The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-04 00:00:00

Wr -ENING SUN

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
CO UR T OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 3.
DANIELS v. CRUSSLEY.
This was an action for &Ise imprisonment. The
plaintiff is a carpenter, and having been employed by the
defendant, a publican in the Oval•road, St. Pancras, to
make some benches and tables, he took away a quantity
of the defendant's timber, which remained after the job
was completed. The defendant thereupon gave him
into custody for robbery, and prosecuted him for felony
at the Old Bailey, where he was acquitted. These were
the grounds of the action ; but it was proved for the de-
fence, that when the plaintiff was charged with robbery,
he said it was his first offence, and prayed the publican
to forgive him. Verdict fur the defendant —The Court
ruse at one o'clock.

COURT OE BANKRUPTCY, Feb. 3.
IN AK WM. HITCHCOCK.
'This case was resumed this morning, and the examination
of Mr. Gladstone, of the firm of Cook and Gladstone, was
proeeeded with by Mr. Butt.
You stated yesterday that the 7,0001. was not advanced to
pay an old account ?—Yee ; I can now explain the circum-
stances. On the 2d Nov., 1839, w discounted various bills
for the bankrupt amounting to 2,2341. 16s. 7d. Amongst other
hills was one drawn by George Hitchcock upon the bankrupt
for 2,0001., which kill due on the 4th May, the cash for which
was given to the bankrupt on the 2d of Nov., and formed no
part of 7,0004 advanced in May.
Have you got that bill for 2,0001. in your possession now
We haoe not.
What•hat become of it ?.
.given-up to the party.
Was time. hill presented in due course ?—I do not know.
New, just look at this account, and look out the bill for 2,000/.
Was not that bill of 2,000/. part of the 7,oool?—Certainly not.
Will you swear that you ever had a bill drawn by George
Hitchcock for 2,0001. ? Now be cautious.—l do ; here is the
entry of it in my book.
Would that be due on the 4th May ?—Yes, it is so shown in
the book.
Then does not that sum of the 2,000/. stated in your accoun
to be advanced on the 7th May, form part of the 7,0001. ? -
does.

'—When it was paid it was of course

And was it not to take up the bill due on that day ?-1 don't
kaaw onything at all about that. The 2,0001. might have been
applied to take up that bill.
Will you swear it was not advanced to take up that bill ?—I
won't swear. We advanced the money ; but I don't know for
what purpose it was advanced.
At the time of the advance did you not know the bill for
2,000/. was due ?—I have no recollection.
Will you look at your book, and see whether that does not
show you that the bill was due on that day ?—We never think
of looking at the bill books.
Was not that bill payable at Barclay's ?—No; at the London
and Westminster Bank.
Did you discount that bill with Messrs. Overy and Co ?—I
cannot tell.
Is this the cheque you advanced to the bankrupt on the day
the bill became due ?—I am not sure.
You say you don't know the purpose for which the money
was advanced. Is it your usual practice to advance so large a
sum of money without inquiring the purpose to which it was to
be applied ?—Thq bankrupt wished it for the purposes of his
trade.

What would be the gross profits of such a trade as the bank-
rupt)?—l can't tell.
What would be a fair profit to mark on his goods ?—Fifteen
per cent.
Have you stated that you made an offer to the bankrupt of
2,5001., provided he got some respectable person to take your
account?—We did offer to write off that amount.
In what way was that affair to be managed ?—I have already
given the explanation fully: In the presence of the bankrupt's
brother we told him, provided he got a party to be security, we
would write off sums on his account.
In what manner was the party to take your unsecured debt ?
—We did not point out any manner. The bankrupt told us he
had no doubt he could get a party to take it.
Again, in what manner did you understand that was to be
done ?—That was left entirely to the bankrupt.
COMMISSIONE a—What did you mean by taking your unse-
cured debt?—That is to say they should become creditors to
the bankrupt in our stead.
Mr. Boort —What benefit was the party to derive for taking
the debt ?—That was a matter entirely between the
bankrupt and the party, which we had nothing to de with.
Then, do I understand that if any body else could have been
fixed upon as the creditor instead of yourself, it was immaterial
the way in which it was managed?—Certainly, we should
have expected the money to have been paid as security for
the party.
When you were examined before did you say anything about
si party taking the unsecured debt ?—I have no doubt I did at
the time, but it does not appear that I did ; but we were satis-
fied with our security for a portion of the debt, and it was said
in the presence of the security, " of course you have security
to the other amount?"
You allude to the bankrupt's brother. Do you mean to say
that ho was security for all the unsecured debt ?—I believe he
was.

Now, you have stated in your examination something relating
to the bankrupt paying 10s. in the pound. Did you say one
word of tkat in your private examination ?—I believe not, be-
cause I was not asked the question.
Were you not asked to give a specific amount of the transac-
tion?—The question applied to the 2,500/.
Will you fix the time when the conversation to which I have
referred took place ?—The 3d July.
Referring to the bill of 2,0001. due on the 4th May, can you
now by reference to your book, say with whom you dis-
counted it? —y.=, with Overy and Co., through Barclay and
Co., on tlips ISth of January, 1841.
As that 2,0001. cheque was paid through Barclay and Co.,
+have you any doubt that it was given by you to take up that
was not given by me at all, it was given 'by our
tense, and I. personally, cannot speak of it.
'Have ,you any doubt that it was so given ?—I have no know.
ledge of it, I think it very likely it was so applied.
You know the distinction between given and applied—do
you know whether it was so given?—l cannot tell; 1 have no
knowledge of its being so given. Mr. Cook signed the cheque.
Barclay is written across the cheque, who wrote that ?
Mr. Parkinson.
Were Barclay and Co. the bankrupt's broker?—No.
Produce your cheque-book ?—The book was not in Court.
Examined by Mr. HCMEREY—You said in your examina-
tion that you advanced to the bankrupt the 7,0001. in various
sums; when had he first applied to you to make that loan?—
In May.
Was it before the first sum was advanced ?—I should think
on the same day the first sum was advanced. 7,0001. was
advanced on the Ist of May.
Do you keep the books ?—I take the direction of the books,
but I dun'( keep any.
Mr. Cook was then called.
Mr. Hum FRET said he should not ask him any question, as it
was the same transaction.
Mr. Cook was ready to answer any question from the other
side.

Mr. Herr said it was a very unfair trick to play.—(Several
persons in Court here expressed their approbation by clapping
their hands. )
Mr. H u :NUR EY said this was a most unwarrantable assertion,
and appealed to the Learned Commissioner.
The COMMISSIONER said it was not a proper assertion.
The examination would be the same as that of Mr. Gladstone,
therefore it was unnecessary occupying the time of the Court
to go over the same again.
Mr. Ma anon said he was at a loss to know who was going
on with the case, Mr. Humfrey or Mr. Butt.
Mr. Hemline' said he had nothing to ask Mr. Cook.
After a short and angry discussion between the Counsel,
Mr. Cook was cross-examined by Mr. AIARDON.
Did you on the 28th of December, 1840, apply to Mr.
George Hitchcock for any and what security, and what sum ?
—I did for 1,0001. ; I asked him for a guarantee, which he
gave me.
Why did you apply at that period to Mr. George Hitchcock
for security for any part of the debt due to you by the bank-
rupt ?.--.I applied to him for security for the amount he wished
us to lend him.
'Did you mean that the bankrupt applied to you for the
1,000/. 2—Of course I did
Had you any reason at that period for taking Mr. George
Hitchcock as security for the bankrupt ?—I do not recollect
any particular reason that I had.
Did )ou on the 29th December, 1840, see a Mr. Gubian, of
Pa, is, and did any conversation take plate between you and
him relating to the bankrupt ?—He asked me if I'd be kind
enough to give him a letter of introduction to Mr. Hitchcock.
Was the letter no x produced to you, marked C, written by
you and given to Mr. Gubian.—lt was.
Now long before that period had you known Mr. Gubian?
—I had known him one or two years before, and he was recom-
mended to us by Williams and Sowerby, of Oxford-street.
Did you make any statement to Mr. Gubian when you gave
him that letter respecting the bankrupt or his circumstances?—
I don't recollect that I did.
Do you mean to say that you gave that letter to Mr. Gu-
bian without saying anything about the bankrupt or his cir-
cumstances ?...-He might have asked me the question, but I
don't recollect, it is such a time since.
Did you tell him that you had been applied to to lend the
bankrupt 1,0001. without his brother's security ?—No.
Do you know that in the month of July Mr. Hayward, one
of the bankrupt's buyers, went to Paris to buy
goods through that introduction?-1 know it from
bearing Hayward's signature, but I did not know it
before when he took this letter out of his pocket,
and showed it to me and the other assignees ; he then offered
to destroy it. I said. '" No, don't destroy it on any account, I
am very much sotprised to find such aletter in your possession."
Are. you e.ot aware that, in the months of Jan. and Feb.
1841, tl'..e bankrupt was making alterations in his premises?...
I we.:rnot aware that he was about making alterations. I thought
they were about finished at that time.
Did you call at Regent-street on the 10th or 11th March in
that year ?—Not to my recollection.
Did you call at any time about that period to see the bank-
rupt, old express your,telf in terms of approbation at the alter-
ation of the premises, that being the first day of his opening ?
I du not recollect the date, but. I expreesed myself to that effect.
Do ynu not know that in February a large parcel was sent
by your house to the bankrupt, on opening the new houses in
March ?—Yes.
Did you introduce bankrupt to the Birmingham Plate Glass
Company ?---Yes.
About what time was it ?—I do not recollect.
Did Bankrupt call on you at any time in the year 1841, re-
specting the payment of his acceptance given to thatcompany.?
--Not to my recollection.
Did you see him at all at any time, and did you state to him
that though interested in the Plate Glass Company, yet you
weremore interested in his estate ; and did you not then reeom-
end hint not to send into the Company the old plate glass which
he was about to send in part discharge of a bill then overdue?—
I recollect the bankrupt asking me if I would recommend
him
to sell his old plate-glass to the Company. I said No ; you
ivt!l get a Touch better price for it from your builder or glazier,
did not advise him anything about the bill of the Company,
nor do I believe he mentioneal any thing of the kind.
Do you recollect having seen Mr. Warrick on the 16th
March, 1841 ?—yes.
Did any conversation take place between you and him on
the occasion of his calling to the bankrupt's reference, and
state what then took place ?—He called to ask my opinion of
the matter. I said my opinion was very good on it, as to the
large amount, and some thousandsbeyond his security. He
then stated " I h I
do notear, or berecollelieve you hold the lease as security."
I answered vet.recollect any more,
Did Mr. Warrick ask you whether you examined into the
affairs of the bankrupt in an action with Heeles and Co?-1 do
not recollect.
Did you not then tell him that you had Heeles' bill in the
cash-box ?—I do not recollect.
Do you believe you said anything to him on that occasion in
words to that effect?-1 think' not.
Did you say that the securities you held would not amount to
one-third of your liabilities ?—No. I never used the word liabi-
lity in a reference to any one in nely life.
Did you tell him what security jou held ?—No ; I might have
said I held a lease for my own 3,000/., but do not recollect
I did.
~ 4./ost not inform him you held a joint-note of 1113 bank-
(_l- -- ri mibi.other for 7 060/. ?—I do not recollect
...0(..4.',....5 ~,,' .the Ist of January, 1842, call upon Mr. Warrick,
.....r
oti. --. ...V.47,„"---t-F. ..i.....tizig.h.-use' ?--Yes, about that time.
ii,,,, acs ixi.thooke,ll4‘uldev.ocitood. he was suutononed to give 9Vi• j
' V!, •
= . S:--ffi rse: Iclitchcock?—.Yes.
" `ti?l''.:%4,‘ oiia 1,1
14;,
ric 74\
~ 4 .
;.*.'.'•l'v,Lt‘ti:te)