The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1542.

a reasonable subject for discussion, and that that dis-
cussion might involve matter of their interest ; there-
. fore at present he should withdraw from all parties the
sum of 431/. ; then if the assignees of Row should
come before the Court ,to discuss that question,
there would be two points to be decided—first, whe-
ther they or the assignees of Winchester were
entitled to anything—whether they could displace Mrs.
Burridge's title, and if either of them could do so.
Then, secondly, whether, according to the true construc-
tion of the deed, they or the assignees of Winchester
were entitled. He could neither enter into nor decide
that question in the absence of Row's assignees. The
reason of this doubt was obvious, namely, that
whereas, according to the intention of the settle-
ment, if the policy produced the full sum of 5,0001.,
there would be no claim against Row's estate; yet there
had been a claim against that estate without
any deduction) or valuation in respect of those policies,
and those policies had ultimately Vroduced the full
amount. That difficulty he had felt from the beginning
of the case, and his mind was not yet relieved from it.
He should, therefore, with a view to do justice in the best
manner to all parties, reserve that fund as he
had before stated. The trustees were with their
own consent to give notice of the present decree
to the assignees of Row, and then, if within a rea-
sonable time after that notice they neither consent to
come before the Court nor file a bill of their own, the
Court might be influenced by that consideration. His
Honour then read • (as we understood) such of the mi-
nutes of the decree proposed by Counsel as accorded
with his views of the subject, and which he there-
fore meant to confirm ; they were in substance
that the plaintiffs, in right of the plaintiff, Sarah Bur-
ridge, were entitled, during their lives, to the interest
and dividends accruing on the sum of 5,992/. 17s. 4d.
Bank Annuities, in the pleadings mentioned; that they
were entitled to the same from the 'year 1833 to the
present time ; that it being admitted that Henry
Winchester, during his life, and after the bankruptcy
of Wm. Row, had paid four sums, of 119/. 18s. Bd. each,
as premiums on the policies mentioned in the pleadings,
which sums were properly due' from, and payable by,
Mr. Row, on his estate, and it being admitted that
Alderman Winchester had been fully repaid those four
sums by Mrs. Burridge, and that his estate had not any
claim in respect of those sums, or the interest thereon,
which had not been satisfied by Mrs. Burridge, the plain-
tiffs had in her right a lien upon the capital of the
above mentioned 5,9921. Three per Cents. in reversion,
immediately expectant on the life interest of Mrs.
Burridge ; that the defendants Skinner, Row, and
Thomas Briggs, the trustees of the settlement, were
entitled as against the defendants, Belcher and Phipps,
to hold the 5,992/. Three per Cents. until the sum of
5,000/., secured by the bond of Winchester, Skin-
ner, Row, and Briggs be paid and satisfied ;
and that the defendants Belcher and Phipps could
not without making good those 5,0001. and the interest
accumulated thereon, claim any part of the bank annui-
ties or the dividends accruing on them ; that a sufficient
part of those annuities be sold to pay the costs of the
trustees, and that the dividends on the residue of the
annuities be paid during the joint lives of the plaintiffs,
to the plaintiff the husband ; aLso that the plaintiffs
were entitled to the benefit of the bond, with no costs up
to the present time, either to them or the assignees. The
decree to be without prejudice to any claim of the as-
signees of the bankruptcy of William Row the younger—
this point his Honour reserved.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 26.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Everts.)
IN /SE HILL AND BROOKS.
At a former hearing of this case, Mr. Kearsey, on
the part of the assignee, opposed the admission of five
bills of exchange, drawn by a person named Maise,
(recently a bankrupt), and accepted by the present
bankrupts, without (as they allege) any consideration.
The objection was that the bills having been drawn in
England, and not bearing an English stamp, but pur-
porting to be drawn in Guernsey, were illegal. The whole
amounted to nearly 3,000/. Maise, having been called,
admitted that the bills were in his handwriting, and that
there were no such persons as Douglass and Co., of
Guernsey, in whose name they were drawn, the house
carried on under that name belonging to him alone.
But he refused to say where he had drawn them, be-
cause the answer might subject him to a criminal pro-
secution.
This day Mr. KEARSEY proposed to prove by other
witnesses that the bills were drawn in London ; and
Mr. Rees appeared for the holders.
Mr. Glegg examined—He was a clerk to John Caspar
Maise, late a bankrupt, from May, 1838, to the date of
his bankruptcy. Could not say whether Mr. Maise was
in town on the 13th of December, 1840. The entry in
the stamp-end of the cheque-book produced, under date
of 31st of. May, 1841, is partly in Maise's handwriting,
and partly in that of witness. This, and the entries on
the 29th of May, were for duty upon spruce. Other
entries shown to witness were in the handwriting of
Maise, but he could not say he saw them written. The
bill-book produced, and marked " Bills Receivable,"
was Maise's. Some of the entries under date the Ist of
June last, were in the handwriting of Maise. Could
not say whether he saw Maise make the entry
on that day, which refers to Hill and Brookes.
The entries under date the 14th of June, and
particularly the entries of the bills, from 3,012 to 3,015,
were in the hand-writing of witness, who received them
from the hands of Maise. The latter was in town on
the 16th and 17th of that month.
Cross-examined.—Was a clerk in Maise's counting-
house. There were other clerks occasionally, part of
the time, but not the whole. There were others in
May, June, and July, 1841. Maise had a confectionery
establishment at Guernsey. It was carried on under the
firm of Robert Douglass and Co. He was in the habit
of going to Guernsey once in three 'months, perhaps
oftener. Could not say whether he had any dealings
with the banks there. Bills had been remitted from
Guernsey to him. Witness had known him to take
bills from London, and get them exchanged for others in
Guernsey. These bills were exchanged chiefly through the
medium of persons named Harris, Harvey, and'eamp-
bell. Does not remember when Maise was last in
Guernsey before his bankruptcy. Bills were not always
entered in the bill-book on the days on which they were
received.
Re-examined—Tho shortest time witness remembers
Maise to have been absent from London to Guernsey,
was four or five clays. The cheque, dated the 19th of
June, was charged to his personal expenses, but witness
could not say to what purpose the money was' applied,
nor could he say positively that Maise went to Guernsey
on that day. Saw him in the counting-house in London
on that day. Could not say, within a fortnight or a
month, when he saw Maise since the 19th of June.
To Mr. REES—Could not state when Maise was last
in Guernsey, previous to the 19th of June.
Mr. Brookes having been called by Mr. Keeney; Mr.
Rees objected to the other bankrupt remaining in the
room. He said that he must stand upon his rights, for
the objection against the bills held by the persons whom
he represented was the most unfair and dishonest that
ever was made.
Mr. Hill then withdrew.
Mr. Brookes examined—Was absent from London in
the beginning of June last. Left London on the Bth of
that month, and returned on the 16th. After his return,
first saw Maine on the 18th, at the office of the latter,
No. 46, Limo-street.
Mr. REss objected to the question " What conversa-
tion had witness with Maise on that day ?" and the
Commissioner decided against the question, observing
that no declaration of Maise could be evidence against
the creditors.
Examination continued—Saw Maine on the 19th of
June, at his (witness's) office, 56, St. Mary Axe. Saw
him afterwards in the evening at Southampton, when ho
was, to the best of witness's belief, on his way to Guern-
sey. Received from Maise the several bills now put into
his hands. Of one bill he could not say how it came into
his hands, although the acceptance was in his hand-
writing; for by some accident it was not entered in the
bill-book at the time. Received the bills from Maine on
the 19th of June, in the morning, at his (witness's) office,
in St. Mary Axe. Remembered this from the entry made
at the time, and from having afterwards refused to give
up the bills to Maine, because Mr. Hill, his partner, was
absent.

Cross-examined— Could not tell exactly when his
firm stopped payment, as he was not in this country at
the time. Believes it was in the beginning of July.
Made an offer of composition to the holders of those
bills in September, and also in October. Showed them
an account current in which they were set down as credi-
tors to the amount of the bills. Had been in the habit of
accepting bills for Mr. Maise before the date of these
bills. The paper now produced and described as a,l
"Rough Statement of the Affairs of Hill and C 0.," was
that which he laid before the holders of the bills. Offered
them a composition of five shillings in the pound.
Thomas Hill, the younger, examined by Mr. KEARSEY—
Saw Mr. John Caspar Maise, on the 19th of June last, at
Southampton. Of five bills put into his hands now, he had
received four from Mr. Brookes, his partner, on that day.
Neither self nor partner over had any value for these bills.
Knows that Maise went to Guernsey on the 19th.
Mr. KEARSEY submitted that the evidence was suffi-
cient to establish that the bills must have been drawn in
London, for the witness had distinctly sworn that
Maise was in London on the days of which they
severally bore date. He cited the authority of Chief
Justice Best, in the case of Birey v. Moore, 2d Carring-
ton and Payne, page 376, that a bill drawn in this coon_
try, and not legally stamped, was not available for any
purpose whatever, except as against the drawer. In the
case referred to, the bill purported to have been drawn
in Paris. • ,
Mr. REES, on the part of the holders, contended that
the probability was that the bills were ante-dated. It
was not enough for the acceptbr, or for the assignees
who represented him, to show that the drawer was in
thisthat
he h
t countryill on
wereth eacdttia):l; drawnfthein this country lay upon
date. Theonusofprouviong
them.

Mr. Commissioner EVANS considered that the
date of a bill was prima facie evidence that it
was drawn on that day. He would, however, hear
any proof offered that the bills in question were not
drawn on the days of the date, and that they were really
drawn in Guernsey, without an intention to defraud the
revenue 'of this country. If Mr. Rees could point out
any authority to show that tho onus of proving the actual
drawing on the date lay with the acceptor, he would
give it every attention. At present the question before
him was merely one of fact : Was the drawer in Lon-
don, as alleged ? He would give his judgment on Tues-
day next, Ist Feb., and in the meantime would attend to
any points which Mr. Kearsey or Mr. Rees might think
proper to suggest.
In the course of the argument, it was stated that the
bankrupts would have been solvent if they could have
got rid of their liability on these bills.
Lti RE WILLIAM HITCHCOCK.
The examination of witnesses in the case of the bank-
rupt, William Hitchcock, Was resumed this morning.
The Court was as crowded as at former examinations.

• Mr. Humfrey, the barrister, and Mr. Ashurst, the
• solicitor, appeared on behalf of Messrs. Cook and Glad-
stone ; and Mr. Mardon for the bankrupt.
f Mr. MARDON said that Mr. Wheeler was in Court,
and he proposed to examine him.
Mr. William Wheeler, of Cheapside, warehouseman,
sworn—He stated that in the month of July he applied
to Messrs. Cook and Co., as a reference for the bank-
runt, William Hitchcock. He called upon them and in-
quired for Mr. Cook. He was answered in the affirma-
tive, and was introduced in the private counting-house
to
make inquiry " Mr. Cook, I have called to
e respectability of Mr. Hitch-
cock,lr. Cook.
as to h
of Regent-street. We have a reference from
him to your house ; this reference we have had for
some short time, but the account being small, we did
not think it necessary to make the inquiry ; as it is
now likely to become one of importance, he having
just bought a large parcel of us, we are desirous
of availing ourselves of the reference, and shall be
obliged by your giving me your candid opinion of
Mr. Hitchcock." Mr. Cook replied, " The better way
will be to turn to his account in our ledger." He intro-
duced me to the clerk's office for that purpose. The ac-
count was exhited to me, and I went minutely through
it. It was a long and open account, such a one as it ap-
peared to me every honourable house would exhibit.
There were no interlineations or credits. Mr. Cook di-
rected my attention to one particular entry in the ledger,
which was about 2001. He said, " to show you the opi-
nion we have of Mr. Hitchcock, Mr. Wheeler, that
amount, entered in May, was:dated forward as July."
He (witness) could not swear as to the date or amount,
but stated the truth, to the best of his belief. He ac-
knowledged to Mr. Cook that his statement was quite
satisfactory. As I was retiring I said, " By the way,
Mr. Cook, do you know anything of the means of Mr.
Hitchcock ?" Mr. Cook declined replying to the ques-
tion. Did not press the point, thinking Messrs. Cook
and Gladstone were assisting the bankrupt with capital.
Did not ask him if they held security. Did not sell any
goods to Hitchcock after 21st July—not at least that he
was aware of. The goods previously ordered were sent
in in July. The amount of that order was 234/. 9s.
4d. Mr. Cook said, in reply to my question, " These are
very. ticklish times, and you will excuse my offering any
opinion on the subject."
Mr. HUMFREY said it was now his duty to address the
Court on the part of Messrs. Cook and Gladstone—
most respectable tradesmen who had been inculpated.
They had;been calumniated for weeks without any oppor-
tunity of reply, but he had no doubt he would be able to
show that they wouldjretire from this Court in the most
honourable manner. The bankrupt had already proved
himself to be an accomplice in a most nefarious transac-
tion, and if he were before a criminal court he would not
be believed without being fully corroborated. Here was
a man supposed to have concealed his goods from his
creditors. Why did he not call his brother, or his clerks
to confirm his representationl• Why, because he dare
not do so. The Learned Counsel then entered into a
lengthened statement of the transactions between Cook
and Gladstone with the bankrupt from the year 1837 to
the period of his bankruptcy in 1841, and as has already
appeared in evidence, Messrs. Cook and Gladstone cer-
tainly held some securities, one said to be for 6,500 L, but
for which they would now, or at any other time be given
up to the assignees for 1,500/., thus benefiting the cre-
ditors by 5,000/., if there be one word of truth in Mr.
Hitchcock's statement.. The utmost the creditors were
likely to get would be 4s. in the pound, and this
5,000/., if they would take his offer, would give them
a considerable addition ; but he was much afraid they
would not accept it. In Jan. 1841, the bankrupt brought
a statement of:his affairs to Cook and Gladstone, in which
he stated his liabilities at 23000/., and his assets at 27,000/.;
thus representing himself to be nearly 4,000/, above the
world ,• and the only manner in which the bankrupt at-
tempted to get out of this document was, that it re-
ferred not to 1841, but to the year 1839. If that state-
ment were true, as he represented it then to be, ho must
have thousands to account for to his creditors when he
came to pass his final examination, whenever that day
might arrive. As to his evidence with respect to, Heels
and Co., it was (the Learned Counsel said) a misrepre-
sentation, as he could prove by referring to his letter of
the 15th May (which was here read by the Learned
Counsel, and appeared to be at variance with the pre-
vious testimony of Mr. Hitchcock in relating to it.)
What security could any tradesman have, if such per-
sons, in the face of their own hand-writing, gave such
statements as those already given by the bankrupt ?
Several other letters of a " warning " character
were also read, addressed by Mr. Gladstone to the
bankrupt, and one from the latter of the Ist of
May, stating that he would follow the advice
which was given him of not having too large a
stock of goods, and that ho would not be guilty of
any extravagance. In July, 1841, Messrs. Cook
and Gladstone believed him to be solvent, and hence
their representations to Mr. Wheeler. Subsequently
they had reason to believe otherwise, and, naturally
and fairly, they wished to obtain some security for their
heavy debt. On the 16th July the bankrupt said to
them that he had too heavy a stock of linens, to which
they replied, " Then send them to us," and they were
so sent. But it was alleged that they were sent in at
the " back " door of Messrs. Cook and Co., in order
that the bankrupt might obtain a temporary benefit.
What, however, was the fact ? Why, that all the
goods taken into their largo warehouse were taken in at
the back" door, and no other. In September he be-
came a bankrupt ' - but let it not be forgotten that the
docket was struck by Messrs. Cook and Gladstone, and
if they had been privy to the concealment of his goods
they never would have had the madness to have done so,
knowing perfectly well that the docket would have got
them all back. Only shortly before he failed lie paid
away 2,0001., the produce of forced sales, but not a
shilling of it to Messrs. Cook and Gladstone. Upon the
6th of October he admits himself to have been perjured
as to the delivery of all his goods to his creditors.
The Bankrupt—No. I deny that I have admitted
anything like perjury.
Mr. HUMFREY—By and by that may be proved else-
where. It was Mr. Cook who discovered the conceal-
ment of the bankrupt's goods, and it was Mr. Cook who
gave the information respecting it to the assignees, and
then and there only was it that the concealment was ad-
mitted 'by the bankrupt. As to the statement made by
Mr. Warwick, there must have been some mistake on
the one side, and it might have occurred without imput-
ing anything like blame to either. If Mr. Cook had
told Mr. Warwick that he held his brother's security
for 7,0001., the result might be that he would not/then
have trusted the bankrupt.—(A laugh.) That laugh
was uncalled for, particularly with reference to Mr.
George Hitchcock, whose respectability_ he did not wish
for one moment to impugn. With respect to Mr. Wheeler,
the manner in which he gave his evidence to-day was full
proof of his undoubted respectability.—(Mr. Wheeler
here strongly complained of an allusion made to him in
the Times, that he sought to compromise his debt with
Mr. Cook. He denied that ho ever had done so, or ever
intended to have done so, and he was sorry that Mr.
Cook should in any manner have concocted what passed
at a friendly meeting into an overture of a most unworthy
compromise.—(Applat.se.) Mr. Humfrey was glad that
he had permitted this interruption, as it gave Mr.
Wheeler a public opportunity of giving his n statement
fully to the world ; and thus far as to the only two gen-
tlemen to whom Messrs. Cook and Gladstone had given
references. They believed Hitchcock to be a solvent
man, and as such, they continued to supply him with
goods to the amount of thousands, besides lending
him money to take up the bills which he had accepted
for other creditors. Their debt was increased from
16,0001. to 20,000/. as the strongest proof of their belief
in his integrity. With respect to the rate of interest
charged to the bankrupt, it was upon a general average
—it was not more than seven and a half percent. Why
was not Mr. George Hitchcock called here to-day ?
Have no other goods been concealed than those which
had been discovered ? No good reason could be sug-
gested for his not calling his brother or his clerks ;
but he supposed he dare not put his brother in the box.
He would now call Messrs. Cook and Gladstone who
were desirous of giving the fullest information respect-
ing the whole of their transactions with the bankrupt.
The Bankrupt (very warmly)—l can prove that what
you have stated is untrue.

-
Mr. IhrateaEr—Then you shall have an opportunity
of doing so by and by.
Mr. Gladstone examined by Mr. HumrnEY—l am
the partner of Mr. Cook, and we had large dealings with
the bankrupt. In May, 1840, I saw him and William
Hitchcock together, relative to the bankrupt's affairs.
We agreed upon that occasion to take the security of
George Hitchcock for 7,000/. on the condition that he
should first look into his brother's affairs, to see that he
was doing well, and to continue to do so from time to
time, and that the bankrupt should discontinue his small
wholesale trade, which we believed to be dangerous and
unprofitable. He did so, and we took his security for
7,0001. We continued to supply
the bankrupt with goods
to the end of 1840, and in 1841 (the beginning of it) our
,
account with the bankrupt was 13,3001. independent of
the loan of 3 0001. b Mr. Cook. About that time he
showed us a statement of his affairs (that now produced
to me), and at . the time I put the date upon it in the
bankrupt's presence.
What did ho say about it?—He brought it to us at
our request, as we wished to know his circumstances be-
fore increasing his account, and answer any inquiry
which might Co made respecting
him. He said he had
been much occupied, and that one or two items in the
account were not furnished, but that the statement
would show his accounts within a few hundred rounds ;
and we were satisfied with it,
and went freely into the
account. The total debts-and credit in that paper show
a balance of nearly 4,000/. in his favour. He repre-
sented
(exhibit 13
it as a true statement of his affairs within 1001.
either way. He called upon us again in a few days af-
terwards, and gave us an account of his monthly pay-
ments. I asked him how he could meet our account
memorandum
during those periods, and he brought with him this pa-
perthere may be a
month, and I read it to him afterwards.
Now read to us what you 8'() read to him :—" It has
), and wrote it down in the margin of each
expectation that all will be rovided for by takings; but
nuary 4th and sth, 1841,
There is
rupt's owan
bill of 1,254/. Bs. 7d." It was a bill of our own. What
will b,—," and then it breaks
I took down was
a s dferfiocmi e ntchye ofbankrupt's
300 Oslo. besides
statement.the
uponl least,
believe it to be so—
" Wm Ili handwriting; at eas
randum the back of it hi the bank.
• telleock and Co.'s liabilities. after paying, JR:
off. That was the endorsement upon the back of it, and
it contained a further statement, that by the " takings"
he wished to be able to pay off a large amount—say
from 1,000/ to 2,0001., by the 4th of May, and a con-
siderable amount in June and July. At that time he
went into the state of his affairs with me ; but not
farther
than the paper represents. He gave it (the
paper) to us as explaining the nature of Ilia affairs, and
showing us his liabilities in the different months whichwere
thereafter lii. become due. Upon that representation we
continued to give him credit.—[A letter, dated May 1,
from Hitchcock to Cook arid Gladstone (exhibit
G) was
here read, and a minute of the answer to it, on the sth
of May, warning Mr. Hitchcock not to keep too large. t,

stock, and not abuse the opportunity he then had of
doing well.] In consequence of a letter from him, of
May 15, he applied a sum of 8631. to his account ; and
the 28th of the same month the bankrupt stated that he
paid off their account upwards of 3,000/., and begging
them to let 2,0001. remain for a few days, and again re-
peating his promise to abide by their previous " warn-
ing" letter of the 15th of May, 1841. Another letter of
the date of th• 15th of May was written to us by the
bankrupt, and it had relation to Heel's bill for 8631. In
reference to that, I said, we should have a letter with
your check, and without being mixed up with other
matters. My recollection then carrying me back to the
letter of May the Ist, which contained other names, I
mentioned it, regretting that such an affair should be
mixed up with other matters, and the second letter was
then written. On the Ist of July we sent a letter to the
bankrupt, saying—
Mr. MARDON—Have you that letter ?
Mr. lIUMFREY—NO ; I have not, nor a copy.
Witness proceeded—That letter said that as his
buyers were frequently with us, contrary to our under-
standing with him on the Bth of May, we desired him
to instruct them not to come so frequently to us. In
consequence of that letter, he called upon us on the
following day ; he held a number of letters in his
hand, and complained in an imperative tone, that if
we did not give him sufficient support, so as to keep him
in good credit, it might be worse for him and for us.
I said we had given him sufficient support, that we had
answered all his references correctly and to the best of
our belief, and that we would do no more, as we would
not allow ourselves to lie under the imputation of his
having a large account with us being the cause of any
injury to him. I further told him that I would speak to
Mr. Cook, and he might call upon the following day.
He did call, and we told him that we had considered the
conversation of the previous day, and that we had an
offer to make to him, and begged of him to go for his
brother before we mentioned the offer. He did so, and
he and his brother returned together. I then stated to
him that we had been much amazed by the complaint
which the bankrupt had made in saying that we had not
given him sufficient support, and that having a large ac-
sount with us was an injury to him in the market. I
told him we had no desire to injure his brother, and
that we had made up our minds to " write off" a liberal
amount from the account, provided he could obtain a
party or parties to take our unsecured debt. I added,
that we would lend him the 7,000/., and that as the bank-
rupt had shown by his stock-taking in January that he
had a balance in his favour of nearly 4,0001., the amount
to be written off would enable him to carry on his busi-
ness well. The bankrupt then asked if he should receive
the money, or the party or parties who might take the
account, and we said that that was a matter for his own
arrangement. He then expressed his confidence that he
would obtain a party to take our debt, and requested to
have ten days for that purpose. We gave him ten days,
and they left. Shortly after the bankrupt called again,
saying that his brother had sent him to know what sum
we would write off, and we said 2,5001.

Did he call upon you on the 13th of July ?—He
did, and said he would not avail himself of our offer, as
he had not succeeded in getting a party to take our un-
secured debt; but he said he had a proposition to make
to us from his brother George, who held the lease of the
house No. 118, Regent-street. We asked why his bro-
ther had not come to make the proposition him-
self, and the bankrupt said his brother was much dis-
tressed and agitated in consequence of the extreme ill-
ness of his wife, who would never be better, and he
therefore could not come. He added that his brother
would sell us his valuable lease for 2,0001., and to give
us an undertaking to buy it back (if we desired it), and
give us a guaranty for I,OOOZ, provided we relieved him
from the bill of 7,0001. He said his brother was very
uncomfortable about that bill, as he had not mentioned
it to Mr. Rogers, his partner. We rejected the propo-
sition. The bankrupt said he would speak to his brother,
and would call upon us again. He next called on the
16th of July, and found me alone. He said that he had
not seen his brother; that he felt himself much over-
stocked with linens, and wished that I would receive a
parcel back from him for the purpose of being " re-
finished," when I said that he might send them for that
purpose. He said he frequently bought very cheap
goods, and that he then had a parcel of the value of 5001.,
which he would be glad to sell to any wholesale house.
To that I made no reply at the time, and the next day
I sent him a note, desiring him to send us samples,
as we had buyers for them. Some patterns came on the
19th of July, but they were not suitable for us, and we
did not order them. The bankrupt called the following
day, and made a similar proposition as to his brother's
lease as he had done on the 13th, and I believe he called
twice on that day. He urged us to exchange our secu-
rities, for if he were to fail, or be driven in the Gazette,
and only pay 10s. in the pound, we would scarcely lose.
more than we had agreed to write off from his account,
provided he had been able to take it ; and, as we had
a claim against Heel and Co. for 8631., we asked him the
nature of his account with that firm, and, after using
severe expressions respecting them, he said that they had
received bills from him, which they had applied to their
own use, and that they were in the hands of the London
Joint-stock Bank Company. Gandon and Co. and Cun-
liffe, and that he had becili, or would be compelled to pay
them by those parties, and that closed the interview.

When was the next time you saw him ?—I think about
the Bth of August ; we bad sent him a letter on the sth,
giving him notice of the dishonour of three bills that
morning, and stating that 'if his account was not con-
siderably reduced, we would be obliged to proceed
against him.

-Was that letter written in any concert with the bank
rupt ?—Certainly not.

Had you any communication with him directly or in-
directly about your writing any letter of the kind ?
None. That letter was written in the regular course of
business, and I next saw him in, I think, two or three
(lays. Ile found me alone, and said he had found that
he could not pay us any money, and asked me if the
linens had been sent to he re-finished, and I told him they
were not yet sent. He then wished me to place them to
his credit, which I agreed to do, on condition that he
would allow a reasonable remuneration for want of con-
dition, or want of value, to which he consented ; stating
to me at the same time, that he had not entered them in
his books ; at which I felt surprised, and told him that
ought to have been done before they left his premises.
All our goods came in at the back door.

Was there any secrecy observed in your taking those
goods ?—None in the least, and they were in a-conspi-
cuous part of the warehouse. On the 20th of August
the bankrupt brought Mr. Buzzetel with him, and they
saw me alone. Mr. B. soon left the room, saying he had
better not hear what we had to say together. I told him
there was no necessity for his doing so, and he (the
bankrupt) said lie had sold Mr. B. some furniture and
plate, and that he would give us a guaranty for 500/. I
said I could not take it, as it might be considered a pre-
ference, and that I would take no preference. He then
said, this was independent of the plate of his private
house. He pressed me for money, and I could not give
him any, adding—" You may take the security back if
you please." However, subsequently, Mr. B. having
signed the guaranty, went away. On the 2d of September
we sent in Mr. Parrington, the accountant. We struck
the docket, and are the petitioning creditors.
During the whole of your dealings with the bankrupt,
have you ever, directly or indirectly, entered into any
concert with him, in order to obtain for him either
goods or cash, to the injury of the creditors?—Never;
and there is not one word of truth in the bankrupt's evi--
deuce, that we wished him to conceal goods or anything
else for our benefit

Are you ready to let the creditors have the leases you
hold, and valued by the bankrupt at 6,550/, if you get
1,5001. for them?—Perfectly willing, and that the assig-
nees may have a week to consider of it. Besides those
leases, we hold a guarantee for 1,0001. which is disputed;
Buzzecott for 500/., the joint bill for 7,0001., and nothing
else. The debt due to us when the bankrupt failed was
(including Cook's 3,0001.) nearly 20,000/. ; and, supposing
all are fully realised, we shall still be creditors for nearly
10,0001.; and in January, 1841, the account was 16,3001.
Between January and July in hand was 10,459/. 9s. 5d.,
and during the same period he received from us, to make
payments to ourselves and others, 10,927/. 15s. 5d., leav-
ing then a balance of 4801. 4s. I Id. We gave more than
we received, besides increasing our debt for goods. Af-
ter Mr. Warwick called for a reference, we supplied the
bankrupt with goods to upwards of 2,0001., before his
bankruptcy-. The cash advanced and the payments made
to us amounted to 7,4401. 3s. I Id., and cashed for goods
3,307/. Os. 6d., making the amount before given. The
whole of the interest taken by us from the bankrupt
amounts to 1,3221. 6s. Bd. from the Ist of January, 1838,
to the time of the bankruptcy, and that would average 74
per cent., including commission.
Mr. HUMFREY here stated that he had no further quell
tions to ask Mr. Gladstone.

Mr. Gladstone—l wish, generally and particularly, to
deny any imputation of fraud or desire of concealment;
and I also think it right to observe, that our counting-
house is not a private one, but is open to every one who
may enter the premises. Therefore when we wished the
bankrupt to bring his brother, we thought it right to see
them in a private room up stairs ; and the bankrupt
afterwards, of his own accord, came in at the private
door.

The lengthened examination of Mr.. Gladstone having
been read over to and signed by him, a short conversa-
tion ensued between Mr. Mardon and Mr. Humfrey,
when the further hearing was adjourned to Wednesday
next.