesman who had thus con-
tracted a small amount of debts, and let a gentleman
of elevated rank go scot-free from such a mass of
debts as he found in that schedule. He was clearly
of opinion that what the
,law contemplated in the
98th section was, that a person who had contracted
debts as the insolvent had, and _had the protection of
that court refused in consequence, should place
his person in the power of his creditors. Could it
be said that this gentleman had done so ? lie had
flitted from place to place, in every way escaping
and avoiding his creditors. The section, he repeated,
contemplated that the person should be liable to the
seizure of creditors. Could it be said that the insol-
vent had done anything towards effecting an arrange-
ment with his creditors ? No ; nothing. Whilst he
felt it his duty to refuse the application now made, he
would say that he did riot believe there had been any
intentional mis-statement by the insolvent in his affi-
davits, and that he had answered all questions as be-
came his station and character.

Mr. Nicuou,s trusted his Honour would.name a
day when the insolvent might renew his application.
His HoNona said the application might be renewed
after the lapse of five months. He should then require
the insolvent to show that he had made some proposal
to the creditors, and the creditors to show that they
had also made some (Oats to effect a settlement of
their demands.

POLICE IN TELLIGENCE.
MARYLEBONE.

The Rev. Mr. Boone, rector of St. John's Pad-
dington, and another Rev. Gentleman, one of the
. curates, whose name did not transpire,.attended at
this court before Mr. Broughton, who, on the previous
day, deferred his decision upon a charge preferred
against Mr. James Gammage, master of a national
school in Paddington, at the head of which is the
respected clergyman first alluded to, for having cruelly
ill-used one of his pupils, a delicate little boy named
William Taylor, ten years of age.
The evidence in the first instance given has already
appeared.
Whipp, the officer, now produced a cane, with
which, as alleged, complainant had been castigated.
(It will be remembered that it was sworn on the first
examination that the boy's back and shoulders had
upon them large wheals, and that blood had issued
from one or.more of them; there was also blood upon
his shirt.)
By direction of the Magistrate, Mr. Jones, who
took down the former depositions, read the whole of
them to the several witnesses.
Mr. BROUGHTON (to complainant)—ls this the cane
you were punished with ? Complainant—l think it
is, Sir ;it look] -like it. (The cane was about a
yard and a quarter in length, and of no very great
thickness.)
• By defendant—l was standing when you flogged
me. I think you were in a passion when you did so.
While you were punishing me you did not say any-
thing, to the best of my recollection. You were en-
gaged in giving a singing lesson at the time, and after
the caning you gave me, you went on with the lesson
as usual.
'William Davidson, one of the teachers, said, in reply
to defendant, I saw you immediately after the com-
plainant left. You did not then seem angry. You
resumed your duties is the usual way. I have never
seen you lay a boy across the form to cane him, nor
did I'ever hear of a boy being caned by you in that
way.
Thomas Bryan, the pupil teacher, who had given
the most important evidence on Tuesday,
,was de-
sired to stand up in the witness. box. • -
Mr. BROUGHTON—Did you ever see a boy beaten
before at the school in the same way that this boy
wasp Witness—Yes.
Mr. BROUGIdTON-4Have you ever seen a boy put
across the form when he had what you yesterday
called a•' downright" flogging ? Witness-1 saw
such a thing once; the boy's name was John Porter.
By defendant—That was a year ago; and it was
for playing truant. He was flogged at his father's
request. I did not hear you caution and admonish
him while you were punishing him.
Crosswell, one of the warrant-officers of the court,
was re-examined, and said that when the warrant
was applied for he saw the state of the boy's back
and shoulders ; there were several marks of -violence,
and blood had. oozed from one of them.
JDoesfeepnhd a npt
rtahkeen, called
beadle,i)is witnesses.em p employed at the Rev.
Mr. Boone's church, said that he was present in
the school-room during the astronomical lecture,
and he 35W the complainant there ; he behaved him-
self very improperly, and blackened some of the boys'
faces with iek, which caused a laugh, while the lee •
tare was going on.
Anfred King (a pupil) said, in answer to defen •
dant, I saw complainant laughing while the lec-
ture was being delivered, and he was cutting up an
apple, and putting pieces into ether boys' mouths. I
have never seen you lay a boy across a form to cane
him. It was not my impression that you had lost
your temper.

By Mr. BIIOUGHTON—The first caning was for
playing in school. The second for being saucy.
I never saw any boy caned so much before; but I
don't think the caning he had was enough for him.
James Hazeman, aged 12, was next examiner.. He
stated that he had been at the school between five arid
six years. He was present when the caning took
place, and he heard complainant say that if he could
have laid hold of his whip which he had in the school,
he would have brought it out to his master.
By defendant—I have been caned by you, but only
when I deserved it. 1 believe lam the better for the
caning which I have received.
Defendant—l am glad to hear it.
Mr. Frost, master of another school at Paddington,
said that complainant was formerly a pupil of his, and
was a very unruly boy.
Mr. BROUGHTON—Did you ever cane. a boy till he
was bruised all over his back ? Witness—Certainly
not ; I should be sorry to do so.
Defendant—Does it require a very severe blow to
make a mark on the back ? Witness—l should
think not.

A number of testimonials from clergymen of high
standing were handed in for the inspection of the
Magistrate ; they set forth that defendant was a man
whom they much respected, and that his firmness of
purpose and at the same time kindness of manner to-
wards his pupils, were calculated to afford satisfaction
to all under whose authority he had as a teacher and
master acted. _ _ _

The Rev. Mr. Boone spoke in the highest terms of
the defendant, whose salary had recently, in conse-
quence of his valuable services, been raised from 701.
to 801. per year. In giving him so good a character
be was not only speaking his own sentiments, but
those of the whole of the committee also. Ile would
not enter into this particular case, but this he knew
that parents had frequently come to the committee
with a request that their children might be severely
punished for misconduct. He (the Rev. Gentleman)
knew no school in London in which corporal punish-
ment, which he, generally speaking, disapproved, was
so seldom inflicted as in the establishment in which
defendant was the master.

Mr. VuononToN carefully reviewed the whole of
the evidence adduced, and ultimately came to the
conclusion that chastisement of much tco severe a
nature had been inflicted, and he must therefore, con-
vict defendant in.a penalty for the uFsault.
He was fined 405., and in default of payment one
month's impri.ontnent:
The amount was paid by the Rev, Mr, Boone, who