The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-22 00:00:00

nutted, the commitment was bad upon the, face of it ;
and that therefore the rule must be made absolute.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS did not feel himself called upon
to adjudicate finally in this case, inasmuch as if the writ
Were to go the matter would again be solemnly argued
on the return to it. Now, on the authority of the case,
the King v. Brown, it appeared clearly that the Court
would and did • look in cases of summary conviction of
this nature, to : see if the offence as set forth was
sufficient to warrant the committal. In that case
Brown had been commited as a rogue and vaga-
bond, because he had in possession various
implements for housebreaking. Ile was brought up by
habeas, and it was argued that the commitment was
bad, inasmuch as it did not state that Brown was in pos-
session of those instruments at the time of his appre-
hension: In giving judgment in this case, Lord Kenyon
had said that he yielded with great reluctance to the ob-
jection, and that was quite sufficient to show that it
was not sufficient for commitments of this nature,
to set forth that the party. had been committed
as a rogue and vagabond, for if that had been suf-
ficient, Brown would not have been discharged.
and as it seemed exceedingly equivocal and doubtful
whether the conduct of Cavanagh could be construed
into a gOing about to gather alms or collect charitable
contributions, he was_ of opinion that the writ must go.
Rule absolute.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST THE " HAMPSHIRE

INDEPENDENT."—THE QUEEN V. HARMER.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved, on behalf of Mr.
Dickson, the Mayer of Southampton, for a rule,
calling upon the defendant, the proprietor of the
Ranaprkire Independent newspaper, to show cause
why a criminal information should not be filed
against him for the publication of a series of para-
graphs reflecting upon the character of the applicant,
Mr. Dickson who was of Conservative politics, had been
elected Mayor the 9th November, and on the llth had
announced a meeting for the purpose of addressing her
Majesty, to congratulate her on the birth of a Prince of
Wales. At that meeting some persons had thought
proper to bring politics under consideration, and
an adjournment had been moved; that motion had been
submitted to the meeting, by the Mayor as Chairman
and had by him been decided in accordance with what
he believed to be the decision of the majority. That de-
cision had not met with the approbation of the defendant,
who had, week after, week, published in his paper. a series
of paragraphs, imputing to. Mr. Dickson that he
had lent himself to be the tool of a party, and
had been actuated solely by party motives in
coming to the decision to which he had come on the
occasion referred to. On the first occasion he had taken
no notice of the paragraph; as he considered it merely
an ebulition of disappointment,. but the continued attacks
were seriously affecting his efficiency as a Magistrate,
and, therefore, he applied to' his Court for protection.
Mr. Justice WlLLums—Take a rule.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-I may as well state that
the object of the Mayor in making this application is
merely to restrain this series of attacks, and to get the
protection ofthe Court, so as to enable him to exercise
the functions 6f his office in such a manner as to be be-
neficial tolhis falow-citizens.
Mr. Justice WILLIAms—How far that may be satis-
factory I ciftinot say. I hope it may lead to some satis-
factory result.

MANDAMUS-THE QIUEEN TOWN COUNCIL OF HARWICH.

Mr. GURNEY applied fur a rule for a mandamus direct-
ing the Town Council of Harwich to swear in Mr. An-
thony Cox as Mayor of that borough. At the last elec-
tion for Mayor, Mr. Hart and Mr. Cox were the candi-
dates, and Mr. Hart had the majority of votes; but pre-
vious to the election notice had been given to the voters
that Mr. Hart was not qualified, he not being an Alder-
man, which he claimed to be, and that consequently
all the votes for him would be thrown away. Sinoe
then application had been made for a quo warranto,
calling on Mr. Hart to show by what authority he
claimed to exercise the office of Alderman, and judgment
Of ouster had been obtained against him. Under those
circumstances Mr. Cox was the only legal candidate
for, -the office of Mayor, and therefore he now applied for
a rule nisi fora mandamus calling on the Corporation to
swear him in.—Application.granted.

THE QUEEN V.' "THE BRIGHTON GAZETTE."-CRIMINAL

INFORMATION.

Mr. PLATT moved for a rule calling on the proprietors
of the Brighton Gazette to show cause why a criminal in-
formation should not be filed against them for the pub-
lication .of an article of a libellous character, reflecting
on the character of two of the Brighton Magistrates.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS referred the Learned Counsel
to the full Court, and:observed that, as it was one of the
highest functions the Court could exercise, he thought
the full Court by far the most proper place in which to
make all such applications.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, an. 21.
BELCHER V. CAPPER.
This is an action on a policy of insurance. The Court
was occupied the whole ef the day, and part of Wednes-
day, in hearing the arguments on demurrer to the repli-
cation. The argument was wholly destitute of popular
interest.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 21.
IN RE THE BANKRUPTCY OF Mr3L HITCHCOCK.

The adjourned examination of the above bankrupt was
resumed this morning.
Mr. IiUMFREY wished to ask the official assignee
whether he had not asked for information from the bank-
rupt, which had been furnished ?
Mr. GROOM said he had required further informa-
tion from the bankrupt—the answer was that he declined
to give any information except in open Court.
Mr. MARDON said the official assignee only asked for
information connected with the statements made in that
Court. lie had given all theinformation in his power
to those who were, in fact, the assignees of the credi-
tors. Mr. Cook was not in reality an assignee. The
whole of the figures respecting the balance had been
as fully explained as it was in the power of the bankrupt.
Mr. HUMFREY denied this statement.

Mr. GROOM said he certainly was of opinion that
further information was required. He was not satisfied
with that which had been furnished.
Mr. 1-lumFaEv appealed to the Court to force -the
bankrupt to furnish the official assignee with all the in-
formation he required, or adjourn the examination until
it was done.
The COMMISSIONER said as some of the requisitions of
the official assignee had been complied with, and others
not, let the official assignee ' give another requisition in
writing, and it must be complied with. He was com-
pelled to give proper information to all his assignees by
the provisions of the Act of Parliament.
The Bankrupt.said, after his examination on Monday,
he called several times on Mr. Groom for any fresh re-
quisition, but :none was given, except one from Mr.
Cook. He declined to give any information to Mr. Cook
singly. He had not gone to Mr. Groom's to sort his
books and papers, because the whole of his books and
papers were seized. He folind some were missing, and
therefore he would rather not meddle with them, unless
he was compelled, so that it would not be possible for
any one to say that he had taken away any of the letters
or papers.
The examination was thesi resumed.

By Mr. are you residing now ?--
No. 7, Cumberland-place, New-road.
• What servants have you ?—A maid of all-work and a
boy.
What do you pay a-week for those lodgings ?-21. 10s.,
being furnished.
You spoke of having given Cook and Gladstone 61. per
cent. interest, and 11 per cent. commission. Were you
not paying to Mr. Glaister a larger commission and the
same interest ?—Yes ; and here I wish to explain. In
March, 1839, I was discounting bills with Cook and
Gladstone. When Mr. Cook, on one occasion, declined
to discount the bills which I then tendered, and sug-
gested that I should discount them somewhere else in
the market ; and in the conversation which took place
then, Mr. Cook asked me if I discounted with Mr.
Glaister. This conversation also occurred prior to that
time, I believe. Now, finding I could not get the bills dis-
counted with Messrs. Cook and Gladstone, to the extent
that I required, I called upon Mr. Glaister, and he of-
fered to discount my bills for the next year at a fixed
price, viz., per cent. commission, and 5 per cent. in-
terest. Ile would do this if I got my brother's security
for 1,000/. as against loss. I obtained and gave him that
security. He commencedliseounting, and continued to
do so for several months,. at the rate agreed upon.
He, however, subsequently increased that commission to 2
per cent., then to 21 afterwards 2/, and then 3. When
I paid the 3 per cent. Mr. Glaister told me he would not
charge beyond the bargained price again. On the 27th
November, 1839, I went again to Mr. Glaister with
about 750/. worth of bills. After trying me to see if I
needed the money at that moment, and in reply to
which I said I must have the money or stop, he took ad-
vantage of my necessity and charged me 5 per cent.
commission, although he admitted at the same time that
the bargain was for I, and he then held security. I
was obliged on that day to get the money, and, therefore,
I consented to pay his demand. I, however, told him
then that in consequence of his Jewish conduct lo would
never enter his place again, and never did for that pur-
pose. I believe I shall be able to show on the cross-exa
tion of Cook and Gladstone's—
Mr. HUMFREY objected to such language from a bank-
rupt. He had better take care what he said.
Witness —I have good reason to believe, indeed Mr.
Cook has twice told me so, that Mr. Glaister was con-
sulting with him during that period, and I believe that
Cook and Gladstone assisted him in discounting my
bills, and derived part of the profit from them. I never
paid Mr. Glaister or any other person such exorbitant
interest as I was then drawn into pay—viz., 5 per cent.
commission and 6 per cent. interest.
Did you discount bills with any other person than Mr.
Cook and Mr. Glaister ? —Yes.
,
With whom since 1839 ?—Messrs. Coster and Co.;
Messrs. Eales and Co Messrs.
Llewellyn and Co., I
think, and Mr. Stephens, bill-broker.
Any one else ?—Those are all I recollect.
What did you pay to Messrs. Eales and Co., interest
and commission—the highest ?—I cannot tell without
reference to my discount papers. (They were handed
to him.) On June 3d, 1840, the interest, 5 per cent ;
commission, 11 per cent.; the bill nearly four months.
That will, upon the ;hole, be as nearly as possible 10
per cent.?—Yes ;it is 101 per cent. nearly.
Now, turn to another of Messrs. Eales'?—l do not find
any more of Eales' here.
Now, then, turn to Llewellyn paid no commission
to them at any time.
What was the interest ?—Five per cent. per annum.
Now, turn to
Stephens There are none of Stephens's here.
; what did "you pay him ?
What was the highest you paid Stephens at any time?
—Here is one of Stephens's of March, 7th ; the interest
is 3 per cent, commission 11 per cent.
Have you ever paid as high as 4 per cent, commission
and 6 per cent, interest ?—No.
What was the average ?--About 1 per cent., and 5 par
cent. interest. That was about the average I aid Ste-
phens. I discounted with Bradbury and Castles, and I