The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-10 00:00:00

BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED.

OWEN WYNNE THOMAS, silk warehouseman, Milk-
street, Cheapside.
.JUKES COULSON and HARRY Pnipps, shipping
ironmongers, Clement's•lane. Lombard•street.
BANKRUPTS.

EDWARD MINISTER, tailor, Argyll-place, Regent-
street, to surrender Feb. 15 and March 19, at twelve, at the
Court of Batik uptcy. Alsager, official assignee, Birchin-lane;
Hodgson and Burton, Salisbury-street, Strand.
FREDERICK JAMES SCOTT, apothecary, St. Alban's,
Feb. 2:1, at eleven, and March 22, at twelve, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Belcher, official assignee; Clark and Davidson,
Essex-street, Strand.
JOSEPH HETHERINGTON, HENRY DOCKER,
and CUTHI3ERT JOHNSON, lamp-dealers, Quadrant,
Regent-street, Feb. 23 and March 21, at twelve, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Turquand, official assignee, Old Jewry-
chambers ; Clark and Davidson, Essex-street, Strand.
CHRISTOPHER TEESDALE and RICHARD TOUL-
SON, furnishing warehouseman, Westminster-bridge-road,
Feb. 20 and March 26, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Green, official assignee, Aldermanbury; Sole and Sole, Alder-
, rnanbury.
SAMUEL WALKER LEONARD, butcher, Frances-
greet, Golden-square, Feb. 24, at one, and March 22, at

-F. F. Cooper, dramatic author, Walcot-place, East, Lambeth,
Feb. 14. at half-put one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whit-
m ore, official assignee.
G. Danvers, coal merchant, Beaumont-square, Stepney,
Feb. 14, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Alsager, official
assignee.
J. Sherratt, card case maker, Berkeley-street, Lambeth, Feb.
14, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whitmore, official
assignee.
L. Gompertz, Upper Kennington-green, Feb. 14, at one, at
the Court of Bankruptcy. Alsager, official assignee.
W. Pedley, dealer in bottled beer, Claremont-place, Penton-
vine, Feb. 14, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whitmore,
official assignee.
R. Pettit, bricklayer, St. Thomas-square, St. John's, Hack-
ney, Feb. 14, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Alsager,
official assignee.
S. Akehurst, jun., cigar-dealer, Brighton, Feb. 14, at two,
at the Court of Bakruptcy. Johnson, official assignee.
W. F. Waller, ship agent, Great Carter-lane, Doctors -
commons, Feb. 14, at half-past one, at the Court of Bank-
ruptcy. Whitmore, official assignee.
J. Mews, jun., confectioner, Great St. Andrew-street,
Seven Dials, Feb. 14, at half•past twelve, at the Court of Bank-
ruptcy. Whitmore, official assignee.
G. Callaway. grocer, Islington-green, Feb. 15, at two, at
the Court of Bankruptcy. Pennell, official assignee.
J. Joseph, clerk, St. Peter's-hill, Paul's Wharf, City, Feb.
15, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Pennell. official
assignee.

T.
Hoile, Sandwich, Kent, Feb. 15, at two, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Pennell, official assignee.
E. Tucker, discount agent, Upper Stamford-street, Surrey,
Feb. 14, at half-past one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Al-
sager, official assignee.
W. Moore, stage coachman, Bury St. Edmund's, Feb. 16,
at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee.
H. Bernard, professor of plialacromiasy, Regent-street, St.
James's, Feb. 16, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Green,
official assignee.
W. C. Newport, attorney's clerk, Little Mount-street, Wal-
worth, Feb. 13, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Fol-
lett, official assignee.
W. Southon, grocer, Upper Seymour-street, St. Pancras,
Feb. 16, at ono, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official
assignee.
G. Dixon, bookseller, Margate, Kent, Feb. 16, at one, at
the Court of Bankruptcy. Green, official assignee.
J. J. H. Lewis, omnibus proprietor, Brixton-hill, Surrey,
Feb. 15, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official
assignee.

J. 11. Crispin, clerk, Buttesland-street, Holton. Edwards,
official assignee.
A. H. Henn, tobacconist, Somerset-place, Now-road, East.
Edwards, official assignee.
W. Swain, joiner, Manchester, Feb. 14, at twelve, at the
Manchester District Court. Hobson, official assignee.
G. Lea, brush maker, Syston, Leicestershire, Feb. 14, at
one, at the Birmingham District Court. Christie, official as-
signee.
M. Lea, Syston, Leicestershire, Feb. 14, at one, at the
Birmingham District Court. Valpy, official assignee.
M. Sides, Ruyton of the Eleven Towns, Shropshire, Feb. 13,
at halt-past twelve, at the Birmingham District Court.
Christie, official assignee.
W. Wildsmith, warehouse clerk, Wolverhampton, Feb. 13,
at one, at the Birmingham District Court. Christie, official
assignee.
J. Berkeley, farmer, Longdon, Worcestershire, Feb. 21, at
twelve, at the Birmingham District Court. Whitmore, official
assignee.
J. Nicholas, iron-fitter, Dudley, Worcestershire, Feb. 13, at
half-past one, at the Birmingham District Court. Valpy,
official assignee.
E. Webb, draper's assistant, Wolstanton, Staffordshire, Feb.
16, at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court. Christie,
official assignee.
J. Sandbach, book.keeper, Edge•hill, Lancashire, Feb. 22,
at the Liverpool District Court. Turner, official assignee.
D. M. Thomas, surgeon, Cwm Amman, Carmarthenshire,
Feb. 14, at half-past eleven, at the Bristol District Court.
Acraman, official assignee.
S. Miles, grocer, Cadoxtone, Glamorganshire, Feb. 13, at
eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Hutton, official assignee.
J. Petherick , bootmaker, Ragland, Monmouthshire, Feb. 14,
at eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Miller, official assignee.
L. West, attorney, Bath, Feb. 16, at eleven, at the Bristol
District Court. Hutton, official assignee.
C. Bradshaw, brace manufacturer, Halifax, Feb. 12, at
eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Freeman, official assignee.
W. Swain, joiner, Manchester, Feb. 14, at 12, at the Man-
chester District Court. Hobson, official assignee.

DIVIDENDS.
At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street.
J. Sewell, victualler, Charles-street, Paddington, March 1,
at one—W. Carpenter, stationer, Southampton, March 1, at
half-past eleven.

In the Country.
J. Porter, tailor, Nantwich, Cheshire, March, 2, at twelve,
at the Liverpool District Court—J. Bell, hosier, Notting-
ham, March 2, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court—M.
Harris, draper, Swansea, March 4, at twelve, at the Bristol
District Court—R., Jas., and John Potter, cotton spinners,
Manchester, Feb. 23, at eleven, at the Manchester District
Court—R. Moon, sen., and R. Moon, jun., merchants, Green-
field, Lancashire, March 5, at eleven, at the Manchester Dis-
trict Court—T. J. Whidborne, chemist, Liverpool, March 5,
at twelve, at the Liverpool District Court—T. J. Fehr, draper,
Birmingham, March 4, at twelve, at the Birmingham District
Court.

CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to the
contrary, on the day herein-mentioned.
W. Carpenter, stationer, Southamptan, March I—J. Sewell,
victualler, Charles-street, Paddington, March I—H. Congreve,
dealer in patent medicines, High-street, Peckham, March I
E. Munn, corn chandler, Stanhope-terrace, Paddington, March
2—J. Why, haberdasher, Holborn-hill, March I—H. J.
Nixon, upholsterer, Great Portman-street, Oxford•street,
March 2—W. Chamberlain, linen draper, Peckham, March I
—H. Laybourn, ship broker, Hartlepool, Durham, March 1—
J. Hill, grocer, Durham, March —H. Greenbow, iron
master, Wrexham, Denbighshire, March 4—J. Jukes, nail
factor, Westbromwich, Staffordshire, March 6—J. Southern,
grocer, Birmingham, March 6—F. Peters, wine merchant,
Manchester, March B—T. Fawcett and J. Muir, builders, Hol-
lingworth, Cheshire, March I—W. B. M'Pherson, victualler,
Rosemary Branch, Horton, March I—G. Z. White, stone
mason, Southampton, March I—T. Martin, victualler, Pave-
ment, Moorfields, March I—W. Rolfe, farmer, Therfield,
Hertfordshire, March I—J. Swallow, ten., corn miller, Halifax,
March I—T. Wright, cheesemonger, Blackmoor-street, Clare-
market, March I—J. Lumley, brewer, Kirkby-Fleotham•with-
Fencote, Yorkshire, March I—J. F. Armstrong, coal mer-
chant, Blackheath.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

H. Lovatt and It. Taylor, soap manufacturers, Liverpool—
J. Green and J. Jubb, jun., woollen manufacturers, Basing-
hall-street—J., S., and H. Newbould, merchants, Sheffield—
S. Reynolds and J. Woodhouse, pawnbrokers, Nottingham—
D. Duggan and R. Jacksofl, cabinet makers, Birmingham—
!. P. Hall and I'. Wright, apothecaries, Dudley, Worcester-
shire—H. Hamer and R. Jones, linen drapers, Blackfriars-
road—J. H. Galloway, E. C. Bell, and C. S. Todd, attorneys,
Kingston-upon-Hull—H. Headley and J. L. Sudbury, sur-
geons, Cambridge—John, Jas., and H. Holden, farmers,
Mitton-with•Crook, Yorkshire (so far as regards H. Holden)—
W. H. Barber and M. B. Bircham, attorneys, New Bridge-
street, Blackfriars—K. and W. Liversidge, wine merchants,
Liverpool—W. Sowden and J. 'Withers, dyers, Salford—R,
and V. Parke, drapers, New Mahon, Yorkshire—W. Pomfret,
sen., and W. Pomfret, jun., rag merchants, Preston—W.
Angus and A. Reid, coach builders, Brompton—W. and W.
Warbrick, machine makers, Dukinfield, Cheshire—W. Good-
win and J. Fitton, spindle makers, Manchester—R. Bayley,
and B. and P. Tingle, steel and wire drawers, Ecelesfield,
Yorkshire—M. and A. Arthars, boot and shoe dealers, West-
brom‘vich, Staffordshire—J. Miller, H. Foy, and E. Kelly,
coach builders, Huddersfield (so far as regards E. Kelly)—J.
Allen and W. Nicholls, carpenters, Bristol—D. and .1. Metcalf,
dyers, Leeds—J. Hands and J. Powell, ironfounders, Birming-
ham—J. A. Curme and E. Mondey, surveyors, Dorchester—
W. Kerr and T. Hamilton, drapers, Truro—W. H. L.
Corran and H. D. Sage, wine merchants, Liverpool—E. and
G. Viccars, hosiers, Kingston-upon-Hull—S. Watmuff and
D. Veit, merchants, Manchester—T. Robinson and R. W.
I'earse, flour factors, Swansea.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.

COLIN MUNRO, bank agent, Dingwall, March 6, at
twelve, at the National Hotel, Dingwall.
JAMES and WILLIAM GILLESPIE, merchants, Fal-
kirk, March 8, at one, at the Red Lion Inn, Falkirk.
DONALD MACKAY and SON, merchants, Barnisdale,
Isle of Skye, March 18, at twelve, at the office of D.
Mackenzie, Portree.

PRICE OF SUGAR.
The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, for the
week ending Feb. 6, 1844, is 355. 104 d. per cwt.,- excluive,
of the Duties of Customs paid or payable thereon ou the im-
portatiun thereof into Great Britain.

From the statement of the Learned Counsel it ap-
peared that this was an indictment against four persons,
William' Henry King Emily Ann Birch, Augusta Ann
Birch, and Dorcas Phillips, for having combined and
conspired together to defraud certain tradesmen of large
quantities of goods which had been sent into the house
of Emily Ann Birch. This charge was brought
against the ,defendants for having endeavoured to
procure from different tradesmen goods to a very
enormous amount, but which were not to he paid
for. Mrs. Emily Birch was the widow of a person
who had been a coach-maker in Great Queen-street. He
died in 1836, and after his death his widow kept a lodg-
ing-house in Bedford-place. From 1836, down to 1841,
she had been 'supporting herself by this lodging-house.
In 1841 she found she was unable longer to maintain
herself by those means. The defendant William
Henry King was an attorney, who, in 1830, had resided
in Bedford-place, but had been sold up, and, in 1831, he
went to live :at Clapham, where he remained till 1838,
keeping a small establishment, but during the whole of
that time he was in the most abject difficulties ; execu-
t:on upon execution was put into his house, and he had
been in the habit of pawning his goods and clothes, for
the purpose of buying bread for his family. In 1838
he left Clapham, and came with his family to reside at
his chambers in Verulam-buildings, being then • in a
very distressed state. King had been acquainted with
Mr. and Mrs. Birch during the lifetime of the former,
and, in 1838, Mrs. Birch had lent King about 2001 A
person had for some time lodged with Mrs. Birch, but
he died in 1836, and then the intimacy between Mrs.
Birch and King was renewed, and from letters which
had passed between them, it was evident that that inti-
macy was of a very affectionate nature. In 1839 both
these parties appeared to have been in the most abject
state of poverty. The defendant Augusta Ann Birch
was the sister of the late Mr. Birch, and resided with
his widow. In July or August, 1840, a scheme was
formed between these parties which, but for very for-
tunate circumstances, would have succeeded to an enor-
mous extent. Mrs. Birch and King were endeavouring
to see by what means they could raise money. Mrs.
Birch had carried on her business in a respectable man-
ner, and the intention was to get together as large a
quantity of every description of goods as they could, to
order them in the name of Mrs. Birch, to be sent to her
house, and to name a distant day for payment, which day
was in the early part of April ; but a few days before this
day of payment arrived King was to put an execution
into her house for an alleged debt due to him, and take
away all the goods. This plan was matured ; Mrs. Birch
went to different tradesmen in the months of November
and December, 1840, and January and February, 1841.
and ordered goods of the most expensive description,
consisting of plate, jewellery, wine, upholstery, two
pianofortes '(at 150 guineas each), amounting altogether
to 3,600/. King was present during the time the
greater portion of the goods was delivered, but at that
time King went by the name of Wolfe, at Mrs. Birch's
house. He was there day after day and night 'after
night. At the latter end of February two executions
were put into Mrs. Birch's house, one at the suit of King,
for 2,185/, and the other at the suit of the other de-
fendant, Dorcas Phillips, for upwards of 500/. They
found these executions were t, of sufficient to cover so
large a quantity of goods, and therefore very many ar-
ticles of plate and jewellery were handed over to King
on apretended loan, and the premises were then deserted
by Airs. Birch, and King and the sheriff's officers were
left in possession. A fiat of bankruptcy was then sued
out, and a messenger from the Court of Bankruptcy was
sent to the remises. The property was sold for
2,4991., but the amount had been retained. It would
appear that' it few days before all this the parties
were employed in burning and destroying all letters and
papers belonging to Mrs. Birch, and very. many were
torn and given to the servant to be burnt in the oven.
It turned out, however, that they, were not absolutely-
distroyed, but different parts had since been put toge-
ther and proved to be letters which had been written by
Kin.. to Mrs. Birch. Inquiries were then made, and it
was discovered that, on the 19th of February, King and
Mrs. Birch had gone to Reading, where she took lodg
ings, deSiring them to be ready on the Ist of March,
and large quantities of goods were packed up and sent
down to Reading. After the fiat King was summoned
before the Commissioners, to be examined touching his
debt, and he stated that it arose from various sums he
had lent Mrs. Birch; that he had commenced these loans
as early as 1836; and he gave dates and terms, and
among others he fixed upon the 25th of April, 1838,
when he said he had lent her 1851 Now, the pieces of
letters in King's writing, which had been found in the
oven, showed that, at that time King was writing to
Mrs. Birch expressing his regret that he could not repay
her the sum her husband had lent him, and adding, that
there was then an execution in his chambers for 35/. ;
but it would be shown, that from 1836 to 1841, King
had been constantly sued by various persons, that there
had been many executions out against him, and that he
was, in truth, in very great difficulties, and it was, there-
fore, impossible that aman so situated could have been ad-
vancing money to Mrs. Birch. The parties interested
had, therefore, thought it right to adopt the present pro-
ceedings, in order that the offenders should not go un-
punished.
The examination of the defendant King as given be-
fore the Commissioners of Bankruptcy, under the fiat
against Mrs. Birch, was put in, and in that he stated,
that in August, 1836, he lent Mrs. Birch 5001. ; that he
afterwards lent her different sums of money, and that
in September, 1839, they balanced accounts, and there
was then due to him 1,572/, for which, on the 14th of
September, 1839, she gave him her promissory note.
On the 29th of September, 1841, she had a further sum
of 50/. On the 12th of October, 1841, she had a sum
of 1001, and on the 21st of October, 1841, he lent her
230/., and he swore that his claim altogether amounted to
upwards of 2,100/.
• An immense pile of writs and executions against
King between 1836 and 1841 was put in and read. One
of them was upon a bill for 3501., accepted by Mr. Peter
Borthwick, for whom King had been solicitor at his
election, and the attorney stated that he had sued Mr.
Borthwick, but not being able to get anything from him,
he had sued King as the drawer of the bill. In cross-
examination the attorney stated that King had lent
money on the reversionary interest of a person.
The servants of King were called, who stated that he
could not pay them their wages.
Servants who had lived with Mrs. Birch before the
summer. of 1841 stated, that the house was very mode-
rately furnished. Mrs. Birch, in August, 1841, said she
couldnot remain there much longer, but she did not wish
it known in the neighbourhood. Miss Birch acted as
housekeeper or upper servant. She assisted in making
the beds. One of these servants, went there in October,
1841, and remained till March, 1642. If wine was
wanted by any of the lodgers a bottle was fetehed from
an fiotel in the neighbourhood. King was there, but he
said his name was Mr. Wolfe. In the beginning of
February, 1842, Mrs. Birch told the servants they were
w,t to call him Mr. Wolfe any longer, but Mr.
King, her attorney. King frequently took his meals
there. Some time before Mrs. Birch left the house Mr.
King, Mrs. Birch, Miss Birch, and Mrs. Phillips were
frequently, engaged destroying papers. They burnt
some, and others they gave to the servants to light the
fires with ; some of these were put into the oven. At
the latter end of October a great quantity of furniture,
plate, wine, and other things, was brought to Mrs. Birch's
house, and this continued till the middle of February.
On the evening before King's and Phillips's executions
were put in those parties came and dined and drank tea
with Mrs. Birch ; they drank wine together, and seemed
on very good terms. Mrs. Birch told the servants, if any
one asked them anything, they were not to know. Early
in February Mrs. and Miss Birch packed up a good
many things in boxes, and sent them away in a van.
Mrs. Stevens proved that Mrs. Birch came to her
house at Reading in February, 1842, and Cook lodgings
in her house, which she said she would require on the
3d of March. A gentleman accompanied her. She said
she should send some boxes before she came; and after
this eleven boxes came. Mrs. Birch came to the apart-
ments on the 3d of March.

It was proved that Mrs. Birch had ordered goods and
received them of the following tradesmen :-Messrs.,
Wilkinson, upholsterers, Ludgate-hill, for very expensive
articles, 1641. 7s. 10d.; Simmonds, silversmith, for silver
articles, 291.-she had ordered 70/. worth ; she paid a
trifling bill when she ordered these things ; Messrs.
Seddon, upholsterers, 252!. 135.-amongst these items
were five pairs of window curtains, 1201. ; Holding, up-
holsterer, in Fleet-street, 1331. ss. 7d.; Bailey and Jack-
son, upholsterers, Bond-street, 991. lls.-very handkome
and expensive articles; Messrs. Gillon, upholsterers, 77/.
7s. 6d. for carpets-she had given orders for card tables,
which were suitable only for a mansion of great import-
ance ; the order would have amounted to between 300/.
and 400/. ; Messrs. Latworth, for carpets, 811. ; Messrs.
Bailey, ironmongers, 60/. 17s. 9d. ; Geeks, ironmonger,
22/. Ils. Id. ; Spencer, wine-merchant, 1371. Bs. ; Field,
Wardell, and Co., wine-merchants, 71/. 4s. 6d.-cham-
pagne, old port, gold sherry, East India Madoira-she said
she should pay the first week in April, as she had money to
receive at that:time ; Plaskett, wine-merchant, GIL 185. ;
John White, wine merchant, 29/.-she paid-a small bill,
and ordered the other wine, for which she said she would
pay in April; she had extended the order very consider•
ably, but it was not executed ; Alsop, glass and china-
man, 1761. Is.-very expensive glass and china articles-
she said she should be receiving her dividends, and would
then pay-one table set was 381., a cut lustre, 40/. ;
Phillips, ehinamau, 42/. Bs. ; Cooper, looking-glass-
maker, 381. los. ; Brooker, looking-glass-maker,
48/. 19s. 6d.; Churton, bookseller, 48!. 13s. for books ;
they were to be paid for in February; Dickenson, linen-
draper, 90/.-she paid a bill of 28/. when she gave this
order; Messrs. Broadwood, for a piano, 162/. 155.-she
said she was in a hurry for it ; Messrs. Stoddart, for a
pianoforte, 78/. 15s. ; Alr. Newman, optician, a teles-
cope.- &c., 24/. ; Messrs. Payne, clockmakers, black
marble clock, 261. 55.; gilt clock, 161., and an eight-day.
clock, 161. ; Davey., watchmaker, a gold watch, B‘c...
20/. 1 ls. 6d.-this watch, and other. artiules of the,value
of 1241., were received from King's clerk; Messrs. Town
and Emmanuel, fancy articles, 10/..
1842.
18A411,1
at
11:
de s
me
aarrctiiit: les were furiiishea between October,
The case was adjourned till to-morrows
cient for the labour of Judge,ju during the day.
,
Si:sity-ono witnesses were examined
t on morning, the
Learned Judge stating tha nine ou rrsc.o%rrow
uenrseerite suffi-
IVEnsrusner, FEB. i .
The examinationnd some otherof
itneSSeSNNN.%hraos resumed this rug
000rnd;
jwere called. Messrs. Dollond, opticians, St. Paul's
Churchyard, for a pair of the best globes, a first-Tate
iigas
tradesmen ".

opera glass, a microscope, &c., the bill amounting to! The plaintiff (Mrs. Robinson) occupied a room in the
between 30/. and 40/. ; Stammer, Strand, silversmith, i house of the defendant, in which there was property
1115/.-9s. ; Perry, Oxford-street, silversmith, 961. 165.; valued at 120/. Some differences arose between the
Braithwaite, silversmith, 2201. 2s. 6d.-531. paid on the plaintiff and her landlord, which ended in an cxamina-
24th of February, 1842, by a 506 note, traced to King ; lion at a pvlie&ffice. • On the return of the plaintiff
T.,ambert and. Rawlings, silversmiths, 1671. 7s. from which with *her daughter (to whom it was alleged
Several orthe tradesmen stated that Mrs. Birch came ! that a portion, if not the whole of the property be-
in a carriage and ordered the goods, and in many in- i longed), she was refused admission. The plaintiff
stances she was a perfect stranger to them, but in others alleged that the room was engaged on a quarterly,
she had small accounts of a few shillings or pounds for tenantry, and that at the time of the trespass their oc-
trifling articles:. cupancy had not terminated. The defendant, however,
Many of the. papers found in the oven, when contended that the room was engaged at a weekly rent,
put together,' formed letters in the handwriting of and that the seizure was legal.
King, addreised to Mrs. Birch as " Dearest Emily," I Lord ABINGER summed up the evidence, and the jury
and speaking of his extreme poverty. - Some of returned a verdict for the defendant.
them. were draughts of letters to tradesmen
in:his writing, the copies of which were sent to the
tradesmen in the handwriting of Mrs. Birch, and some
of them were lists of articles to be had from different
tradesmen, in King's writing. Not a shilling had been
paid for any of these goods. In one instance Mrs. Birch
called upon a silversmith and ordered a quantity of
plate, but she wanted credit ; the tradesman said he
would give credit upon having a reference ; she then re-
ferred him to a person, stating he was her attorney ;
but the tradesman refused to give credit upon this refe-
rence, as he said her attorney would be sure to give
her a good character, and, in fact, he did not like at-
torneys.
Proof was then ,given of the seizure of the goods on the
let of March, under two executions, one at the suit of
H. W. H. King, for 2,1531., and the other at the suit of
Dorcas Phillips, fOr 520/. Mrs. Birch was present when
the levy was made ; she was laid up with the gout at the
time. The goods were very splendid ; they were sold
under the seizure, on the 9th, 10th, and 11th of March,
for 2,4991. 16s. lid. The plate alone sold for 700 L or
800/. The whole amount was afterwards paid into the '
Court of Queen's Bench and Common Pleas, upon inter-
pleader rules, the assignees having prevented Mr. King
from receiving any part of the money.
This was the case for the prosecution.
The Learned.JuncE asked the Counsel for the prose-
cution if they thought there was evidence to go to the
jury against Miss Birch ?
Mr.HUMFREt thought there was ; and the case pro-
ceeded against all the parties.
Mr. KELLY then addressed the jury on behalf of the
defendant King. Ile would freely adMit that there was
much to blame, much to condemn, perhaps more to sus-
pect, as regarded the conduct of more ,than one of the
parties. Some parts of their conduct, he would admit,
it was utterly impossible to justify. If by law one or
more of the defendants had committed any offence, he
' hoped he shOuld satisfy them that it was not the offence
charged in this indictment. He implored them, by all that
was sacred, not to allow any sentiments of disappro-
bation, however justly called forth in their minds, to
lead them away for a. moment from the discharge of
the simple and plain duty they had to perform, which
was,- to determine, not whether these parties had done
right or done wrong, but, looking at the nature of the
charge, were any two of them guilty upon that charge?
He admitted that-King, at the time when he first bore a
part in these transactions, did undoubtedly press forward
with undue eagerness to obtain a preference in his Own
favour before the other just creditors of Mrs. Birch; but
if the fiat against her was valid, he would not obtain a
shilling under that execution.
Mr.-GonsoN addressed the jury on behalf of the two
' female detbndants; and submitted° to them that there
was no evidence of a conspiracy having been entered
into between these partie4.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS then summed up the ease to
the jury, leaving it to the jury to say which,. if any, of
the defendants they considered to be guilty.
The jury retired for a short' time, and-then returned
a verdict of Guilty on the first count aTainst King -and
Emily Ann Birch (Mrs. Birch), and Not Guilty as' re-
garded Miss Birch. The jury also wished to express
their astonishment at the want of caution in the parties
whO had trusted Mrs. Birch, and they also hoped the
length of time_ Mrs. Birch had already been in prison
(nine months) would be taken into consideration.

Mrs. Birch was thenA)tought forward and placed. on
the floor of the Court to receive judgment. King was
called, but did not appear. • .
Mr.G ODSON did not object to sentence being passed, so
that it did not prejudice his motion next term in' arrest
of judgment, am he should submit that the first count
was had in law. , • • •

Mr. Justice Wit.us.sts sa•idl he certainly should pass
judgment at once; •he did not mean to discourage ;Sin
Godson in his application, but he had no dunk...

The. Learneii "JUDGE then proceeded—Emily Ann
Birch, the length of time you have been in prison, to
which the jnry have adverted, is not overlooked by me,
nor' am I insensible to the time of life at which yOu have
arrived, and of the punishment imprisonment must of
necessity be ton person of your years; but when I bear
in mind the nature of the evidence adduced on the pre-
sent occasion, unexampled by anything in the history of
this country .in the shape, on the one hand, of deception,
and, on the other, of persevering imposition,—when I
bear in mind the extent to which different honest men
have been plundered of their goods, and that'this scheme
of which the jury have convicted you—a scheme which
for a time had existed, and which was nearly successful
to the extent to which it was carried,—notwithstanding
the
,circumstances to which I have alluded—'iyour
age and infivnrtie's—it is impossible to pass it without a
sentence of considerable severity ; indeed, it would be
trifling with the public interest if, when a case is
brou,Aht home to the delinquents charged n ith an offence
of this kind, the arm of justice did not interpose to the
utmost for the prOtection of the property of the-subjects
of the realm. It seems that King does not appear to
receive sentence, and I firmly believe that although you
appear univ, rsally. to have given the orders, yet 1 can-
not but sum-6s', from the intimacy which- it is evident
existed between you and that defendant, that he' was
probably the principal conspirer and contriver. It is
necessary therefore in his ease,. though absent,..that
sentence shOuld be passed to mark the opinion enter-
tained of his conduct and of the transaction that affects
him. With respect to him, the sentence of the Court is
that he be imprisoned in the Queen's Prison for
eighteen calendar months •, and (teeming you to be
sevond in the transaction, though chiefly appearing, the
sentence is that you be imprisoned in the Queen's Prison
for nine calendar months.

FEBRUARY S.
(Sittings in Banco:after Term.)

JUDGIIENT. -THE QUEEN IN THE PROSECUTION Or HARRIS V. SMITH.

in this case a mandamus had been issued calling on the de-
fendant, a beneficed clergyman, to restore the prosecutor to the
once of. parish clerk, of which defendant bad deprived him. The
return to the mandamus set forth various acts of misconduct on the
part of the prosecutor in the execution of the duties of his office,
which, as the defendant alleged, justified him in dismissing the
prosecutor. On the other side it was contended that the dismissal
was illegal, inasmuch as defendant had never called upon the prose-
cutor to make his defence, but had proceeded at once to dismiss
him ; the prosecutor contended, therefore, that the return to the
mandamus was invalid.

Lord Desm•N in .delivering the judgment of the Court this
morning said, that the Court held that removal from a freehold
mike ought to be preceded by some inquiry. It might have
happened that the prosecutor might, had he been heard in his
defence, have convinced the defendant that he was not deserving of
dismiial. It mattered not that the misconduct of the prosecutor
had come under the personal observation of defendant. Inquiry
ought in all cases to precede dismissal. The return, therefore,
could not be supported, and peremptory mandamus must issue.
FEBRUARY 9.
'(Sittings in Banco.)
CARPUS t'. THE LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY
•COMPANY.—JUDGMENT. -
• This wasi art action to recover compensation from de-
fendants for the injuries plaintiff had received, in copse •
quenee of the terrific accident which happened to the
d.wn train frOm London to Brighton, near ISferstliant-
runnel. The jury found for plaintiff, and a rule nisi had
been obtained for en arrest of judgment and a new trial,
on the ground that defendants-had not received the no-
tice of action required by the Act of Parliament incor-
porating the Railway Company.
Lord DENMAN this morning gave judgment The
Court was of opinion that the defendants had been sued,
not as proprietors, of the railroad, but in their capacity
9f common carriers; that therefore notice of action was
not necessary, and consequently that the plaintiff was
entitled to retain his verdict.—Rule discharged.

COURT OF .EXCHEQUER, Feb. 8.

(Nisi Prius Sittings before Baron GURNEY and a Special Jury.)

THE ETTOENET-GENEELL V. VOGG.

The trial of this cause, of which the opening was stated in our
report yesterday, was resumed at the sitting of the Court this
morning.

Several witnesses were examined to discredit the testimony of the
approvers Ritchie and Bird, produced on behalf of the Crown ;
and other witnesses were examined, who explained or contradicted
many facts of a suspicious nature, tending to criminate the de-
setidant. It appeared thM twenty of the missing bales of tobacco
were taken from the wharf by Scrivener, and it was also proved
that if the cart and van separated at Stepney Church, as deposed
to by the Crown 'witnesses, they arrived together, or nearly at the
same hour, at, the Tbanu,Potike..6lllo; where the defendant de-
livered doe 110 hales he bird seized. •
• Mr. TS/PAU:Ca addressed the jury in reply, on' behalf of the
-!rowit, enforcing on them the necessityof making an example of
the defendant, if they believed him guilty, as, being a police.
Meer, it was peculiarly his duty to protect the revenue against
fraud.
Aktron GURNEY read over the evidence, which occupied a (tonal_
gable time, and the jury retired at half.past three o'clock and
minained in deliberation for some hours, but ultimately returned a
verdict for the defendant.

THE '4ITORNET-EENERIL P. /011:4 WOOD._

in this ease, which was an information filed by the Attorney-
General for the recovery of certain
penalties alleged to have been
Incurred by the defendant by means of his having unlawfully un.
shipped divers quantities of cigars without the payment of the duty,
Tnuclura said the Crown had consented to take a verdict on
the first count for the penalty of '2,184/.
Verdict entered accordingly.
THE itrNilNitY-GENLRAL.V. GARDNER
In this case, which was similar to the preceding one,
Mr. THESIGER said that the Crown, by consent, would take a
v,erdict on the same count, and for the like sum of •',lB-11.
The verdict was then entered, as in the former case.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. EDWIN WOOD.
The defendant in this case was understood to be the bretber of
labn Wood, and in partnership with that individual and Henry
fArdner. •
ills. Tutereee here too intimated that the Crown hadeonsented
to take a verdict on the first count for the penalty of 2,184 t.
Verdict for that amount entered accordingly.
THE ATTORNEY-GENMRAL V. SILiNNER.

BANKRUPTCY COURT, Feb. 8.
(Before Commissioner Sir C. F. WILLIAMS.)
174 RE ENABLES JAMES MATIIRWS.

This day was fixed for the insolvent's, the celebratedcomedian's
application for his interim order. The balance-sheet, the sub-
stance of which we subjoin, had been filed by Messrs. Lewis
within the time prescribed by the statute, and was exceedingly
voluminous.
Mr. M. Chambers, with Mr. C. Jones, appeared as counsel for
Mr. Mathews ; Mr. F James opposed the Insolvent for Mr.
Anderson (his Brother-in-law), and, at a later stage in the course
of the proceedings, Mr. Cooke appeared for certain creditors who
had not obtained " renewals" under the former insolvency of Mr.
Mathews, but who now sought to share in the benefit of the offer
which, conjointly with his wife, he now offered to his present
creditors.
Mr. Chambers, for the insolvent, said he understood that there
were only one or two opposing creditors; that Mr. James was
retained for one, and that not being now in Court, the other op.
posing creditors might at once proceed, and thus materially save
the time of the Court.
The Learned CommissiuNra was disposed to athird every accom-
modation to all parties, and the only objection to proceeding in the
abience of the Learned Counsel was, that one ease might be
auxiliary to another ; both the parties should be present.
Mr. C. Jones considered that the creditors who might think
proper to oppose the insolvent could not be prejudiced by the
Court entertaining the proceedings at once.
Mr. Roberts said, that having instructed Mr. James in this
matter, he was aware that the Counsel's main ground of objection
was, that the insolvent had no locus standi whatever in this Court.
The. debts and liabilities now upon the face of his schedule
amounted to 61,1111., of which upwards of 3,0001. had been volun.
tarily renewed, and contracted by fraud.
The Learned COMMISSIONER—A serious charge, if you can
prove it, and ought not to.be made if you cannot.
Mr. Roberts—Then, Sir, if not a fraud, at all events much to the
prejudice of his other creditors.
The Learned COMMISSIONRR—If negligence of duty or supposed
prejudice to others constitute crime, then, 1 tear, we shall have
many criminals in this Court.
Mr. Roberts said .that Mr. Commissioner Merivale had decided,
in recent cases, that where an insolvent renewed his liabilities
after his discharge from the Court without the means of paying
them, that such conduct constituted legal fraud.
Mr. Chambers was sorry to hear that any such decision had
been come to, for in many cases the renewal of a debt might arise
from jhe most honourable intentions.
The Learned COMMISSIONER—And, I may add, that it might
emanate from the highest possible principle of mind, and the best
feelings of the human heart. It forms, in many cases, the very
essence of integrity. There is an old adage, that what is hostile to
the law of God cannot be the law of the land. Any creditor who
cannot attend here to.day may come forward upon the insolvent's
application for his final order.
Mr. Roberts said that he now attended for a judgment creditor
for about 30/., and for Mr. Anderson for GOO/.
Mr. Chambers suggested that as this appllcition was merely for
an interim order, that any examination of the insolvent as to the
various items in his balance-sheet, had better be deferred until the
application for the final order.
Mr. James was prepared to contend that the insolvent could not,
and ought not to obtain the benefit of an Act which was only in-
tended to protect the unfortunate debtor. In June, 1842, Mr.
Mathews was discharged from debts and liabilities amounting to
upwards of :26,000/., and in November, 1843, he filed his petition
to be discharged from the further sum of 8,11 It. Surely, then, it
was not for a person under such circumstances to seek the benefit
of the Insolvent Act. Ite,had no family—he was receiving, toge•
ther with his wife, nearly 100/. a week—Madame Vestris was not
even put to the expense of finding jewels for her stage urns.
rnents ; and yet, within a few months, had Mr. Mathews contracted
the enormous amount of 8,1111. of debt.
The Learned COMMAISIONER—What portion of that sum was
for the renewal of debts from which he had been previously dis-
charged? Mr. C. Jones—About 4,441/.
Mr. James—Well, taking that to be so, it appeared that from
June, 184.2, to November, 1843, Mr. Mathews had been living at
the rate of 3,000/. a year.
Sir C. F'. WILLIAMS-1 have a very strong opinion on the sub.
ject, but I shall not suffer myself to be led away by first impres-
sions, nor without hearing evidence; but 1 must say that there is
something upon the face of the balance-sheet which is extremely
startling.
Mr. James—lt appeared, that in consequence of the issue of
several writs and executions, and the stage.door having been
almost besieged, Mr. Mathews was obliged to quit his engagement,
arid for that no blame was imputable to him. Mr. Mathews re-
ceived 5001. upon the 3d of November. With this sum in hand,
Mr. and Mrs. Mathews proceeded to Paris; they went away iii an
omnibus and four--they took with them some thirteen or fourteen
packages of different articles ; but in less than one month every
farthing of the 5001: was expended, besides 701., his week's salary,
which he had in his pocket; and even their plate was pledged the
night before their departure. Mr. Mathews was to be pitied for his
embarrassments; but if anything like justice were to be done to
his creditors, he should not with perfect impunity be permitted to
expend 600/. in less than one month in Paris. ' Immediately upon
his return he obtained his protection from this Court, and-had
since been in the receipt of 701. a week, yet nothing was lone for
the creditors- Such a case should find no favour in this Court.
What was given up for the creditors ? Why, a sort of contract
had been set forth upon the face of the balance.sheet, by which
he proposed to give tip 1,350!. a-year of his and his wife's joint
salaries, deducting the payment of an annuity for 350/. a-year, for
which the Marquis of Abercorn was security. Such an offer, he
contended, was a mockery to_this Court ; it was a mockery to the
creditors

Sir C. F. WILLIAMS—And the jewels of Madame Vestris,
which for costliness were the admiration of the world, where are
they gone ?
Mr. C. Jones—l deny that Mrs. Mathews has any more jewels
than she now begs she may be allowed to retain upon the payment
of 3/. a.week for their use. The agreement specially provides for
the payment by equal monthly parts, out of both their salaries.
Mr. Mathews was then sworn, and in examination by Mr.
James, stated that at his last discharge his debts and liabilities
chiefly owing to.the difficulties attending his lesseeship of Covent:
garden, amounted to 29,0004 of which sum, however,only 4,000/.
was upon his own accistint. The properties were retained at the
theatte. Of the 4,0001. he had renewed about 3.000/. I felt
bound in honour-so to do, for I was very peculiarly situated, as
many persons came voluntarily forward to assist me, and one gen-
tleman, knowing my difficulties, lent me 2001.,saying, " Mathews,
I belie ve you to be i man of honour, and take the money, for I
know, when you-can, you will return it to me." That debt,
amongst others, I renewed, but I never granted any renewal fer
a pecuniary advantage. In the case of a debt to Mr. Wolf, I re-
newed it for 1001., and he said to me, " take the odd money leas

thediscount," which I did. I renewed also to Mr. Levi and Mr.
Gotdslide, who had become bail for me; and I will again swear
that I renewed nothing for any pecuniary consideration.
Mr. Cooke hire applied on behalf of certain judgment and
other creditors under the insolvent's former insolvency, but to
whom no renewals had•been given, that they might now be per.
mlttcd to come in and share in the benefits which Mr. Mathews
was willing to give his other creditors.

The defendant in this case, it will be remembered, was the
foreman at Westbrook's Wharf, at which the tobacco was tasseled
isi.Setivester and Fogg's eases.
. -

Mr. Chambers objected. A discussion ensued, and the Learned
Commissioner decided that he could not grant the application.
Mr. Chambers contended that the statements of his Learned
Friend (Mr. James) were, to use the mildest terms, founded on
error ; and besides, as the question had, to a considerable extent,
put on the character of a public matter, it could not be disposed of
without mature deliberation.

verdict was taken by the Crown, by consent, for throng/le-pc.
natty of 200/

TSB. ATrariSY.(I*NEIM. PETTIT. "

Mr. C. Jones.—This discussion has originated from the sugges.
tion thrown out of adjourning tl.e examination until the day fixed
for the final order; and if you will allow me, I will just add a word
or two. Mr. Mathews's debts amount to 8,100/. ; out of this sum
creditors to the extent of 4,000/. have signed to the proposition
made by Mr. Mathews, for the gradual liquidation of their
claims ; 2,0001. more are. willing to accede to it, but have not
taken the trouble to come hore today; thus creditors to an extent
of 6,000/. out of 8,0001. are willing to accept the terms proposed
by Mr. Matliews.

Mr. James—This is the first I have heard of this agreement ; but
as the Court has the power of adjourning an insolvent's examina.
tion for a few days without granting an interim order, I suggest

that that would be the best to adopt, and the public would not be
so unjust, atter reading or hearing this examination, as not to delay
their opinion until the whole case was gone into.
Sir C. F. WILLI&US—I would willingly adjourn the case, that
more complete justice may be done to the creditors and Mr. Ma-

thews ; but If there is 'no expectation of any solid benefit being the
result, an adjournment would be waste of lime.

Mr. ChaMbers— I solemnly believe that if an adjournment is
granted, and Mr. 'Anderson, who now complains, looks carefully
Into these transactions, he will be of a very different opinion at the
next meeting.

Mr. C. Mathews here said he wished to make a few observations
In regard to the statement made in respect to Mrs. Mathews's
Jewellery, which was, that in the year 1837, when Mrs. Mathews
got into difficulties, and before he had the pleasure of knowing
her, she had jewellery worth about 1,100!., and at that time it
was found necessary not only for her to sell her property, but she
was obliged to raise money upon her jewels ; and her adviser then
said, " This is yotir stock in trade,"—and such was really the
fact—for though it may seem to be an absurd thing, the greater
portion of visitors in country theatres were ladies, and, conse-
quently, being well dressed was absolutely requisite. A good
wardrobe was her stock in trade, and which gave her a supe.
riority over many others. Mr. Watkins, who had raised
the money for these jewels, laid that by paying three pounds
per week, she could have the use of them, and go all over the
world with them if she liked, and since 1837, no one had troubled
themselves about them. At the time of the last insolvency, they
were placed in the hands of Mr. Watkins, who asked if they might
be placed in the hands of Messrs. Storr and Mortimer upon the
same terms as he bad held them. He (Mr. C. Mathews) had got
out of several scrapes by reason of them, for upon his arrest by Mr.
Sloman, on the night of his benefit at Liverpool, he had to get
money upon. them. Me had always paid 60 per cent except to Mr.
Anderson, whe had- never taken any interest, and he (Mr.
Mathews) could assure the Court, that besides a few articles of
very trifling value, Mrs: Mathews had had no jewellery what-

rib defendant was the carman of the saute wharf, and, toge-
ther with Skinner, tiad concealed the. Ittt bates of tobacco which the
iightertnert !testae amr Blrd had kept t)Ack.a, security for their

ever, excepting those, which for the use of, she paid at the rate of
3/. per wed.

Sir C. F. WILLIAMS did not wish to be niggardly in permitting
an allowance to an insolvent; but still, a man in misfortune must
not stand upon stilts, but come down, and settle with his creditors
who were sutthring. A wan of honour, in such circumstances,
would be the more respected by the publid the more he ahridged his

parneut..
R verdict id this cae was also taken by eDnsent for the penalty
of 200/.

expenses.
Mr. Mathews said the 30/. a week included )01. fog personal cx.
pelmet, 101. for wardrobe expenses, W. a week for a carriage, which
was much cheaper thap a hackney cab, and 01, for servants at the

theatre.
Mr. James thought that 5/. a week for a carriage was too much.
Mr. Mathews—l can assure you it is cheaper than hiring A cab;
for in the first place we have to go to rehearsal, then Mrs.
Mathews has to go and make the necessary purchases for the ward-
robe. We have seldoin time to get a dinner until three o'clock;
and in the Meantime timve to run round to stop the mouths of
creditors for 2,000/., at fiti, per cent. ; and for the last five years I
haie never had time, to Allay S part except in a cab. I can do no
more than offer my creditors $q one hilt of what I earn.
Sir C. F. WILLIANIS—I thinklt is extremely liberal.

Mr. Mathews said his reason for coming to this Court was to
avoid angry discussion, by making a proposition of-giving half his
gaiut, or 1,3001. 'a year, in liquidation of his debts, which he
thought would have put an end to all bickerings; but if he was In
have discussion, while he was paying, why then it would be prefer.
able for him to go to the other Court, and bear a sentence of six
months' remand, for defending actions and obtaining discounts, for
then he might have time_ to study moral philosophy, but at the
same time he would get rid of the 8,000/. Treat me and flog me
too is too bad.

_
FEBRUARY 9.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Lord ABINGEB and a

Mr. Chambers said that Mr. Mathews had acted very unad-
visedly in going to Paris.

Common Jury.)

After some further discussion an adjournment Was agreed to,
till the )7th instant.

The schedule, which consists of 27 double folio pages, states
that the only property which he has consists of wearing' apparel,
to the amount of Md., while the gross debts and liabilities are
8,1111. 19i. 10d. ; he has no credits, and no debts due to him,
i Mr. and Mrl. Mathews realised, by irovincial engagements, from
i Jantlay 17 to Much 01, lel; for twenty-three nights, at Dublin,

• ROBINSON V. MASON.
This was an action to recover compensation in da-
mages by reason of a trespass and illegal distraint,
alleged to have been committed by the defendant.