The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JANUARY lB, 1842

• left town for the Isle of Wight my plate had been r
inventoried and mortgaged to Mr. Buzzatte, and we
decided only on taking that plate which belonged to my chil-
dren. It appears now, however, that after such inventory and
mortgage had taken place, my wife considered it neces-
sary to have a few articles for the use of the family. On our
return from the Isle of Wight I understood that that portion of
the plate belonging to myself was given up to Mr. Buzzatte. It
appears now that some few articles were taken from the parcel
brought from the Isle of Wight, and that some few articles
belonging to my estate, but which were of trifling value, were
retained in the parcel containing my children's plate. About
the time this plate was pledged, I was very much harassed and
engaged in the City all day from an early hour to a late hour,
and it was on one occasion that, when I went home without
the means to go through the next day, that
I asked my wife for this plate, alluding to my
children's plate, which had remained tied up without my
having seen the contents. 1 certainly, therefore, took the
parcel from my wife, and handed it over to another party,
without ever knowing the number of article:, to pledge, and
this, I think, will account for any having sworn in the way in
which I did.
I am not asking you now to account for pawning it ; but
whether, on the 13th of December, you knew that those
tickets in your pocket referred to articles of your own ?—I did
not know that those articles were of my estate till within the
last week or ten days.
I will read to you the artieles—Salt-spoons, &c. Which of
these articles belong to your children ?—I am incapable of
saying, unless I have a list at home.
Ten table-spoons, one cream jug. You can't tell without
referring to a list whether these are yours or not ?—I can
say that the milk pot and jug were engraved with the names
of my children, and put with the spoons.
What spoons, table or desert, or what ?—Some of each, or it
may be the whole of them.
Mr. Hustrasv read the whole of the articles over to the
bankrupt.
When you were examined on the 13th December did you be-
lieve that these were articles belonging to you or not ?
I did not see the duplicates' for weeks together. I
never gave it a thought. Although I had the tickets about me
I never looked at them, nor was I acquainted with the number
of articles till a few days ago. Immediately on my discovery
that there were some articles belonging to my estate in the lot
which was pledged, I came forward, without waiting till the
day, and made it known to the assignees.
When was that ?—One day last week, and I stated my readi-
ness to receive a list of such plate to take it home to my wife
and ascertain what small portion belonged to the estate.
Have you, or any person on your behalf, pledged any other
plate belonging to your children, or not?—Not that I am
aware of.
Why were these pawned in the name of Churchhouse?--Be-
cause 1 felt that I should disgrace my name by putting it in a
pawn-shop.
Who pawned them ?--I don't know.
When did you first get the tickets ?--I should say the day
subsequent to their being pledged. I believe on the morning
after such pledge from Mr. Churchhouse.
Now I want to ask you, can you tell us, by reference to any
book, what money you drew out on your own account between
the Ist of July and your bankruptcy ?—I cannot, exactly.
I don't want it exactly. What books do you refer to ?
—The cheque-book will show it. I never kept any private ac-
count of my own.
You said that Messrs. Ovington and Co., and some other
names, referred to Cook and Gladstone between June and
July; now will you name to me any firm which supplied you
with goods to so large an amount as Cook and Gladstone them-
selves ?—I cannot, and for this reason, I had not given any
security to any other house for goods supplied, and I had to
Cook and Gladstone for all goods supplied; and this I think
is a reason.
Now you say that Cook and Gladstone had security. To
what amount was it ? Name what they are T—First, security
of 3,0001. to Mr. Wm. Cook, senior ; 7,0001. to the firm.
They held the lease of No. 118, premises of mine, on security
for goods sold.
What do you value them at ?—1 submit to the Court whe-
ther that is a fair question. The only answer I can give is,
that it cost me 12,000/., and this is about one-third.
What do you value the third I—l am not competent to value
it. There has been at least 3,000/. laid out upon this part
of the property.
Is there any other security for their accounts ?—I gave them
Mr. Buzzatte for 500/., and no other.
Will you tell me, in the month of July, what was the state
of your accounts with Cook and Gladstone T—l will tell you in
the morning.
Will you swear it was not more than 19,000/. ?—I believe it
was 22,0001., but I can't tell without reference to my books,
and that has been over-ruled.
Had any security been given between January and July ?
No ; but they had been increased.
Was there any other security between January and July,
1840 ?—Yes. But lam enlv prepared to say upon probability,
and that is the security of. my brother, which I challenge
them to deny.
To what amount ?—For 2,0001.
When you say you increased the value of your leases, were
they ever increased beyond the value you have now put upon
them of
Assuming this to be the case—the whole amount of the
6,5001.?--No. My brother also gave security for 750/.
securities, you say the debt was upwards of 20,000/. Now had
they security to the amount of their debt in July ?—No. But
they had more security in proportion when I tailed than they
ever had before ; that I will prove.
I am taking the month of July, when you owed them a debt
50001. above the securities. Now, was there any other cre-
ditor had advanced between June and July as well as these
gentlemen ?—Yes.
Whom; name them?—Messrs. Lewellyn and Co., Smith
and Thompson, and Leaf and Ce. ; in this way these houses,
whose names I have mentioned, had increased their account upon
Cook and Gladstone's representation, without any security,
whilst Cook and Co. only increased their account in proportion
to the securities which they held. These houses to whom I have
referred had therefore increased their risk, whilst Cook and
Co. had not increased their risk, only in proportion to the se-
curity.
Taking the securities at their utmost value, were not Cook
and Gladstone unsecured to the amount of 5,0001. in the
month of July 1.-1 can't answer that question to 1,0001.
without my books.
To 1,000/. then ; were they not unsecured to the amount of
4,0001. or s,oool.—Yes.
Can you tell me Ovington's account in July by referring to
your books ?—Yes ; to the bought ledger. I think it is about
5501, to 6001.
And how much have you paid to them between those times ?
—Nothing.
Now tell me the amount Messrs. Lewellyn supplied you with
in the same dates ?—From 650/. to 7001.
Turn to Smith and Thompson?—About 400/.
Leaf, M'Dougal, anal Co. ? What quantity by them ?—The
amount of goods supplied, I should say, about 1,3001.
Any other name that supplied you with a large amount I
will take, if you please ?—Sheriffs and Co., 700/.
What amount did Cook and Gladstone supply you with
in the same time ?—I should think 4,0001.
Did you deal with Brown and Co. during January and July,
and to what amount?-1,3501.
Now, who are the largest creditors for goods supplied be-
tween January and July besides these ?—Lindsay and Patter-
son, 5501. in two months.
Well then, Wreford and Co. ?-400/. or 500/.
What is Goubien and Co., of Paris ?—The invoices are not
posted up, but they are about 1,2001.
It being now past four o'clock, the further hearing of the
case was postponed to eleven o'clock on Friday next.