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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1842.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY. Jan. 17.
The LORD CHANCELLOR Silt in his Court at Westmin-
ster to-day.

WARD V. ALSAGER.
The further arguments in this part-heard case were
resumed, and occupied his Lordship the whole day.

ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 17.
WILLATTS V. BUSBY.
The further arguments in this part-heard cause occu-
pied his Lordship, the Master of the Rolls, the whole
morning.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Jan. 17.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)

THE CORPORATION OF DARTMOUTH V. HOLESWORTH.

The Court was occupied during the morning with
hearing the further arguments in this case, which had
been part heard on Saturday. -
His HONOUR, in giving his judgment, said that the
case for the plaintiffs went on the assertion that six of
the aldermen, at the meeting at which the bond was
granted, had misled by false representations the remaining
two, thereby inducing them to sign the deed. There was,
however, no evidence whatever to prove that each of the six
Aldermen had made these misrepresentations ; and it
would not be enough to show that they had been made
by one or two of the parties, because those who brought
for ward a charge of fraud, should be held to the strictest
proof of such charge. The allegations of the plaintiff
were not sustained, and he should therefore dismiss the
bill with costs.

(Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE.)
FANNING V. DEVEREUX._

In this cause, which came before the Court on bill and
answer, the plaintiff, Richard Fanning, claimed as the
personal representative of the testator's next of kin.
The testator, James Fanning, was possessed of an
estate in France called La Roche Talbot, and of
considerable sums of money in the French Funds,
and other property in France, all of which was confis-
cated at the time of the French Revolution, in consequence of
his being a British subject. In January, iell2, he made his
will, and thereby, after giving a certain annuity, he be-
queathed to his kinsman, J. E. Devereux, of "Carigmendu, in
the county of Wexford, and to the Reverend Daniel
Al‘Carthy, whom he also appointed as his executors, all his
wordly substance, and directed that it, at the decease of the
annuitant, should go as the rest of his fortune to those execu-
tors. Another executor named Edward Christian, was also
nominated executor by the testator. In a subsequent will,
dated 1:004, the testator, after expressing a confident hope that
he would be indemnified for the confiscated French estate,
and for the seizure, during the Revolution, of his plate, linen,
household furniture, and other personal property, bequeathed
his property in the following manner:—One-third part for cha-
ritable purposes, for the relief of the poor of Waterford
and other places in Ireland ; one-third part to his relation,
J. E. Devereux ; and the remaining third to his cousin,
Januarius Fanning, of the city of Naples. The whole of the
property thus devised was to be subject to an annuity of 601.,
to be paid to the testator's niece, Catharine M•Namara.
In a paper left with Devereux the testator confirmed
this will in ever thing except the nomination of the
Reverend D. 1114111acarthy as one of the executors.
That nomination he revoked, and named the Reverend
Dr. Walsh, of the Irish College of Paris, and Mr. Devereux,
as his executors. Januarius Fanning died during the lifetime of
the testator, and the third portion of the property be-
queathed to him became lapsed, and vested in the
testator's next of kin, Catharine APNamara. She died intes-
tate in 1817, and the plaintiff had taken out letters of adminis-
tration of her estate and effects, and now, as her personal repre-
sentative, brought forward his claim to the lapsed third por-
tion of the property bequeathed to James Fanning.
The cause had on a former occasion come before the then
Lord Chancellor, on a petition, frhich had been dismissed
with costs by his Lordship.
His HONOUR thought that he was bound by the weight of
the late Lord Chancellor's authority, who intimated an opinion
adverse to the cause, to dismiss the bill, but not with costs,
and thus the question would be left open to appeal.

BAIL COURT, Jan. 17.
THE QUEEN V. T. J. IVOLSLEY.

Mr. SWANN applied for a certiorari to remove an in-
dictment, which had been found against the defendant,
the proprietor of the Shropshire Conservative newspaper,
for a libel on Dr. Mackenzie, the proprietor of a rival
newspaper, into this Court from the Shrewsbury Ses-
sions, on the grounds that the list of Jurors for Shrews-
bury was extremely limited ; that the political feeling in
the borough was very strong; and that It, was impossible
for the defendant to obtain a fair trial there.—Applica-
tion granted.

fendant in the bar. The witness then described the
state of the parties, in the same manner as the last witness.
Cross-examined—Defendant did not seem under the
influence of liquor. In the early part of the night ho
pretended to be asleep when I looked at him, but I am
sure he vas not.
By-the CounT—Shrubsole had been in the billiard-
room for some time, and had not been gone more than a
minute before this altercation took place:
Sophia Cooper—l lodged at plaintiff's at the time this
occurred. Mrs. Shrubsole knocked at my door between
twelve and one, and came into my room.
The remainder of the evidence of this witness, is unfit
for publication. It, however, left no doubt as to the
criminality of the parties.
Mr. LINDON, the attorney of the plaintiff, proved that
Mr. J. Sprogg, the attorney for the defendant, had
served a demand for maintainence from Mrs. Shrubsole
on her husband, dated 31st May, 1841, and entitled in
the cause of Shrubsole against Garratt.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Flan asked the Court if there were sufficient evi.
dence of the marriage.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS thought there was.
Mr. Ftsta then addressed the Jury for tl defendant,
and contended that the evidence was nor sufficient to
warrant a verdict for the plaintiff. A more improbable
case had never been presented to a jury. Could they
imagine that any man would choose the gar of a public-
house as a place for carrying on an adulterous inter-
course with a married woman when her husband
was in the house, and there were four or five
persons up stairs in the billiard-room ? Would
Mrs. Shrubsole, had she been guilty, have gone up
stairs to request the people in the billiard-room
to come down—or would she have consented to the in-
vestigation instituted by Mrs. Cooper at the desire of the
plaintiff ? These were cases in which cogent evidence
was required to convict a defendant. Had they such
evidence ? Now with regard to the pretended confes-
sion of the defendant, all that appeared was that when
soundly thrashed and accused of adultery he held his tongue,
and was only desirous of being let out. The defendant's
version of the transaction was that he was at the time
labouring under the effects of liquor, that lie had occa-
sion to retire, had not readjusted his dress so carefully as
he should have done had he been sober, and that on re-en-
tering the bar he met plaintiff, who immediately
attacked him. With regard to damages there was no
proof as to the terms which the parties had been living
together, and therefore the plaintiff could not be entitled
to any heavy damages, even if they should be of opinion
that lie had been guilty of the act imputed to him.
One of the Jury asked if the parlour was a distinct
room from the bar.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS recalled the witness Latham,
who said the parlour was distinct from the bar, and was
separated from it by a boarded partition, so that persons
in the bar could not see what was going on in the parlour.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS having summed up,
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.—Da-
mages 401.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 17.

CRANE V. PRICE

This was an aotion for the infringement of a patent in-
vention far the smelting of iron. The verdict was for
the defendant, and a new trial having been moved for, it
was agreed to take the argument upon a special case. The
argument was opened this day by Mr. Sergeant Bompas in
support of the verdict. The hearing occupied the whole
day, and will occupy at least another.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 17.
(Before Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD.)
IN RE WILLIAM HITCHCOCK.
Our readers will remember that the examination of the
bankrupt was adjourned sine die by the Commissioner, in con-
sequence of the continued noisy applause of the hearers, when
he said anything in crimination of Messrs. Cook and Glad-
stone. The bankrupt having given a fresh notice, the re-ex.
amination was resumed this morning.
Mr. HUMFREY appeared as counsel for Messrs. Cook and Co.
Mr. MAnnON proceeded with the examination of Mr.
Hitchcock—
Explain the reasons for the balance-sheet of 1839?—The
requirement of the official assignees on this point, is as fol-
lows :—Wanted particulars of composing total sum on both
sides of this balance-sheet and references to the account
in the original books, by which their correctness
may be verified. I have already statel that I have not the
materials from which this balance sheet 'was made, for
they were not kept at the time. I now find on reference
to any books, that they do not supply materials by which the
correctness of that balance sheet may be verified. The principle
item of objection I understand to be is that on the credit of the
book-debts, amounting to 1,712/. 4s. This would appear at
first sight to be doubtful as my debts are then, according to my
books, somewhere about 4,000. I am prepared, however, to
offer this explanation to account for their being taken at
1,7121. 45., whilst at that period the debts are shown to be
about 4,000/. I had drawn on the parties bills to the
amount of 2,3001. or thereabouts. Now, as I had discounted
the greater portion of these bills, and received the money
for them, which had been applied to the purposes of my estate,
and as I took upon mysolf to prepare for the payment of such
bills, I thought I had a right to deduct that amount from the
4,0(:01., leaving a balance of 1,7001. as debts owing. In the
item also of cash and bills on the credit side of 1,2241. ss. 7d.,
I find a difficuity at this time to account for the exact sum
then in my possession. I can, however, show by my bankers'
books, Smith, Payne, and Smith, and the London and West-
minster Bank, that had then in their hands an amount toge-
ther which I believe to be about 8001. ; this was in cash, whilst
the item refers to cash and bills. I can offer no further expla-
nation on this item, as I find I cannot ascertain what bills I
had uy me. This is all I have to say on this balance-sheet,
unless I am further interrogated.
Mr. Il It:Arany—From what documents do you draw your
information respecting the sum of 2,3001. ?--From my clerk ;
and I have since verified it by my books. I only give it as
about the sum.
Mr. MARnON said this was not new. The explanation had
been given to the assignees, and he thought it better to give it
in open Court.
Mr. HUMFREY had read over the examinations, and found
not a word respecting these bills.
The bankrupt wished all questions put to him to be in
writing, for he found that in the bustle of the former examina-
tion a question of great importance to him was altogether
omitted
The COMMISSIONER. directed that the questions and an-
swers should be read as they were pat and given.
Mr. HUMFREY—I asked you where you got the documents
you with ?—I have not.
lnieodt taken any care of at the
from which you made out this sum of 2,300/. Have you the
moranda made at the official
time.documents
ayrwewh
assignee's.
Will you explain if the debts were 4,0001., and you hadtieherheeyys?iom_u rpTl
simply
reeoyr
uk
wg
rough
ur
me
ep p
drawn upon your debtors to the amount of 2,300/., why that
fact does not appear upon your books ?—I did not think it ne-
cessary at the time.
Is that the only answer you can give?—lt is the only answer
I consider necessary.
Can you give any other explanation whether you think it
necessary or not?
Mr. MARMON thought this was a most inconvenient course.
Was the bankrupt to be cross-examined on every item ? He
submitted that he ought to be allowed to continue his exami-
nation of the bankrupt.
Mr. HUMFREY had a right to eross- examine on any new
matter, such as that respecting the 4,000/. ; he cross-examined
on this item now as a matter of convenience.
The Commissioetie thought Mr. Humfrey's course was the
most convenient, but if Mr. Manion wished he had a right to
go on.
Mr. Mani:lox—l prefer that. In your balance sheet you
state you had made a balance of 4,1591 , which is an average
of 6 per cent. Explain the difference between nett profit and
the gross profit made upon your purchases and sales, which yon
stated to me to be, purchases 74,132/. and sales 76,846/. ?—I
have shown the nett profit to be in my balance sheet 4,159/. ;
that is all I can show according to that form of balance sheet,
and that form was required by the official assignee. I will
now proceed to account for the absence of a larger profit shown
in that balance sheet. Loss on account of goods sold by Leaf
and Co., 1,093/. I Is. 7d. Loss on old stock which had accu-
mulated up to the spring of 1841, and which was unsaleable
and not suitable to our trade in the new shops—this loss I esti-
mate tohe 25 per cent. less the cost price, or about 6,000;.,
making a loss of 1,500/. The profit on on 6,000/., at
124 per cent., 750/. Losses on sales in the usual way of
business, being goods depreciated in value during 2i years,
I estimate at 10,000/., which at 10 per cent. less than cost
price, being about one-seventh of the return of the profit—loss,
therefore, at 121/2 per cent. 1,2501. Loss on millinery during
1840, 3501. Supposed robberies during the same period at
2001. per annum, 5501., and loss. Profits on Irish linen sent
to Cooks, 800/. at 124 per cent. 110/., making a total of
6,7451. 4s. These losses, I believe, to have occurred, and
which to my mind account for the want of a larger profit in
else balance-shut.
You have taken credit in your balance-sheet for a debt due
from your brother, James Hitchcock, of 1,100/. Explain
whether the entries forming that item are entered in any of
your books, and what books are they ?—The original entries
relating to this debt will be found in the day-books, and since I
have been examined have been folioed, and references affixed
to all the items as required by the official assignee ; and here
I wish to observe that this debt is not a new debt, but one
which can be shown to have existed previous to January.
In your balance sheet you have stated that there is a debt
due to your estate from Mercer of 1,2061. 17s. 9d. Is that
a debt subsisting, and not a loss ?--It is a debt.
Do the items composing that debt appear in your books ?
—They da.
Mr. Groom, do you produce those documents and letters
I required by letter of the 15th of January ?
Mr. Groom—l have sent for all the letters and documents,
but I know nothing of the particular letters you ask for.
Mr. MAanoN-1 will ask the bankrupt respecting them.
Have you seen in the assignee's office a letter signed H. Par-
kinson, for Cook and Gladstone, dated 14th January, 1840 ?
Mr. Groom produced the letter. It was addressed to the bank-
rupt, and referred to several bill transacnions on which interest
was charged by Mr. Cook.
• mentioned
in rate of interest was reckoned on that 1 ,
in that letter?---Six per cent., as was explained in that letter
when I last saw.it, and of which I took a copy.
A memorandum, dated 6th May, 1840, was put in. It was
a receipt for 91/. odd, paid Cook and Co. for interest upon a
sum of 3,000/.
Mr. MARDON—Did you receive that memorandum from
Messrs. Cook and Gladstone?--I did.
By whom was that sum of 3,0001. lent? —By Mr. William
Cook, senior.
Was any security given for the loan of that sum ?—Yes, the
lease of the house INo. 114, Regent-street.
A memorandum, dated Nov. 18, 1839, was put in. It also
referred to a calculation of interest between Cook and the bank-
rupt at 6 per cent.
What is the total amount of bills discounted, referred to in
that memorandum ?-3581. 11 s. 10d.
What is the average time these bills had to run?—From
two and a half to three months.
What was the rate of interest upon them .9 6 per cent.
What commission ?-14 per cent. on the amount, being to-
gether about 19 per cent. to 18 per cent. per annum.
From whom did you receive that memorandum ?—From
Messrs. Cook and Co.
Several other memorandums were put in in order to show
that the bankrupt was right when he stated that he had been
charged interest at the rate of from 10 to 15 per cent.
State when you first commenced removing any of your
goods from your business premises.—Early in July.
Was it after the interviews spoken of by you in your exami-
nation with Messrs. Cook and Gladstone, in their library ?
It was after some of the interviews, and which related to
these goods, and here I squid observe that these interviews
continued almost daily through the whole of July.
Did you show to Cook and Co. the plans for the alteration of
your premises did.
When did you begin your alterations ?—I think in August,
1840.
Did Mr. Cook or Mr. Gladstone, introduce you to the Plate
Glass Company ? Mr. Cook did, personally.

Did you give any bills to that Company for goods supplied?
—I did.

Was there not one of those bills falling due in August, 1841 ?
—I believe there was.
Did you pay it when it became due ?—No.
Did you see Mr. Cook upon the subject ?—Yes,
Did any conversation pass between you and him regarding
the payment of that blll?—Yes.
State what Mr. Cook said to you on that occasion ?—Mr.
Cook told me that although he was interested in the Plate
Glass Company, yet he was more interested in my estate ; and
he said I had better not send a large quantity of old plate
glass which I then had, and which I had promised the Secre-
tary of the Company to send to them iii part discharge of my
bill. Mr. Cook said I had better not send such glass, as I had
promised, as he was more largely interested is my estate.
Were you in the habit of going to Cook and Gladstone's, on
business, in 1841 ?—Yes, frequently.
Where did you see them upon business before July, in that
year?—Ordinarily in the counting-house or warehouse.
Where did you see them, after that period, on business?—
Always in the private house—in the library or dining-room.
Did you see Mr. Goubien in Regent-street, at any time in
December, 1840, or January, 1811 ?—Yes, I believe on Dec.
29, 18-10.
Was he introduced by Messrs. Cook and Co. by letter, ad-
dressed to you?—He was.
Did you send one of your buyers to Paris to buy goods
through that introduction ?—Yes.
Did you mention to Mr. Cook, or Mr. Gladstone, that you
intended to buy goods in Paris ?—Yes.
Did you purchase any goods in Paris?—Yes.
Did you say anything to Mr. Goubien relating to your cir-
cumstances or credit ?—Not anything.
Did you apply to Cook and Gladstone for the loan of any
sum of money after the period when you saw Mr. Goubien ?
I think on the day previous, or on the same day the letter was
written.
Did they lend it you ?—No, not at first.
Were any objections raised ?—Yes.
State what they said upon that occasion ?—Mr. Cook said
that they had determined not to lend me any more money,
and that therefore the 1,0001. which I wanted I must get
somewhere else in the market. I did not get that 1,0001. any-
where else, but in a day or two I called upon them again, and
renewed my request. Mr. Cook then advanced me the
1,0001., but I did not know at that time that he had waited
on my brother unknown to me, and had obtained his guarantee
for that sum, as it came out in a conversation some one or two
months afterwards. I now believe that I can show that upon
the same day he introduced Goubien to me, that
he, on that day, refused me any accommodation unless
he obtained my brother's security. I believe, also
that I can show Mr. Cook also went to my brother in Janu-
ary, 18,1, and also in February of the same year, for a simi-
lar purl), se, and this I wish the Court to observe, was about
the period that the document of January, 1841, purporting to
be a balance sheet, has been stated by them to have been re-
ceived from me. This document would make it appear that. I was
not only solvent but that I had a balance in my trade of from
3,000/. to 4,000/., and yet I can show that the application
which I made to them about this time was not for any increase
to their debt, but simply a renewal until my premises were
complete, the leases of which they have, and upon which an
immense eutlay was then being made.
Were you directed by either Cook or Gladstone not to send
any of your buyers to them ?—Yes, after July the Ist.
Did you ever say to Cook and Gladstone that that document
purported to be a balance-sheet ?—No.
Did you give them a statement, exhibit 8., of the former ex-
amination ?—This paper I might have given to either of them,
but not in its present state.
Does that purport—
Mr. HUMFREY—I must insist upon an explanation of the
bankrupt's meaning before we go further.
Mr. Ma RDON—Explain it.—There are remarks upon it, I
think, in the handwriting of Mr. Gladstone.
Does it purport to be a balance-sheet ?—No; it is not at all

like one. -
Do the items in exhibits A and B materially affect your ba-
lance sheet?—No.
Were you desired by either Cook or Gladstone in June or
July to cease buying goods of them ?--Yes ; I think on the Ist
or 2d of July.
Did you buy any goods, and what quantity, after that pe.
riod ?—Not any except one parcel of 11. Is. 4d., which was
bought through error.
Were you requested by them, or either of them, to refer
houses in London to them or either of them ?—Yes ; as
I can show.
Can you state the names of any of the houses whom you re-
ferred to them in consequence?—Messrs Wheeler and
Strachan. None others that I know of after July Ist.
Were there any other houses referred by you to Cook and
Co., after January, 1841; to July?—Yes ; a great number.
State the names of those houses you referred to Cook and
Co. since that period?—Messrs. Hollington and Warwick;
Leaf, Smith, and M.Dougal ; Messrs. Smith and Thompson;
Messrs. Lindsay and Patterson ; and I should think a great
number of others.
Mr. MARDON said he did not think it necessary to ask the
bankrupt any further questions, as he intended to examine the
parties referred to Messrs. Cook and Co. by the bankrupt.
Mr. HUMFREY asked if there was any other statement be-
fore he entered upon his cross-examination ?—No.
By Mr. BUTT—Was there a proposal of a loan of 7,0001. in
May, 1840, between you and Messrs. Cook and Co. I—Yes,
about that time.
What terms were agreed upon between you for that loan ?
—They offered to lend me 7,0001. for ten years.
Was that loan first proposed to be secured by a bond, and
your brother, George Hitchcock, proposed to be a security for
that amount ?—Yes, he was.
Was it arranged that you were to give your brother a bond
to indemnify him against loss ?—lt was.
Was that proposed originally between you and Messrs. Cook
and Gladstone?—l am not sure.
In consequence of this arrangement did you cause a bond
to be prepared between you and your brother ?—I did.
Was that about the time of the arrangement ?.—lt was.
Mr. Mardon, the solicitor, prepared the bond for you?—He did.
Have you got the draft or eopy of the bond so prepared ?—I
have.

Produce it. This was not executed, can you state the rea-
son ?—Yes. When I gave instructions to my solicitor, Mr.
Manton, to prepare that bond, I had not stated to any one in
the City that I had not given any such bond but on one occa-
sion. Subsequently, I inadvertently stated to a house, that
I had not given any bond to my brother, nor to any
other person. On consideration, after making this statement,
I felt that I could not execute such bond. That was the cause
of its not being completed.
Does the word " subsequently" in your last answer refer to
the time of the agreement for the loan and the preparation of
the bond ?—No, but subsequently to the order which I had
given to Mr. Mardon for the preparation of the bond.
The bond was here read.
Mr. HUMFREY again asked the bankrupt if there
was anything he wished to say before he cross-
examined him ?—Yes, I have. The bankrupt then made
an application to the Court, which he said was necessary
to place him before the public as an honest and upright man.
The application was, that as he had been examined as to the
parties he had referred to, Messrs. Cook and Gladstone should
be brought forward, in order that they might upon their oaths
say what the character was that Messrs. Cook and Gladstone
gave of him. If any gentleman should not be able to
attend, as he expected, he hoped the Court would allow a
letter from that gentlemen to be put in, and which would be
sworn to. He was sure that his Honour must have noticed
that he was very much indisposed during his examination, and
therefore was incapacitated, from his exhaustion and excite.
ment, to give that attention which he had since done, and on
that account he wished to make an application to the Court
respecting an erroneous statement in the Times, which he
wished corrected.
The COMMISSIONER said the Court could not allow him to
refer to any report but that upon the files of the Court.
The Bankrupt then stated, that Mr. Ashurst, in his exami-
nation had involved various points in one question, and thei eby
embarrassed him in his answers, by which he was easily led
into an error in his answers, and this was the reason be wished
to refer to the Times' report. At another opportunity he
should address the Court respecting this.
Now, referring you to your examination of December 13th,
where you were asked" Will you swear, to the best of your be-
lief, Sou had disclosed everything relative to your estate," was
that answer true?—l considered then it was true.
Had you pawned plate at. that time which you had not dis-
closed to the assignees ?—I had pawned plate which
I had not disclosed to my assignees. The fiat- was
opened in my estate about December 20. Shortly after and
about the period that I began to reveal my transactions with
Messrs. Cook and Gladstone to my assignees, I was subject
to a great many heavy expenses. In the first place I have a
wife and seven children to support, some of them in a very de-
licate state. I had also been told that it was necessary for me
to employ an accountant in thepreparation of my balance-sheet,
or I could not pass my examination. Relying on the information
that it was necessary for me to employ an accountant, and who
was recommended to me by the official assignee of this Court,
I did employ one. Now, at this moment I had no funds where-
with to pay such an accountant, except the 51. which you have
kindly allowed me for the support of my family.
Five pounds a week, you mean ?—Five pounds a week. This
I found to be insufficient to pay even the cost of my balance-
sheet,for I found that his charges were, for himself ss. per hour,
for his clerk, 2s. 6d. per hour. Even supposing that he
worked eight hours a-day at my balance sheet, that would
have entailed an expense upon me of 31. a. day ; and, as I had
not been my own clerk, I found it quite impossible to under-
staid or explain my books, without engaging and paying him
his salary. There were also many other expenses incidental to
my then situation, and which expenses I was obliged to bear.
I felt myself unwilling at that moment to apply to any
of my friends, but still funds I must have in order
to pass this Court. I therefore did not hesitate,
knowing that I had some plate which belonged to my
children, and which was, therefore, not the property of
the assignees, to pledge such plate. I did so to the amount of
16/. 10s., and which money was spent in expenses necessary
for my appearing here. I believe, also, that about this time
Mr. Cook, who was then one of any assignees, objected to my
receiving any allowance for my maintenance. 1 will, how-
ever, say, that the other assignees were willing to allow me
the amount, and that Mr. Cook, finding himself thus placed,
made it a matter of grace to sanction it.
Now is that the only reason for swearing you had given up
the whole of your property when you had not?—That was my
reason, and my determination was to bring any tickets at my
last examination, which I was told was usual.
Then, according to your own account, jou said that you had
delivered up to your assignees all you had, and yet at the time
you had in your pocket duplicates which you had not disclosed.
is that so ? Yes, and for the reasons I have before stated.
Now, you said you had plate belonging to your children. Will
you swear to having pawned none belonging to yourself ?—I
will not. The Court will remember that my wife and
family were at the Isle of Wight. When they
left town for the Isle of Wight my plate had been
inventoried and mortgaged to Mr. Buzzatte, arid 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, 1 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 articles, to pledge, and
this, I think, will account for my 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 raad 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
may that the milk pot and jug were engraved with the names
of my children, and put with the spoons.

What spoons, tab'e or desert, or what ?—Some of each, or it
may be the whole of them.
Mr. HUMF.CEI rad ,f the artides ov r
bank, upt.
When you were examined on the 13. h 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, ner 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 w ife
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
a.ter 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 cannot, exactly.
I don't want it exactly. What books do you refer to?
—The cheque-book will show it. 1 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 Coek and Gladstone them-
selves ?—I cannot, and for this reason, I had not given any
security to any other house for goods supplied, atid 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 ?--First, security
of 3,0001. to Mr. Wm ('ook, 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 12,0001., and this is about one-third.
What do you value the third ?—I 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 5001., and no other.
Will you tell me, in the month of July, what was the state
of your accounts with Cook and Gladstone ?—I 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,
1940?—Yes. But I am only prepared to say upon probability,
and that is the security of my brother, which I challenge
them to deny.
To what amount ?—For 2,e00t.

When you say you increased the value of your leases, were
they ever increased beyond the value you have now put upon
them of 6,500/. ?—No. My brother also gave security for 750/.
Assuming this to be the case—the whole amount of the
securities, you say the debt was upwards of 20,0001. 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
5000/. 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 Co. ; 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 ?—I can't answer that question to 1,0001.
without my books.
To 1,0001. 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
550 i. 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 6501. to 7001.
Turn to Smith and Thompson?—About 4001.
Leaf, M'Dougal, and Co. ? What quantity by them?—The
amount of goods supplied, 1 should say, about 1,3001.
Any other name that supplied you with a large amount I
will take, if you please ?—Sheriffs and Co., 7001.
What amount did Cook and Gladstone supply you with
in the same time ?—I should think 4,000/.
Did you deal with Brown and Co. during January and July,
and to what amonnt ?—1,3501.
Now, who are the largest creditors for goods supplied be-
tween January and July besides these ?—Lindsay and Patter-
son, 550/. in two months.
Well then, Wrelord and Co. ?-400/. or 500/.

What is Goubien and Co., of Paris?—The invoices are not
posted up, but therare about 1,200/.

It being now past four o'clock, the further hearing of the
case was postponed to eleven o'clock on Friday next.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 17.

IN THE MATTER OF JOHN GOLDWIN.

The insolvent, in this case, was a market gardener,
and extensive farmer, in the neighbourhood of Brent-
ford, in Middlesex, and applied on his petition to be dis-
charged. lle was supported by Mr. Cooke, and opposed,
on behalf of Colonel Lyster, by Mr..Woodroffe.
It appeared that he had he'd a large quantity of land
under the opposing creditor, and having gone consider-
ably in arrear in rent, was arrested between three and
four years ago, and remained in prison ever since. I lis
debts and liabilities were considerable, but the principle
creditor was Colonel Lyster, who had since taken pos-
session of his farm and gardens, with all the improve-
ments previously made by the insolvent.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN ordered the case to stand
over till to-morrow.

IN THE MATTER OF ALEXANDER WEBB.
The insolvent was an officer on half-pay, and was op-
posed by a clerk in the employment of Messrs. Smith,
the ale-brewers, of the New Kent-road.
The insolvent stated that he had lost a large sum of
Money which had been invested in one of the L nited
States banks at a very high rate of interest, the conse-
quence of which was his present insolvenc.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said the fact of the pri-
soner having lost so much money by the failure of the
American bank was in some degree an excuse for his
difficulties, and he should therefore order him to be dis-
charged forthwith.