The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-03 00:00:00

rupt credit for these goods on the 16th of July 2-No.
The invoice was dated the 16th of July, and from the
invoice the goods passed into the book. The time they
passed into the book was the 14th of September.
The note for 7,0001. was here produced.
You have now before you the promissory-note refer-
ring to it, in whose handwriting is that note ?-Mine.
Having that note before you, and having stated that it
is in your own handwriting, have you any recollection to
whom you gave direction to obtain the signatures of the
parties thereto ?-I have not.
There is anexhibit marked A, dated N0v.04,1841, does
that paper contain your account with the bankrupt up
to the date of the fiat, and does it contain on the credit
side of that account these words-" July 16th,
647/. Os. 3d. ?"-It does. It carries the date of the re-
turn invoice, but the credit was not given in our books
till the 14th of September, because we did not know the
amount of the reduction till that period.
Does the word return refer to the linens ?-Yes.
How could you give credit in that statement before
you as from the invoice for 647/. only, when the invoice
itself shows the total amount of goods to be 808/. 15s. 3d.?
-Because it was necessary to make a reduction in order
to sell the goods.
How could you, seeing the goods were sold in Sep-
tember, give credit in that account, filed in these pro-
ceedings, for 6471. Os. 3d. ?-I could not ascertain it till
September.
Why did you date it July 2-It was taken by our
clerk from the invoice, which was dated July 16.
Did your clerk. ascertain the credit of 647/. Os. 3d. from
the invoice, which amounts to 808/. 15s. 3d. ?-He did.
Can you say whether the statement A was furnished by
your firm to the official assignee ?-The statement was
furnished to the assignee.
And when 2-I cannot answer.
Can you state of your own knowledge, or from infor-
mation received from any other person, whether that
statement was not delivered before the middle of Sep-
tember 2-The fiat was opened the 16th of September,
so it could not be.
Refer to your book, and state whether, under the date
of the 4th April, there appears any payment, and what,
made by the bankrupt to you 2-A bill for 226/. 3s. fell
due on that day, anti also one for 102/. ss. 6d.
Will you refer to May 4 ; does any entry appear ?-
Yes, 203/.175. 6d.
Is there any other following May ? -In May, 48/. 9s. ;
June 4, 591. 18s. 6d., and a 1001. Bs.
Were the whole of these payments made to you,
without your assistance ?-I think not ; the bankrupt
received from us 1,0001. on May 4, and 1,000/. from us
on June 3. •
Were not those receipts by the bankrupt from you May 3
and June 3, had for other purposes, and not for the pay-
ment of the bills above mentioned ?-I see there are bills
becoming due, one for 1,009/., on May 4, and one of
1,000/, June 4, which may account for those sums which
I have mentioned.
Were not those other bills paid by the bankrupt
without your assistance ?-It appears so.
Did not the bankrupt purchase from you between
March 16 and July 12, amounting to the sum of 1,908/.,
or thereabouts ; and did he not pay the sum of 4,378/.
13s. 3d. during the same period ?-Yes, I suppose so ;
but the money was found by ourselves.
Did you supply any sum of money towards the sums
of, on April 4, 500/.; May 18, 863/. ; May 29, 1,000/. ;
and June 1, 525/. 12s. 6d.?-I think not ;we held other
securities to cover these accounts.
Have you received from the bankrupt those several
sums of 5004 8634 1,0001., and 525/. 12s. 6d. 2-Yes.
Had you security for the sum of 1,000/, on the 29th
of May ?-Security for that amount is disputed.
Had you security for the sum of 1,000/ ;-Mr. George
Hitchcock admitted we had, but that is disputed.
Do you consider that you had security for that sum
from Mr. George Hitchcock ?-We do not.
You have stated that you held security for that 1,000/.;
state from whom you held that security, and the nature "
thereof?-No, I said it was disputed.
What do you mean, then, by your statement, that you
held security for all these sums ?-I am not aware that
I said I held security for all these sums. I endeavoured
to explain it at the time.
Did you hold security for the 525/. 12s. 6d. 2-Yes, I
conceive we did, for it was the interest of the joint pro-
missory note of George Hitchcock and the bankrupt.
Then did you consider George Hitchcock liable to you
for that sum of 525/. 12s. 6d. 2-We did, as he was a
party to the promissory note.
Do you hold any guarantee of George Hitchcock for
that sum of 1,000/. 2-We do, which he disputes.
When did you receive the letter marked A A 2-In
August, 1841.
Was that letter, when you received it, in an envelope ?
-Yes.

Have you the envelope ?—We have not, we never pre-
serve envelopes.
Was not that letter written by the bankrupt at your
request, and dated back to July 16, to accord with the
invoice of the linens ?—Certainly not. I requested a
note to be written authorising us to make a reduction.
Did you not tell the bankrupt to put that letter in an
envelope, in order that the date might not differ from
the post-mark ?—Certainly not. No such thought ever
entered my head.
When did you first perceive that that letter bore the
date of the 16th July, 1841 cannot tell.
Have you any recollection ?—None whatever.
When did you receive the letter, Exhibit It P—l think
in August.
Did you, when you so received it, observe the date of
that letter as the 15th May
Was that also in an envelope ?—lt was.
Have you preserved that envelope ?—I said I did not
preserve envelopes.
Did you, in the month of August, ask the bankrupt
to take back that letter P—l did not. I said to the bank-
rupt we ought to have had a letter respecting the non-
payment of this bill, without being mixed up with other
matter.
When did you first observe that it was dated back ?
I think, on the receipt of it.
Had you received any other letter from the bankrupt
in which he had mixed up the subject of that letter of the
15th of May with other matters ?—We received a letter
on the Ist of May, in which other matters were mixed
up, and to which I referred.
Was the subject of that letter of the 15th of May men-
tioned in the letter of the Ist of May ?—Not precisely.
When was the letter, Exhibit S, date sth of August,
1841, written by you ?—The sth of August.
When did you receive theletter, Exhibit T ?—I have
no doubt we received it on the 19th of August, or the
morning following.
Did the bankrupt see you in your library with Mr.
Buzzacott on the 20th of August, 1841 ?—Yes.
Did he then enter into any arrangement with you for
the liquidation of your debt ?—Yes ; he gave us a gua-
rantee on that occasion, which, at first, we refused to
take, thinking it might be considered a preference.
Did not Mr. Parrinton call upon you in September,
and inform you that the bankrupt had requested him to
come in and take an account of his affairs ?-7I think
not. I think we sent to Mr. Parrinton for that purpose
ourselves.

Did not Mr. Parrinton show you a letter written by
,e bankrupt, requesting him to see you on the state of
s affairs ?—I have no recollection.
Mr. SOLE, solicitor to the assignees, Brown and
Llewellyn.—When and how was the 7,0001. advanced ?
In May 1840, May Ist, 700/. ; 2d, 650/. ; 4th, 3,0001.;
14th, 800/.; 25th, 400/.
I want to know whether you actually advanced the
moneys on those days ?—We
Now, were those advances made for goods had from
you ?—No.
Do you mean to say they were made in hard cash ?
Yes. They formed no portion of the previous account,
we agreed to advance the whole 7,000/. on condition that
his brother should first satisfy himself of the safety of
his affairs. We agreed to assist him if ho would do
away with the small wholesale trade which was dan-
gerous and unprofitable.
The COMMISSIONER.-What did the bankrupt owe
you at that time ?--I cannot tell the amount.
Did you receive any large payment soon after this
advance ?-----No.
Was there any agreement to. pay the previous ac-
count out of this loan ?—No.
By Mr. Soya:.—flow do you know that George Hitch-
cock looked into his brother's affitirs 2—Because we first
requested him to do so, before he became security.
Did he tell you that he had looked into his brother's
affairs ?—IIe told us-he had satisfied himself, and, there-
fore, he should become security.
My question is, did George Hitchcock tell you that he
had looked into his brother's affairs. Yes, or no ?—He
did. In May, 1841, about the end of the month.
When did you first see George Hitchcock on the sub-
ject of the security 2—About the middle of May.
Itiiamnek.ruplt
Will you state as near as you can what you said to
him, and what ho said to you 2—l can give you the
toldthat Gheeo(rgth.% in the presence of the
substance. I cannot tell you exactly at this distance of
had received different
sums of money from us lately for his trade, and that we
would take his security for the amount of 7,000/., which
the bankrupt said he required, on condition that he
should first look into his brother's affairs, and satisfy
Rbaitenkhreirt)
himself that he was doing well; also that he should con-
tinue from time to time to do so, to give satisfaction, on
these condition, that the bankrupt should discontinue
his small wholesale trade, as I have mentioned before.
Did you tell G. Hitchcock, when he was proposed as
security, that a portion of the stun had been already
advanced 2—We did.
You say you advanced the bankrupt 3,000/. on the 4th
May ; now on that day there was a bill due ; I want to
know whether you advanced that amount without any
reference to anyprevious transaction, and whether 2,0001.
of that sum was not paid to that bill 2—lt does not ap-
pear in our books.
Look at this paper 2—This refers to an advance, and
not to a bill. On referring to the books, there was a bill
due on the 4th May.
What I want to know is, whether that money was ad-
vanced to take up that bill ?—lt might have so been ap-
plied, but our bill-book is not here, but it can be had
in the morning.
It being now past four o'clock, they further examina-
rion was postponed till to-morrow.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan, 2.
IN THE MATTER(Iiha OF JOHN
soli n
opposed by Mr. WOOD -
itorFE, for having frauduglontly, and by misrepresenta-
eser e was PLOWMAN.
The in
soh
obtained a quantity of goods from Mr. J. Carrell.
It appeared that the opposing creditor was a wholesale
boot and shoemaker, and the insolvent purchased a large
quantity of boots and shoes from him, for which a bill of
exchange was given. Almost immediately afterwards
the insolvent made over the whole of his property,
amongst which was that he purchased from Mr. Carren,
to his daughter, in lieu of an alleged loan from her, and
then called upon him (Mr. C.) and got a. further quantity
of goods, for which it was stipulated that ready money was
to be paid, but the moment after the bargain was closed
Mr. Carren, being called by another customer, the insol-
yept walked Alva?, with to goods, kud pow in Ilia Woo