The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-15 00:00:00

THE. SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, MAY 15, 1845.

missioners of Bankruptcy. Bat the measures by
which these Acts prevent the insolvent from being
punished, unfortunately open a wide door for the
escape of the fraudulent.
By the provisions of the Bill in question these evils
are remedied. Debtors summoned before a court of
insolvency are of two descriptions :-1. Those who
are known or suspected to be guilty of malversation ;
and 2, those who, though insolvent, lie under no such
imputation. The former class the Bill gives power to
arrest at once, an oath being made before the commis-
sioners of certain acts on the part of the debtor, so
that by a summary process, the court, immediately on
being made cognizant of the fact, interferes to prevent
the debtor from dissipating, or alienating in fraudu-
lent preferences, or absconding altogether with the
property of his creditors ; and the debtor thus accused
on oath of misconduct, is secured for the jurisdiction
of the court. This summary process the Bill only
allows for creditors for more than twenty pounds, it
not being considered desirable to expose a man to the
risk of the loss of liberty on summary and exparte
process for a smaller amount. With respect to the
second class, such insolvents are to be summoned
upon affidavit of debt, bat are not to be arrested. Of
course arrest is to follow where the summons is dis-

obeyed.
Thus both descriptions of insolvents are brought
within the jurisdiction of the court, and it is there
placed in the discretion of the commissioner according
to the circumstances proved, to detain the debtor
under arrest until security is given for his appear-
ance before the court. Finally, by subsequent pro-
visions, imprisonment is awarded as the punishment
of certain acts of misconduct.
Such are the provisions which appear to solve all
the difficulties of the law of arrest. The debtor
accused on oath of malpractices, whom it is desirable
to secure without delay, before he completes his

fraud an I absconds, is arrested upon summary pro-
cess ; and such dishonest debtor, instead of being
able to escape, as o 4 present, will still be secured for
the cognizance of the court by bail, or by merited
imprisonment, if his conduct has been such, or his
credit is so low, that no one will be security for his
not absconding. By the proposed course, those
against whom a strong prima facie case of guilt is
made out, and those only, will be liable to arrest; the
unfortunate will no longer be subjected to imprison-
ment for debt, and punishment before trial will cease
to disgrace the statute-book.
The Bill then proceeds to a variety of details re-
specting the securing, the discovering, and the
realizing the debtor's property, and other details of
administering the estate ; the plan of obliging the
debtor to file a statement of his affairs, as in the In-
solvent Debtors Court, and lately ordered by the
Commissioners in Bankruptcy, is among the provi-

sions of the Bill.
We now come to a very important part of the pro-
posed enactment.
With respect to the liability of subsequently ac-
quired property two distinct modes of treatment,
diametrically opposed to each other, are in operation
at the present moment. In the insolvent Debtors
Court, where a man after being discharged from im-
prisonment attains to opulence, a portion of his wealth
is, under certain humane awl equitable regulations,
applied in satisfaction, or in part satisfaction, of his
former debts. This is in accordance with the law of
France, and of nearly all the continental states with
respect both to commercial and non-commercial insol-
vents. On the other hand, in the Court of Bank-
ruptcy, though the legislation has frequently varied as
to where the power of granting the certificate
shall be intrusted, yet in all the alterations one extra-
ordinary rule has been constantly adhered to, namely,
that the bankrupt shall either be left wholly unpro-
tected at the mercy of his creditors, or shall be
wholly absorbed from all liability whatever, however
culpable or fraudulent his condact may have been,
and however his subsequent wealth may enable him
to fulfil his engagements. While death was the
penalty for frauds committed after the issuing a com-
mission of bankruptcy, the most complete immunity
has till lately existed for all frauds committed before
the bankruptcy. The old Roman law and the pre-
sent English law have on this point pursued the oppo-
site extremes of lenity end severity; by the former
a debtor might be obliged to dedicate the whole
labour of his life to his creditor, of whom he was,
in some cases virtually, in others really, the slave;
while the English law allows the certificated bank-
rupt to inherit or acquire a fortune, without affording
the slightest assistance to the creditors whom he may
have reduced from affluence to destitution.

The highly important consequences of a moral, as
well as of a commercial nature, depending on a right
legislation on this question, appear to render it de-
sirable that a deliberate consideration of the provi-
sions contained in that part of the Bill which relates
to this plan, should be undertaken by those whose
functions will call upon them to legislate on this
subject. This is rendered of greater importance by
the misapprehension which pervades many minds on
this point.
It is clearly shown that the system, peculiar to this
country (the origin of which is distinctly traced),
whereby a trader is discharged absolutely from his
pecuniary engagements, notwithstanding that he
may, at a later period, be perfectly competent to
satisfy his creditors, on the ground of an intervening
inability to meet those engagements, is both impolitic
and unjust, and that all the real benefits re-
sulting from the course now adopted, may be
secured without persevering in that reckless dis-
regard of the interests of creditors, to which the
long prevalence of the principles upon which
the previous system is founded, have familiarised
the public mind. Acting upon those principles,
the Legislature lsst year, by the 7th and Bth Viet.,
c. 96, deprived creditors of their only effective remedy
for the recovery of debts under 201. The direct con-
sequence of that statute was the practical extinction
of all debts under 201. due from dishonest debtors,
involving the ruin of a numerous class of tradesmen
whose capital was invested in small debts. But the
blow must recoil against the class for whose benefit it
was introduced, as it strikes at the root of that credit
which in so many cases is absolutely necessary.
Without credit, the most skilful artisan, who is _tem-
porarily out of work, may be entirely broken down,
and reduced, with his family, to the state of paupers.
Without credit, a young man, who has acquired a
character for industry and integrity, may lose the
most favourable opportunity of establishing himself in
the world. Without credit, a person attacked by a
su Hen illness must often forego the benefit of
medical assistance. Without credit, a person who
has accidentally lost, or has been robbed, of his ready
money, may find himself and his fa:nily suddenly
placed in the most distressing extremity of suffering
and destitution. Without credit, a mechanic, the
employment of whose skill is necessary for the pur-
pose of carrying on some new or increasing branch of
industry in a remote part of the country, will ge-
nerally be unable to obey the cad, and he and his in-
tended employer and the public will be more or less
deeply injured. Without credit, a farmer may be
obliged to sell his corn when the market is glutted,
thereby not only deeply injuring; him3eT, but also in-
juring the consumer, who will ultimately have to pay
a larger price than he would have paid if the corn
improperly forced into consumption had been re•
served for a period when the stocks had become ge-
nerally exhausted. Credit is, no doubt, frequently
abused ; but it seems to be at variance with the spirit
of sound legislation to enact laws tending to prohibit
persons of full age and of sound mind from making
such contracts as they may deem most conducive to
their own interests, yet this is the spirit and tendency
of all laws introduced for the purpose of, what is
called, discouraging excessive credit.
By the Bill in question such facilities are given to
creditors for obtaining payment of their debts, that
every person who has occasion to contract debts with
honest intentions, and for proper objects, will find no
difficulty in obtaining credit for large or for small
amounts, in proportion to his wants and his circum-
stances, whilst the career of those dishonest debtors
who are now in the habit of living upon the credulity
of others, will be stopped by the proposed enactments.
By the Bill in question it is proposed that in every
ease of insolvency the assignee, trustee, or inspector,
shall deliver to the court his answers to certain sets
of questions framed for the purpose of ascertaining
the true character of the insolvency. By these ques-
tions, in number thirty-five, every description of
imprudence, carelessness, misconduct, and fraud, by
which the insolvency had been brought about, or by
which the loss to the creditors has been increased, is
sought to be unravelled, from excessive expenditure
and unjustifiable speculation, down to the crime of
absconding with the property of the creditors.
According to the result of these inquiries, the insol-
vent will be placed in one of four series of classes :-
1. Attertninated debtors, and insolvents by misad-
venture, the former term familiar to the legal anti-
quary, being revived for the purpose of designating;
those debtors wile, with the consent of a majority of
their creditors, obtain time far the payment of their
debts in full.
2. Improvident insolvents.
3. Culpable insolvents and culpable bankrupts.
4. Fraudulent insolvents and fraudulent bankrupts.
The result of this cla;sificaticn, and, indeed, of the
whole of the proposed provisions, will be, that those
whose insolvency has been occasioned by the vicissi-
tudes of fortune, inevitable in a commercial country,
will be more favourably dealt with than at present,
and will be separated even in name from the classes
who now involve all bankrupts under one common
stigma; while, on the other hand, dishonesty in mer-
cantile transactions will no longer, as at present,
enjoy an immunity from the penal consequences by
which the law deters from dishonesty of every other
description.
Insolvents, by misadventure, will be placed nearly
in the present position of certificated bankrupts, that
is to say, absolved from liability from their former
debts, with this exception, that once in three years,
if one-third of such insolvent's creditors in number

and amount petition the court ; or if the court ex
officio interferes for the purpose, the insolvent may
be called upon to give a statement of his circum-
stances, and the court will then determine whether,
regard being had to the position of the insolvent and
his family, any, and if any, what payment shall be
made by the insolvent in respect to his former liabili-
ties. By this regulation the honest but unfortunate
debtor will be left unfettered to pursue his avocations
for the benefit of himself and his family ; but if an
ample inheritance should devolve on him, if large
legacies should be bequeathed to him, if a full tide of
prosperity from any quarter should set in upon him,
then, and not till then, will he be required to do by
the court, if not done spontaneously, what every
man, actuated by right feeling, would do of his own

accord.
But the dishonest insolvent who upon inquiry shall
be placed in the fourth class, that of fraudulent insol•
vents, or (if a trader) that of fraudulent bankrupts,
will no longer find that while depriving a man of his
property by that which comes within the technical
description of larceny, is highly penal, depriving him
of much more important amounts by swindling,
passes with impunity. An insolvent even of this de-
scription will be under the protection of the court, so
as to be at full liberty to place himself in a course of
honest industry, but will be obliged to submit yearly
statements of his proceedings to the court, showing
whether, after every reasonable allowance for his sup-
port and that of his family, after affording him every
encouragement in his efforts to redeem his character,
something., and what, shall be done in the way of re-
paration to those whom his misconduct has injured.
By the present bankrupt laws, no such favourabl
opportunity for restoration of character, as is provided
in other countries, is open to the English bankrupt.
In the case of gross fraud, the only punishment that
can be awarded is to withhold the certificate far a
time, or to refuse it altogether; to send an offender out
of court with an incapacity to hold any property, or
receive the benefit of any exertions which he may
make. The uncertificated bankrupt can neither be
assisted by his friends, nor enter into business for him-
self; he is, moreover, constituted a pest. and a trap, to
whom, if persons, however ignorant of his position,
entrust any property, that property is immediately
liable to be seized upon, and wholly absorbed for the
benefit of the creditors under his bankruptcy. In
contrast with this plan stands the proposed system of
encouraging an insolvent to exert himself to redeem
his character, and to repair,'if prosperity should attend
his labours, to some extent, the losses which he has
occasioned.
It is, besides, proposed that certain disabilities
should attach to the dishonest insolvent, such as dis-
qualification from being in any list of voters, or on
any burgess roll, or acting as justice of the peace, or
executor or trustee, or in cases of deeper culpability
from acting as attorney, solicitor, or notary, or factor,
or salesman, while in cases of directly criminal con-
duct, as embezzlement, fraudulent conveyances, &c.,
the delinquent is to be liable to imprisonment by the
court ; and in cases of more flagrant delinquency to
ex officio prosecution before a criminal tribunal.
The certificate of the assignee, &c., as to which class
of insolvents the debtor belongs to, is to be subject to
appeal to the court, either by the insolvent, or by any
creditor for more than 201., and the court to have
power to overrule such certificate. The court is also,
on the consideration of special circumstances, to have
power to mitigate any of the disabilities, &c., by spe-
cial order, stating the causes of such relaxation.
The remaining provisions of the Bill embrace the
amendment of the law, in respect to the property of
persons dying insolvent, of fraudulent preferences, of
gifts made by an insolvent, of marshalling claims on
an insolvent's estate, under the three heads of privi-
leged credits, unprivileged credits, and postponed
credits ; altering, among other things, the law which
at present virtually makes the creditors of an in-
solvent who has defrauded the Crown, pay the pe•
nalties which his misconduct has incurred, of liens,
of reputed ownerships, and of warrants of attorney
and cognovits.
It is also proposed to empower the Court of In-
solvency to take cognizance of disputed partnership
accounts ; in respect of which there is at present
no remedy except by filing a bill in equity, a tedious
and expensive process, wholly inapplicable to small
traders, and attended with ruinous expense and delay
in concerns of greater magnitude ; and which remedy,
imperfect as it is, can only be obtained upon a disso-
lution of partnership.
These various regulations are all classed under dis-
tinct heads, so that reference is easy to any point on
which information is required.
Such appear to be the general provisions of a sys-
tem. substituting for laws, which at present are a
reproach to our jurisprudence, a series of regulations
calculated to improve the remedy of the creditor, and
at the same time to ameliorate the condition of the
unfortunate debtor, and to make it the interest both
of debtors and creditors to act in conformity with the
principle of equity and justice.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, May 8.
CROPKILL V. CA3II3RIDGE.

In this case Mr. Kiudersley, Q.C., with whom was
Mr. Metcalfe, moved the Court, on affidavits for an in-
junction on behalf of Mr. Cropkill, proprietor of the
Beverley Iron-works at hull, against Mr. Cambridge, of
Market Lavington, Wilts, to restrain him from making
or selling any clod-crusher rollers made in imitation of
Mr Cropkill's patent ones. The defendant had obtained
a patent in October last for a clod crusher similar to the
plaintiff's. The Master of the Rolls granted the injunc-
tion as prayed, the defendant having consented thereto.

SECONDARIES' COURT, May 14.
( Before Mr. Secondary PorrEß.)
Snail AND ANOTHER V. HOPKINS.
The jury were called at eleven o'clock, when no parties
being present, they were discharged till twelve o'clock, when
the above case was called on.
The facts were these :—The plaintiffs, who reside in Milk-
were compelled to bring an action against the
and issued execution at his request ; however, they
ds terfeeentd,
aCnitt,y,
agreed to withdraw the execution, and take a bill for the
amount of the debt and costs. The bill was given, but not
duly honoured, and the plaintiffs then had to bring another
action.
'The jury immediately gave a verdict for the plaintiffs.
The case did not occupy five minutes, and the jury who had
thus been so unnecessarily detained from their business were
discharged with a fee of 4:1. each for their loss of time.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, May 14.
(Before Mr. Commissioner EvANs.)
EX PARTE --.
At the sitting of the Court a solicitor addressed the Learned
Commissioner, and said that he had to apply to the Court on
the subject of the costs of an application to the Court of
Review, an order having been made that the Commissioner
should decide whether or not costs should be allowed.
The Learned COMMISSIONER—How can I possibly decide
whether costs should be allowed for an application to the
Court of Review? I know nothing of the case; it is per-
fectly absurd to ask me.
Applicant--I will briefly state the facts—,-,
The ComuisstosEn—l ou will make an ex parte statement,
and then ask me at once to give you costs. I cannot do any
such thing.
Applicant—But, Sir, there is an order of Court, and the
Vice-Chancellor has been spoken to; he considers the Com-
missioner as the proper person to decide the question.
orL°r3."ln ssioNER--IVell, I most certainly will not obey the
fact, I have no knowledge of the matter, nor have

I jurisdiction.
Applicant—The Master will not tax the bill unless you
sanction it.
commissioNEß—l can't assist you. If the Court, hearing
the case cannot take upon itself to direct costs, I shall not
take upon myself to do it.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
OLD COURT.

(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON and Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
TIIE LATE MURDER AT GREENWICIL—Martha Brixey,
the young woman who murdered the infant of Mr. Ffinch, of
Greenwich, was placed at the bar.
Mr. Bodkin, who with Mr. Ballantine, is retained for the
prosecution, applied to have her trial appointed for Friday.
Mr. Traill, the Magistrate, one of the principal witnesses in
the case, could not conveniently attend until that day.
Mr. dI.ARKSON, who is engaged to defend the prisoner, did
not object to the application.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON consequently fixed Friday for her trial.
Tits LATE EXPLOSION AT BLACKWALL.—George Lowe, a
respectably-dressed middle aged man, surrendered to take
his trial fur having by wilful and felonious neglect of his
duty, in attending to the generation of steam in a certain
steam engine, which was being worked on the sth of March
last, in the manufactory of Messrs. Sanauda, the engineers,
at Blackwall, caused it to burst, thereby causing the death
of Thomas Wright, and others. He was also indicted on the
coroner's warrant with the manslaughter of Thomas Wright,
Richard Drive, Jonathan Smith, William Neal, and George
Chapman.
To these charges the prisoner pleaded " Not Guilty."
Mr. Bodkin and Air. Ballantine appeared for the prosecu-
tion; Mr. Clarkson and Mr. INlontague Chambers for the
prisoner.
Mr. BODKIN having briefly stated the case against the
prisoner, proceeded to call the following witnesses to sub-
stantiate it :
Mr. Frederick Braithwaite, the engineer, said he saw the
boiler on the day of the explosion. It was manufactured by
Mr. Fairbairn, of Millwall, and could bear a pressure of
nibs. to the square inch without bursting, but the ordinary
working pressure ought not to exceed 201bs. to the square inch.
One safety .valve, if properly worked, would allow sufficient
steam to escape to maintain the boiler at a proper pressure.
Cross-examined—Similar boilers were frequently used for
high and low pressure. He could not swear that the thick-
ness of the boiler was % of an inch. It would bear a
pressure of 2001bs. to the square inch with cold water. The
upper tubes of the boiler were of brass, the lower of iron.
The power of brass was double that of iron. Some of the
iron tubes had been blown away, while the brass tubes were
only blown away at one end. (A section model of the boiler
was here produced.) The misconstraction of the pipe at-
tached to the valve might cause the explosion.
By Mr. BALLANTINE—ShouId say the boiler was worked
at 1001hz. to the square inch. It might have burst from the
generation of too great a quantity of steam in the pipe, but
he could not say that that was the cause of the explosion.
By Mr. Baron ALDERSON—The valve was improperly
constructed, the pipe beinc, 12 or 14 square inches in breadth,
while the space made by the opening of the valve was only
three square inches. A person working the engine could
not observe this defect. If the cylinder was moving sluggishly
it would denote that'some impediment prevented the steam
from passing into it.
John Cockayne--Was employed at Messrs. Samuda's
works at the time of the explosion. The boiler had been
there about a fortnight. Saw it about a quarter of an hour
before the accident. Mr. Lowe and eight men were in the
engine-room. Steam was blowing from the safety valve.
Had a conversation with Mr. Lowe in the morning: he

(Lowe) said he did not know why the engine would not go,
as there was plenty of steam ; that that there were 40 or
501bs. of steam and four or five men turning the wheel. She
was then going very easy. The engine had not gone fast
enough all the morning for them to work by. Heard in his
workshop the steam blowing off up to the time of the ex-
plosion, which would not have been the case if the valve had
been closed. _ _

John Guyder recollected the boiler coming on the premises,
but could not say whether it was examined or not. Mr.
Le-me was busy about the place. Worked the preceding
night in attaching some pipes to the boiler. There was some
water in the pipes, but did not notice any obstruction.
The night was frosty, and the water might have been con-
verted into ice. The pipe containing the water was 40 or
50 feet long. Mr. Lowe had the same opportunities as he
had of seeing the pipes. Did not see Mr. Lowe on the top of
the boiler. Did not observe the safety valve. Placed a
piece of scaffold-pole against the boiler as a prop,
by Mr. Lowe's direction. The steam was then up.
The prop made the valve entirely useless. He
put a nail in the wood by direction of Mr. Lowe, for the
purpose of fixing the string attached to the valve to it, when.
of course the valve would be open. Did not tell a man
named Taylor, on leaving the inquest room, that he had done
for the Scotch b—, nor that he would do for hint again
when he got into Newgate. Had never solicited Taylor not
to mention what he (witness) had said.
Joseph Turner—Was employed at Messrs. Samuda's
works. He should say that 30 or 40 lbs. to the square inch
would be as much as it could safely bear. Was in the room
a few minutes before the explosion. The piece of wood was
then against. the boiler. The handle of the safety. valve was
placed on the nail. It could not go lower down. This was
two or three minutes before the explosion. Steam was but
slightly blowing off the safety-valve. Had seen Mr. Lowe
once pull the piston rod up and down. There was plenty of
water and little fire. The boiler was tested on the Monday,
but there was no gauge of the pressure kept. Was at the
back of the boiler wlion it exploded. Was not hurt. Mr.
Lowe was severely injured. Knew there was plenty of water
for the gauge attached to it.
Thomas Whitcombe had the management of the fires and

the engine. The fires were lit between seren and eight
o'clock in the morning. The stick, he should think, was
placed against the boiler to keep the valve closed, and to
keep up the pressure of the steam. Could not say what was
the condition of the valve. To the best of his recollection
Mr. Lowe was at the side of the boiler when the stick was
blown some distance.
Cross-examined by Mr. CLIRKSON—ShouId say there was
not a shovel-full of coats in each of the furnaces. They were

just about to stop, as the engine would not go. Saw there
was something wrong, and had not fed the fires because it
was evident that the engine would not work through some
defect. On the Monday the boiler was exposed to a pressure
of 501bs. or 601ba. to the square inch. There was then a
slight leakage in the boiler.
James Cole, foreman to Messrs. Samuda's works, vas
called. He said Mr. Lowe always bore the character of a
cautious engineer, and on the morning of the accident seemed
as cautious and as competent to discharge his duty as on
other occasions.

Mr. Edward Bell, civil engineer, saw the fragments

of the boiler on the Monday fo:lowing the explosion.—Judg-
ing from the appearance of the boiler, he thought it might be
worked with safety at a pressure of from 25 to 301bs. to the
square inch. The accident might have happened if the
valve had been opened to its utmost dimensions. Does not
think that an explosion like that which took place would
have ensued if the valve had been in proper operation.
Should think the pressure at the time was 1001bs. to the
square inch ; how much more he could not undertake to say ;
the boiler was a low pressure one. He inferred that the
valve could not have been acting, as the pressure was consi-
derably above 100 lbs.
Cross-examined by Mr. CLARK,SON—There is a difference
between high and low• pressure boilers. High-pressure
boilers are generally made circular. The witness then mi-
nutely detailed his reasons for inferring that the valve was
closed. Did not understand how the witnesses who had
stated that the steam was blowing off could have arrived at
that opinion.
Peter Prior, who was on the premises at the time., was
called, but his evidence was not important.
Mr. Bonus said there were several other witnesses, but
he did not think after the evidence that had been adduced
that it would be necessary to call them.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON then called on Mr. Clarkson to de-
fend the prisoner.
Mr. CLARKSON said, considering the circumstances in
which Mr. Lowe was placed at the time of the explosion.
did his Lordship think that it was necessary for him to do so?
Mr. Baron ALDERSON explained the case to the jury, and
left it to them to say whether they would go ou with the
case or not.

The jury, after conferring for a few moments, found the
prisoner got Guilty.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON said he did not consider that Mr.

Lowe was to blame, and that the occurrence was the result
of accident, and did not affect his character as an engineer.
None could regret the lamentable consequences more than
he did.
The jury concurred in this opinion.
The prisoner was then arraigned on the Coroner's inquisi-
tion, and was also acquitted.
Mr. Lowe then left the dock.

POLICE iNTELLIGENCE.
IiIANSION-HO USE.
Mr. E. Smith, of George-street, Mansion-house-street
was summoned before the Lord Mayor and Sir John
I'irie, under the following circumstances, to answer for
having refused to deliver up the property of Mrs. Jane
Foster.
Mr. Humphreys, who attended for the complainant,
stated that he believed that Mr. Smith was not impli-
cated in the transaction in such a manner as to reflect
the least dislemour upon him, but it became necessary
to summon him, as he was the person in whose pos-
session the property actually was, and by the Metropo-
litan Police Act it lay in the power of the magistrates to
adjudicate in the matter. The complaint of Mrs. Foster
was, that the goods which had been obtained from her
by a Mr. Fitzgerald, had been unlawfully deposited at
the warehouse of Mr. Smith, and that she could not
obtain possession of them.
Mrs. Foster deposed that she lived at No. 4, Aske-
street, Hoxton, and was a widow. She had lived in
Sydney-square, and a Mr. Fitzgerald lodged with her
there. She was requested by Mr. Fitzgerald to give up
that house, and go to live in one iu Arundel street,
Strand, and she accordingly took her furniture to that
house, which he took, and became his housekeeper, and
gave him 161 to pay the required advance o rent.
Witness remained in the house from the 29th of Novem-
ber till the 10th of February. An effort was made on
the Ist of February by Mr. 'Fitzgerald to get her out of
the house. The gentleman had got married, and he
wrote a certificate stating that she was entitled to the
furniture, and that she alone should receive it. She was
taken away to lodgings from the house by Mr. Fitz-
gerald, who told her that he only wanted her to be
quiet for a short time, and then she should have her
property. She could not, in fact, remain any longer in
the house. On the 3d of May her furniture was taken
out of the house and conveyed to the premises of the de-
fendant, where she believed it to be at the present mo-
ment. She had taken a promissory note from Mr. Fitz-
gerald, payable at the rate of 101. per month, for 501.,
upon going out of the house, but that note had no refe-
rence to her furniture, which was worth between 100/.
and 2001.
A gentleman from the offices of Mr. Cross, solicitor,
asked (for the defendant) whether that note had not
actually been given in consideration of the purchase of
the furniture? The complainant—Not at all. I never
received a shilling, or the value of a shilling, with refe-
rence to my furniture, which was, in fact, the source of
my livelihood. They wished to get me out of the house
as soon as possible.
The defendant's solicitor stated that his client had
purchased the furniture of Mr. Fitzgerald in a regular
tradesmanlike manner, to which no man could possibly
object; and ho called witnesses to prove the bond fide
nature of the transaction.
Mr. John Cavanagh, of No. 19, Tower-street, St.
Martin's-lane, stated that he came to London from Ire-
land for the purpose of being connected with the press.
He was present in February when the complainant left
the house in Arundel-street, No. 35, kept by Mr. Fitz-
gerald. Mr. Fitzgerald offered her, upon the occasion,
two 51. notes, and his note for 501, as an acquittance of
any claims she might have upon him for the furniture,
or anything else. At first she refused the offer, but she
afterwards consented to take it. The bill given by Mr.
Fitzgerald was payable by instalments of 101. each. The
complainant acted as housekeeper to Mr. Fitzgerald.
Cross-examined by Mr. HUMPHREYS—Witness came
to London to be connected with the press. He had been
in no employment since his arrival on the 10th of No-
vember last. He resided with Mr. Fitzgerald in Arun-
del-street the greater part of the time. He had con-
ducted a boarding and day-school in Banagher, in
King's county, and he had been connected with the
press in Ireland. He had resided with Mr. Fitzgerald
at that gentleman's expense, and had been acquainted
with him in Ireland, where they met twice. He did not
know what Mr. Fitzgerald was, but hoped that Mr.
Fitzgerald was a gentleman.
Mr. HUMPHREYS—Of what occupation is Mr. Fitz-
gerald ? Witness—lie is of no occupation that lam
aware of. I was given to understand that he was Con-
nected with the press. He said so. I have no know-
le •e of that fact. My opinion is that he is not con-
nected with the press.
The witness here requested to state that he had be-
Collis acquainted with Mr. Fitzgerald in Ireland, when
that gentleman was canvassing for the establishment of
a newspaper ; and that Mr. Fitzgerald had proposed to
him a partnership in the affair, which proposal was re-
jeeted. He afidel that the complainant had besought
his interference with Mr. Fitzgerald to settle the busi-
ness, and he was sure that the note for 50/. referred
to the furniture, and every other claim which she might
have had upon the defendant.
Mr. Michael Rafferty, a medical student, res,.ding at
No. 35, Arundel-street, Strand, stated that he was pre-
sent when Mr. Fitzgerald said in the complainant's
presence that he had given to her a 501 bill and 10/.
in cash for the furniture, and anyi other claims which
she might have upon him. The complainant intimated
something about a claim for breach of promise of mar-
riage, but witness underst,od that: the bill and the 101.
were given in liquidation of all claims. She had begged
of him for God's sake to get her an arrangement with
Mr. Fitzgerald.
Mr. Humphreys--You say you resided in the very
house in which the complainant's furniture was. Pray
whet furniture is there now ? Witness—l can't say.
Mr. Humphreys—Are all the rooms furnished ?
Witness—No. The kitchen is furnished, and a bed•
room is furnished.
Mr. Humphreys—Do you know to what business Mr.
Fitzgerald belongs ? Witness—l do not.
The defendant stated that he had paid 151. under pro-
test upon the seizure of the furniture which was dis-
posed of to him by Mr. Fitzgerald, to whom he enter-
tained not the slightest doubt the goods belonged. Mr.
Fitzgerald had, in fact, several times applied to him
upon this subject, and had stated, that he was going to
establish a newspaper, and that immediate payment was
indispensable. Mr. Fitzgerald asked him 1001. for the
furniture, but he refused to give more than 751. for it,
and that sum had been agreed upon, and paid to Mr.
Fitzgerald, so that he (defendant) had paid 751. as well
as the 151. under the protest. The furniture had been
sold by him too, and an attachment had been issued
from the Mayor's Court.
Mr. Humphreys—lt is very easy to get an attachment
issued from the Mayor's Court.