The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-13 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 12.

.
Guildhall Sittings before Lord-AnixoEß and a Special
Jury.)
CRUCKNELL V. TRUMAN AND ANOTHER.

This was an action brought to recover compensation
in damages for an alleged false representation on the
part of the plaintiffs, whereby the defendant had been
induced to embark in a partnership a sum of 10,000/.,
all of which became ultimately lost to him.
Mr. Erle, Mr. Jervis, and Mr. Humphrey, ap-
peared for the plaintiff; and the Solicitor-General,
Sir Thos. 'Wilde, Mr. Thesiger, and Mr. Kelly, con-
ducted the case on the part of the defendants.
It appeared from the opening statement of Mr.
ERLE that the defendants ere warehousemen carry-
ing on business in Wood-street, Cheapside, under the
style of the firm of Lewellyn, Truman, Hancock, and
Company ; and this firm had been in the habit of
making advances of goods and money to two persons
of the names of Fever and Lewellyn, who had opened
a shop in Ludgate-hill for the same ine of business in
the year 1833. The house of Fever and Lewellyn
continued for some time in an apparently prosperous
condition ; but, having commenced with little or no
capital, it seemed that they had in reality been
throughout the whole time of their existence on the
verge of bankruptcy. The second partner, Lewellyn,
retired from the business towards the latter end of the
year 1837, upon the understanding that he was to re-
ceive 2,8001. for his interest in the establishment. A
new partner, namely, the present plaintiff, was taken
in in his stead; and, it was alleged that Mr. Cruck-
nell, who embarked 10,000/. in the concern, had only
been induced to do so upon the representations of the
present defendants, that the house was a thriving one,
and offered an eligible investment for the plaintiff's
capital. The new pai tnership commenced in the
month of January, 1838 ; but so embirrassed were
its affairs that the money brought to the con-
cern by the plaintiff was swallowed up in
the course of a few months; and, in the
year 1839, the house became bankrupt, paying to
the creditors 1 ls. 6d. in the pound. It further ap-
peared that at the time the plaintiff had been en-
couraged by the defendants to become a partner with
Mr. Fever, they had a claim upon the establishment
of the latter gentlemen to an amount of 11,000/. ;
whereas, at the period the bankruptcy took place this
debt had been reduced to a sum of only 3,000/. The
plaintiff's case was, that his money and his credit had
been converted to the liquidation of the debt of the
very parties by whom he had been induced to enter
into the partnership, and that the parties must have
known that the house of Fever was insolvent at the
time.

After a lengthened investigation, Lord ABINGER
expressed his opinion that the case against the de-
fendants had not been made out, inasmuch as the
plaintiff had net proved that a fraudulent declaration
had been made to him personally respecting the house
of Fever, or that the defendants knew that the house
of Fever was at the time insolvent.

The Jury, after this intimation of his Lordship's
opinion, immediately returned a verdict for the de-
fendants.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec.lo.

IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF LORD HUNTINGTOWER.

The examination of witnesses in this case was
resumed to-day, and it will be seen that the Learned
Commissioner expressed his belief that the publicity
given to the lengthened examinations would not only
do good to the public, but eventually to Lord Hun-
tingtower himself.
Mr. Humfrey attended for the witness under
examination.
Mr. Samuel B. Hamer, examined by Mr. Nias.
This witness stated that he lived at No. 32, Saville-
row, and had delivered in his bill of costs to Messrs.
Bowers and Back, containing a detail of his transac-
tions. He had not produced his books, bills of ex-
change, cr notes and securities received from the
bankrupt, according to his summons, but was ordered
so to do by Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque. The
examination was then resumed.
What bills of exchange have you received from the
bankrupt?—l do not remember.
How many do they number ?—I do not remember,
but only one of them was paid for 601.
To what amount in the whole have you received
bills of exchange from the bankrupt P—l do not re-
member.

What has become of the bills of exchange which you
did receive from the bankrupt ?—That I do not know.
What has become of any part of them ?—I think
that one bill of exchange is in the hands of Mr. Price,
of Chancery-lane, auctioneer, I believe, for 6001. ;
another in the hands of Mr. Nicholls, of Buckingham-
street, Strand ; he was, I do not know now. I believe
he calls himself a bill discounter, and that was for
1251. I am not aware of any other.
Did you give any and what consideration for those
bills to the bankrupt ?--Tes, for the 601. bill I gave
601. in cash to the bankrupt, and for those of 6CO/.
and 1251. I gave him bills of his own acceptance
which had been dishonoured during his minority.
State the particulars of those minority bills ?—I do
not recollect the amounts, nor the dates, nor by whom
they were drawn, but I apprehend they were princi-
pally drawn by myself.
Are they entered in any of your books ?—No.
Have you any means of furnishing the particulars
of the minority bills you state you have returned to
the bankrupt ? I have not, nor has any person on my
behalf, that I am aware of.
Has any person on your behalf?—Not that In I
aware of. I wrote to explain that when I stated
' gave him bills of his own acceptance I should have
said of his own acceptance or drawing, and that the
whole together I believe amounted to 700/., and 251.
was added by way of interest, to make the amount
of the two dishonoured bills of 6001. and 1251., as I
have before stated.
When did you receive those minority bills ?—ln
the latter part of 1840.
What consideration did you give the bankrupt for
them ?—I gave him the whole that I received.
Of what did that consist?—Cash ; I do not exactly
recollect the amount, but it was upon an average at
the rate of 601. per cent. discount per annum.
Is that transaction entered in your books ?—I do
not believe it is.
You have stated that you handed over what you
received. Now state the amount, and from whom
you so received it ?—I received the money from a
Mr. Cassidy, of Bucklersbury, bill broker (he is not
there now, nor do I know where he is now to be
found), and I do not recollect the precise amount.
Where is Mr. Cassidy now to be found ?—I do not
know. He is a bankrupt.
State as nearly as you can the total amount of bills
received by you from the bankrupt ?—I do not re-
member any others.
Will you swear that you never received them from
the bankrupt, or any other bill's than the 601. bill
which you say was paid, and the minority bills
amounting to 7501., for which you state that you re-

ceived the renewed bills for 6001 and 125/. P—l may
have received other bills, but, if I have,S believe I
have restored them to the bankrupt.
State the particulars of such bills 1-whiCii—you say C._
you may have received and restored again ?—I do not • '
remember the particulars. There is a bill for 4501., .
which I received from the bankrupt and Lord William.
Paget conjointly, with instructions to take it to Mr.
Cassidy, which I did.
By whose instructions, and fon:NT/la-4 'purpose
By the joint instructions, 1 believe, 'tiriekttl,,lN).ll4tat.-"---
Paget and the bankrupt, and in order that M.i:-Ciagr
sidy might send cash to one or both, I believe to the
bankrupt.
Was any cash, or other consideration given by you
or Mr. Cassidy for that bill to the bankrupt ?-11e
bankrupt told me he had Teceived full value for it, and
meant to pay it.
When did he tell you that?—ln the beginning of
October, 1841.

State the date, by whom drawn and accepted, and
when the bill was payable ?—The date I apprehend
was about the 28th ofJuly, 1841, payable I believe
two months after date, diawn I think by Mr. Wm.
Busigny, accepted by the bankrupt, and endorsed by
Lord W. Paget.
Where did you receive that bill ?—At Andover.
When ?—I think the day but one subsequent to the
date of it.
Are there any circumstances connected with it,
which will enable you to name the day on which you
received that bill ?—I received it on the Monday
morning preceding the election for Andover—the last
election for Andover, which I think was in June or
July, 1841.
From whose hands did you receive that bill ?—I
have already stated from the bankrupt and Lord W.
Paget, or one of them.
I believe it was inclosed in a note addressed to Mr.
Cassidy P—l should say that this was on the 29th of
June, and not in July, as I before stated.
Did you ever part to any person with that bill : and
if so, when and to whom ?—To Mr. Cassidy and no
Other person that I am aware of, and on the day that
I received it.

In whose hands was the Lill when it became due ?
believe on that day, or the day preceding, Mr.
Cassidy left it at my chambers to present it by one of
my clerks.
_ _

By whom was it presented ?—I believe by one of
my clerks, and subsequently by Mr. Window, a
notary public.
What became of the bill after it was noted?--I be-
lieve it was returned to Mr. Cassidy.
When ?—I should think on the following day.
Was that bill ever in the hands of your bankers ?
—Not that I am aware of. I do not think I ever
saw it after I gave it to Cassidy, until it was noted.
Will you swear that you never placed it in the
hands of your bankers ►—Yes, according to the best
of my recollection.

Now, will you swear positively that you never
placed that bill in your banker's hands P—l cannot
swear positively. I do not believe I ever did. Ido
not think my bankers ever saw it, and, if they did, it
must have been before I took it to Mr. Cassidy.
Who has possession of that bill now ?—I do, not
know.

When last did you hear who had the custody of
that bill ?—I did not hear for many months.
Who then had the custody of it ?—A Mr. Weeks,
of Sloane-street. I believe he is not in any business,
and lives on his means. His Christian name is Chris-
topher. I have known him for many years, and have
done business for him.

Will you swear that you have not received bills of
exchange and promissory notes from the bankrupt for
4,0001. ?—Certainly not ; I only received two pro-
missory notes for 1,0001., which I returned to the
bankrupt.
When did you return them ?-1 should imagine in
October, 1841, and at his request; or it may have
been September. Ido not remember the time.
Have you now got your books ?—I have. lam
not aware that 1 can give you any other information
than I have already given, unless it be contained in
my bill of costs, which has now been for many
months in the bankrupt's possession, or in that of his
attorney. I cannot, by, my books, or by any other
means, give you further information.
The examination of the witness having concluded,
Mr. James said he appeared for Lord Hunting-
tower, and now on his behalf and right, to be exa-
mined in explanation of the statements made by
Douglas, Hamer, and others, who had fraudulently
obtained bills from him. Some of these parties seek
to prove, injury has been done to his Lordship, and he
(Mr. James) would again urge that the bankrupt, in
justice to himself and his estate, ought to give' every
explanation.
Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE—I should think
the assignees would do so, and Lord Huntingtower
shall have every opportunity of giving every informa-
tion in his power. I think examination calculated to
do great good, and publicity to be of great benefit to
the public, and even to Lord Huntingtower himself.
Mr. Nias for the assignees, said it was very desir-
able that all those large claims should not be pressed.
Mr. Commissioner FO*NDLANQUE stated that the
bankrupt should have the earliest convenient Opportu-
nity of giving every information as to the statements
which have been given by the different persons who
have been examined before the Court. The assignees,
however, must be consulted, and if I find they do not
discharge their duty, which I cannot doubt, then it
will be for the Court to interfere, and grant you fin
early day for Lord Huntingtower's examination.
The proceedings of the day closed here, and the
further hearing was adjourned.

DEC. 12.
This being the first day for hearing the petitions of
insolvents under the provisions of the Amended Bank-
ruptcy Act, the Court was crowded to excess, and
owing to the arrangements much confusion prevailed,
as the Court is more adapted for an audit office than
its present purpose. Upon an application being made
by a creditor to prove for law costs, in one fiat, the
Learned Commissioner, Sir Charles Williams, said
that the power of receiving the proof, as the Mw now
stood, was not vested in the Court. This was one
of the two very important omissions consequent upon
the hurry, with which the Act was passed, but he had
grounds for stating that one of the very first Acts of
the Legislature upon its assembling would be to rec-
tify those errors of omission.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dec. 12.
IN RE JAMES LLOYD.

The insolvent had been an accountant in bank-
ruptcy, and about two years ago passed through this
Court owing a large amount of debts. He attri-
buted
i na
it hal')
pßliacnaknr utspt,wceyreCv%o,V,,inpgrefavrioiusts
his insolvency to the fact of so little business
beenA
cdto,n
thoavthineg
new
operation.
Mr. WOODRUFFE, on his behalf, rdthat the
name
appe
name of Mr. Thwaites, an attorney of the Court,
should be struck off the roll, on the d groun -of not
having performed his contract with the insol-
vent in passing him through the Court. It
appeared by the evidence of a number of
witnesses and by several affidavits that Mr. Thwaites
had agreed to charge him 101. for law costs, in taking
the benefit of the Act, only 31. of which was, proved to
have been paid. The Learned Counsel contended that
by a rule of Court, it was compulsory_upon an attorney
when he once filed an insolvent schedule, to carry the
whole case through the Court.
Mr. COOKE having been heard on behalf of Mr.
Thwaites.
Mr. Commissioner LAW said, there was nothing to
cast any imputation upon Mr. Thwaites' character.
He had acted with good faith throughout the whole
transaction, which was more than could be said of the
insolvent's conduct. The application must be refused.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
The 95th session, and the second of the present
Mayoralty, commenced yesterday at the Old Bailey,
before the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, the
cirge, 3d; Embezzlement.,
instruments,;
Housebreaking and larceny, 2 ; Larceny, 49 ; Ditto
;
Re-
corder, and the Sheriffs of the City of London.
The calendar contains the following list of charges :
B ao
7;1.'3 and
2'
;Passingu t uttering r ibaseforged
in dwelling-houses, 3 ; Ditto from the person, 6 ; Ditto
by servants, 7 ; Misdemeanour, 12 ; Perjury, 1 ; Rape,
1 ; Robbery, 5.
The RECORDER addressed the grand
Jury, and
said it was not his intention to occupy much of their
time on the present occasion, in consequence of the
lightness of the calendar, which was to be accounted
for by the short time which had la d
e pse
since the termination of the la# session. He,
however, regretted to be obliged to say, that
the average number of prisoners was not at all
below that of former sessions. He, therefore, was
sorry that he could not congratulate them on the
diminution of crime. There was .one charge only to
which he wished to direct their attention. It was one
of perjury, which differed from the ordinary
ca*es in the evidence necessary to prove it. It
required more than one witness to counterbalance
the false swearing of the party to be put upon his
trial. It behoved them to attend to this point, for in
proportion as the crime was odious, vigilant care in its
investigation was requisite on their part. With these
few remarks he would discharge them to the perform-
ance of their duties.
BUSINESS OF THE COURT.

The RECORDER addressed Mr. Clarke, the Clerk of
the Arraigns, and said that in consequence of the
business of the Court being disarranged by applica-
tions made for the postponement of trials out of the
regular order, it would be necessary for the fu-
ture to have a list of the trials in their
order exhibited in Mr. Clarke's office on the Satur-
day previous to the opening of the Court, when the
parties, who were not prepared for trial, would have.
an opportunity of altering the order.
The first case was that of Peter Adamson, aged 33,
who was described in the calendar, as a mer-

The RECORDER said he would consent to postpone
the trial for an hour if the Noble Lord could wait
[Lord Stanley assented] ; but the Court would hold
the attorney in contempt if he did not use all dili-
gence to procure the witnesses.—The case was ac-
cordingly postponed, and another was proceeded with.
William fames, lighterman, aged 32, was then placed
at the bar, charged with wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. Clarkson was counsel for the prosecution, Mr.
'lorry for the prisoner.
It appeared that the prosecutor, Mr. Wittenburg,
who is a respectable tradesman residing at Black-
heath, had bought a horse from a person named Watts,
under a warranty that the horse was sound. The
prosecutor left 51. of the purchase money un-
paid, and finding that the horse was not
equal to the engagement given, he refused to pay
the 51., and demanded back the money he had already
paid. Proceedings were then commenced by Watts,
and a writ served on Mr. Wittenburg, who in-
structed his attorney to defend the case. He heard
no more of the matter till he was taken in execution,
and obliged to pay 121. 10s. for debt and costs. He
then discovered that the defendant made an affidavit
that he (Mr. Wittenburg) consented to pay the debt
and costs in order to stay the action, and in conse-
quence of the terms not having been complied with,
judgment was obtained, and execution issued. It
was clearly proved that the prosecutor had never
given his consent, and that the prisoner had been at
Hockley, in Essex, on the day he swore he had been
with the prosecutor at Blackheath.
The Jury instantly
.returned a verdict of guilty,
and the Recorder sentenced the prisoner to six
months' imprisonment, with hard labour, and then to
transportation for seven years.
In consequence of an application by Mr. Horry,
the Recorder said, that if the prisoner was a party in
the hands of other persons, he could state the cir-
cumstances to the Secretary of State for the Home
Department.

Peter Adamson was then placed at the bar, charged
with unlawfully obtaining money under false pre-
tences from John Heron, to the amount of 2001.
Messrs. Clarkson and Doane were for the prosecu-
tion, and Mr. Prendergast appeared for the defence.
Mr. CLARKSON stated the case as it appeared in evi-
dence.

John Herron was then called, and stated that he
came to London from Scotland in June last. In the
month of July he received a sum of over 4001. out of
the Court of Chancery. He went to his cousin's in
the Dover-road. The money he received became the
subject of conversation. The prisoner was present on
the 29th of July. He witness mentioned that he in-
tended going to Texas. The prisoner said that he was
.
an emigration agent, and knew a great deal about that
country ; that he was acquainted with the Texian
Consul, and would introduce the witness to him. Pri-
soner gave witness a card, and he called upon him at
a house in Broad-street. He took witness to a
land-agent in Fenchurch-street, and to several
other places ; while going to those places,
prisoner told him him he came from Leith,
in • May, with tha intention of emigrating to Port
Philip. He also took witness to a person named
James Smith, who, he said, was to be his partner,
and whom he also saw at his cousin's, and proposed
that he (witness) should take Smith's place. He then
stated that he had received an appointment as emigra-
tion agent for Port Philip, from Lord Stanley, the
emoluments of which were 6001. per annum, and that
if he (witness) advanced 200/., as a bonus, he should
have a share of one-third in the profits of the busi-
ness, and any other business he might have in that
place. Witness said that he wished to consult his
friends on the subject. The prisoner replied that if
he entertained the proposal he should not consult
any person, but particularly his cousin or Mr. Smith.
Witness then said he would write to his friends in
Scotland, but the prisoner said that there would not
be time, as lie was to send off consignments and should
have •an answer in two days, and that he (witness)
was quite competent to judge for himself on the sub-
ject. In a short time he went to the prisoner's lodg-
ings, in the Mile-end-road, where he saw several let-
ters from the Hon. Mr. Murray, the Queen's Counsel
at Melbourne, and who wished to enter into part-
nership with him. In a few days after he called upon
the prisoner, and said, that in consequence of
being unwell he was not able to give his
proposal due consideration. The prisoner then
repeated his former statement that he had received
an appointment from Lord Stanley, and that the wit-
ness must make up his mind on the subject. Witness
at length consented, and proposed that a deed of part-
nership should be drawn up by his attorney. The
prisoner said that the deed must be drawn by his own
solicitor. In a few days after, he again said the pri-
sonepri-
soner,who had a draft of the deed which he read over
to him (w itness).. Witness objected to one part of
the deed, and requested to be allowed to see it, but
the prisoner refused, saying he must return it to, his
solicitor in order to have it engrossed. On the 9th his
August
prisoner,
he received a message from the de--
siring him (witness) to meet him at the
office of Mr.
Hughes, solicitor, Old Jewry. Witness did so, and
the deed was read by Mr. Hughes. 'Witness objected
to the recital, which stated that the prisoner was a
merchant of Melbourne. Mr. Hughes inquired of
the prisoner if he had made any consignment to that
place ? Prisoner replied that he had. And then Mr.
Hughes said it was all right. The deed was then
perfected, and the prisoner was then asked for
the 2001. Witness had not the money about
him, but he went to the Branch Bank in Bloomsbury,
and drew his 4001., out of which he gave a 2001. note
to the prisoner, who lodged it with the London and
Westminster Bank, with which he opened an account.
He (witness) did the same. They then went to the
London Docks. Witness took some wine, and be-
coming unwell, he went home. The prisoner pro-
mised to call on witness to show him his letter of
appointment. Prisoner did not come according to his
promise, and witness then went to inquire into the '
cause. He first called at the office in Broad-street,
and found two letters for the prisoner, one of them
being from Lord Stanley. The prisoner then said
there must be some mistake, for Lord Stanley says
there is no vacancy, but that he (prisoner) knew there
was a vacancy, and that if there was not, there were
plenty of situations which he could obtain. This was
the first intimation witness had that the prisoner had
not received the appointment. He then communi-
cated the facts to his cousin, and subsequently told
the prisoner that he feared he was deceived, and de-
manded hack his 2001. The prisoner told him that he
had not received the appointment, and had not con-
signed any more goods to Melbourne. Witness then
said that he would take the prisoner's bill at six
months for 100/., and to have the deed of partnership-
destroyed. Witness would not have given the money
except under the conviction that he had received the
appointment from Lord Stanley.
Cross-examined—Th e prisoner did not say he re-
ceived a communication from Lord Stanley, addressed
to the Governor of Port Philip, requesting him to give
the appointment of emigration agent to him (the pri-
soner). •

The Right Hon. Lord Stanley was then examined
by Mr. Clarkson. Is Secretary of State for the Co-
lonie3. Never gave any letters appointing the prisoner
to the situation of emigration agent for Port Philip.
Does not know what is the amount of the salary of
the emigration agent for Port Philip. The prisoner
had received a letter of introduction to C. J. Latrobe,
Esq., of Port Philip. That letter was given on the
recommendation of Sir George Clerk. It did not in
the slightest degree recommend him to any appoint-
ment under Government. Such a letter was usually
given to persons known to some person in the office,
to be respectably connected, and who were desirous of
emigrating. The appointment of emigration agent
was in his (Lord Stanley's) gift. The Governor had
a power to fill it provisionally, in case of a vacancy,
but the appointment should be confirmed by him (Lord
Stanley).

The letters of Lord Stanley to, the prisoner were
then put in and read.
Mr. Mundy, a clerk in the Colonial-onice, was then
examined. The salary of emigration agent for Port
Philip was only 1501. per annum. There was no offi-

cial knowledge of there being a vacancy in the situa-
tion of emigration agent.
A letter, signed " William Forbes, M.P.," ad-
dressed to the Hon. Colonel Wilbraham, applying for
the situation of emigration agent, for the prisoner,
and the answers of the Hon. Col. Wilbraham, were
then put in. Mr. Forbes, in his letter, stated that he
understood the prisoner could produce testimony of
his fitness for the situation, having formerly filled
that situation at Leith with credit.
William Heron, the prosecutor's cousin, was then
examined, but there was nothing important in his tes-

timony.
The case for the prosecution having closed,
Mr PRENDERGAST addressed the Jury at great
length for the prisoner.
Several witnesses as to character were then called,
all of whom gave the prisoner a most unexceptionable
character for integrity and honour.
The RECORDER summed up the evidence, and the
Jury, after a short time, returned a verdict of Guilty,
with a strong recommendation to mercy.
The Court deferredpassing sentence on the prisoner.