The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-17 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.:-(THIS DAY.)

CRANE V. PRICE.
This was an action for the infringement of a patent in-
vention fur 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 hetiring occupied the whole
day, and will occupy at least 'another.

B..4.NKRUPTCY--(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD.)
IN RI THE BANKRUPTCY. OF; 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. MAROON 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 stated 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 my 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
beek-debts, amounting to 1,712/. 4s. This would appear at
first sight to be doubtful as my debts are then, according to ray
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 4,0001. I had drawn on the parties bills to the
amount of 2,3001. or thereabouts. Now, as I had discounted
the greater ksortion of these bills, and received the mcney
for them, which had been applied to the purposes of my estate,
and as I took upon myself to prepare for the payment of such
bills, I thought I had a right to deduct that amount from the
4,000!., leaving a balance of 1,700/. as debts owing. In the
item also of cash and bills on the credit side of 1,2241. ss. 7d.,
I find a difficulty 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 I 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 Iv me. This is all I have to say on this balance-sheet,
unless I am further interrogated.
Mr. HUMFREY—From what documents do you draw your
information respecting the sum of 2,300 t. ?—From my clerk ;
and I have since verified it by my books. I only give it as
about the sum.
Mr. MAROON 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. Hewlett. had read over the examinations, and found
not a word respecting these hills.
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 shnild be read as they were put and given.
Mr. Hu 31FRZY—I asked you where you got the documents
from which you made out this ;um of 2,300/. Have you the
documents which your clerk supplied you with ?—I have not.
Where are they ?—They were not taken any care of at the
time. They were simply rough memoranda made at the official
assignee's.
Will you explain if the debts were 4,000/., and you had
drawn upon your debtors to the amount of 2,3001., 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. Mannosi thought this was a most inconvenient course.
Was the bankrupt to be cross-examined on every i'em ? 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 respetting the 4,000/. ; he crostexamined
on this item now as a matter of convenience.
The COMMISSIONER thought Mr. Humfrey's cotilise was the
most convenient, but if Mr. Mardon wished he ba'd'it right to
go on.
Mr. MA RDON—I prefer that. In your balariie
state you had made a balance of 4,1591., which is an leverage
of 6 per gent. Explain the difference between nett- profit and
the gross profit made upon your purchases and sales, which you
stated tondetp. he, purchases 74,132/. and sales 78,826/. ?—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/. 111. 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 to be 25 per cent. less the cast price,or about 6,0011 i.,
making a loss of 1,500/. The profit oss on 6,000/., at
I,i per cent., 750/. Losses on sales in the usual way of
business, being goods depreciated in value during 24 years,
I estimate at 10,0001., which at 10 per cent. less than . cost
price, being about one-seventh of the return of the profit—loss,
therefore, at 121 per cent:" r,250/. Loss on millinery during
1840, 3501. Supposed robberies during the same period at
2001. per annum, 550!., and loss. Profits on Irish linen sent
to Cook's, 800!., at 1214 per cent. 1101., 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
the balance-sheet.
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
doe to your estate from Mercer of 1,206/. 17s. 9d. Is that
a debt subsisting, and not a loss ?—lt 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. MA RDON—I 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.
What rate of interest was reckoned on that 1,5001. mentioned
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. Maenoar—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 No. 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 7-358/. t‘lls. 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 ?-6 per cent.
What commission ?-11 fer cent. on the amount, being to-
gether about 15 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 froth 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 aid Gladstone, in their library ?
It was after some of the interviews, and which related to
these goods, and here I would observe that these interviews
continued almost daily through the whole of July.
Did you show to Cook and Co. the plans for the alteration o
your prernises&pol did.
When did you begin your alterations ?
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 7-.-No.
Did you see-Mr: Cook upon the subject ?—Yes,
Did any conversation pass .between you and him regarding
the payment of that bill.?—Yes.
State what Mr. Cook said to you on that occasion ?—Mr.
Cook told use that although he was interested in the Plate
Glass CoMpany, yet he was more interested in nay estate ; and
he said I had better, not -send a large quantity of old late
glass which I thin had, and which I had promised the S:cres
tart' of the ComPatny to send to them in 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 in my estate.
Were you in the habit-of going to Cook and Gladstone's, on
business, in 1641 ?-.-Yes, frequently.
Where did you see them upon business before July, in that
year?--Ordinarily in the cointine.house or warehouse.
Where did you see them, after that period, on business ?
Always in the private house—ix the library or dining-room.
Did you see Mr. Goubien in Regent-street, at any time in
December, 1840, or January, 1841 ?—Yes, I believe on Dec
29,1640.

)--I think in August

Was he introduced by Messrs. Cook and Co. by letter, ad-
dressed to you ?—He was.
Did you send one of your buyers t• 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 7—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, 1841, and also in February of the same year, for a simi-
lar purp( se, and this I wish the Court to observe, was about
the period that the document of January, 1641, purporting to
be a balance sheet, has been stated by them to have been re-
ceived from me. This doetunett would make it appear that I was

EVENING SUN

not only solvent but that I had a balance in my trade of front
3,000/. to 4,000/. and yet I can show that
foreth app.licatisp
which I made to them about this time was not any. illerer..
to their debt, but simply a renewal until my premises we'
complete, the leases of which they have, and upon which at;
immense outlay was then being made. ad
Were you directed by either Cook or Gladstone not to "send
any of your buyers to them ?—Yes, after July the Ist. t
Did you ever say to Cook and Gladstone that that docuiseu
purported to be a balance-sheet ?—No.
Did you give them a statement, exhibit 8., of the former el.
amination ?—This paper I might have given to either Of they'
but net in its present state.
Does that purport—
Mr. FIUMFRZY—I must insist upon an explanation of the
bankrupt's meaning before we go further.
it I
Mr. MARDON—Explain it.—There are remarks upon' '
think, in the handwriting of Mr. Gladstone.'
Does it purport to be a balance-sheet?—No; it is not at $ll
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 t
July to cease buying goods of them ?—Yes ; I think on the
or 2,1 of July.
Did you buy any goods, and what quantity, after-that re,
riod ?—Not any except one parcel of IL Is. 4d., *Web 051
bought through error.
Were you requested by them, or either of them, refoer
houses in London to them or either. of them ?--Yes;
I can show.
Can you state the names of any of the houses whom you re;
(erred to them in consequence?-Messrs Wheeler
Strachan. None others that I know of after July Ist. a
Were there any ether houses referred by you to Cook and
Co., after January, 1841, to July ?—Yes ; a great number.
( The examination was proceeding when we went to press.).

LLOYD'S SHIPPING--(THISpA')

LONDON, JAN. 17.—Wind this day at noon, 'S.W. , a
DEAL, JAN. 16.—Wind S.W., fresh.—Arrd. Unn1,11,7
Sampson, Charleston ; Brothers, Read, Calcutta • 1"`„.
garet, Blyth, Bombay ; Volusia and Fortitude,
ward ; her Majesty's ship Warspite, Portsmouth. Arr
from the River, Seppings for Port Philip ; Ter
Sydney ; Fail Brock, Sierra Leone ; Albion, Demerats;
Wm. Large.i Trinidad ; Josephine, Boston. Put back,
Conqueror for Madras ; Hasey for St. Helena.
LIVERPOOL, JAN. 16.—Wind fresh.—The Banffshicret
M`Kenzie, and Miramichi, Scott, both from f4nebitef:
were wrecked at Grand Valley (St. Lawrence), Nov. ."'
four of the Banffshire's crew drowned. The Franku,ns
from New Orleans to this port, has put into Bevil
with damage. The Frances Ann, Thomson, arrb'
here from the Mauritius, was in contact 14th ult., in 14t.
9 N., long. 25 W., with the Hamburg brig Albert, fr •
Itat
St. Übe's to Rio, and both vessels were much damaged
in their bows, and the Albert lost bowsprit, and thresl
part of her cargo overboard. The' Corsair, Harlett
hence to New Orleans, has put back leaky. The Psra
Stanley, hence to New York, has pnt into Belfast Ltnigl,
leaky. Arai. Circassian and Caledonia, Bomlis.
Frances Ann, Thomson, Mauritius; Mansfield, 'Afllll',
Reliance, Dunlery, Ceara; England, Buenos 'AY ,i
Virginia, New Orleans; Columbia steamer, Boston; re
Ist inst., and Halifax 3d; Bona Dea, Valpy, St. JObicT,
New Brunswick; Commerce, and Emma, Newfoundintl,„,
Clipper, Smyrna; Bosphorus, do.; Formosa, Born,bsl;
Delia, Walker, Savannah; Caledonia, Brander, ".
ginia, in 18 days to' Holyhead; Gloster, Restigouclte;
John Cummeling, Thayer, Savannah. Sld. Hannell:
Havannah; Pocahontas, Baltimore; Cochis, Bost°-:
Little Wonder, Azores; Syron, Corfu; Novel, Trieste'
John Campbell, Africa.
CHATHAM, JAN. 15.—Arrd. Palestina, Trieste, niter
being aground in the Medway, but without damage.
OFF ,DOVER, JAN. 16.—Dromo, of Boston, Hondur,o
PORTSMOUTH, JAN. 15.—Wind W.N.W. 16.
W.S.W.— Sld. her. Majesty's ship Vindictive, East
SWANAGE, JAN. 15.—Nancy, which was driven ash2es
in Studland Bay, got off, after discharging part of "
cargo, and proceeded.
FALMOUTH, JAN. I4.—Wind S.E. to E., moderate. 15.
S.W. moderate.—Arrd. Ranger Packet, Rio de Janetris
sailed Nov. 30, with about 20,0001. in gold and diamon
on freight ; Sophia Wells, Leghorn.
PETERHEAD, JAN. 13.—The Wm. Tureen, from All°:
to St. Thomas, ashore at Rathay Head, has become ,
total wreck ; most of the materials saved. is
BLYTH, JAN. 14.—The Albion, of South Shields, ,
ashore near Hurtley, and expected to become ..14, wreo,"
The Perseverance, of ditto, is ashore on Camboys floc'
but expected off.
STANDGATE CREEK, JAN. 16.—Arrd. Musics, A sit'
land, and John Peat, Leghorn.
SWANSEA, JAN. 15.—Arrd. Sir J. S. Goldsmith,
_000141)1'
braith, Cuba. The James Murphy, from ilayle P?:J",be
Talbot (with copper ore), sank at her anchors in 4
Mumbles, during a gale 13th inst., she ebbs dry at."..gg" I
water, and but little of the cargo will be lost ; the Air"
has received considerable damage. - it
r,
SUNDERLAND JAN. 15.—The William, Hall, as
near here, has become a total wreck. The Shanoni
of Yarmouth, was ashore near here, but got off lgof
damage and rudder broken. The Mary, Garwood,na
Yarmouth, is totally wrecked near this port ; crew °ft
part of materials saved. The King William, of this P°'
is also ashore near here.
SOUTHAMPTON, JAN. 15.—Arrived Neptune stow,
Gibraltar. Sailed Mayeret steamer, do.
SALCOMBE, JAN. 15.—The Victoria, for Terceira,
not sail, as reported.
fie
' PLYMOUTH, JAN. 16.—Wind W.S.W.--Arrived 3-- .
Wyllie, Malta ; Jasmine, Messina; Beau Ideal, SmYrn-1
Dart, Fay al; Star of the West, Leghorn, with damage'