The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-22 00:00:00

they never charged me one farthing commission for the
same class of paper a I discounted with Messrs. Cook.
Now, will you swear that you have never paid Ste-
phens more than 5 per cent. interest 7—Certainly not ;
although I believe such to be the fact.
Will you swear you never paid him more than one
per cent. commission 7—Certainly not, although I be-
lieve that to be the average which I paid to him. I was
discounting with Castle and Co. at the same time as
was with Messrs. Cook, and to the former I paid no
commission.

Have you not discounted with Messrs. Cook at as low
a rate as five per cent. and Three-eighths commission ?
—I believe I have, but only to a small amount.

Have you not also paid-them one-half per cent. com-
mission ?—I do not recollect, but I have no doubt I
may have done so to a small amount.
Have you not the amount of 700 L ?—I cannot answer
that question without seeing My ledger.
Did you not discount with Cook and Co., in June,
1840, SOO/. atfiveper cent. and three-oigliths commission?
—I do not recollect, nor can a reference to this book
assist me.

Turn to the tickets. Look for amounts 4131. 16s. 2d.
and 4851.—1 do not believe I ever discounted any such
bills with any person in London.
From June, 1840, to June, 1841, will you swear that
you ever paid Cook and Co. more than one per cent. com-
mission. I advise you to be careful : that is the year
before you failed I—l believe I discounted very little
with them in that period. I will not swear that I ever
paid them more during that time.
Will you swear that you paid so much as one per
cent. duringthat period, with only one exception ?—On
the 29th May I discounted four bills ; 551. 65., 36 days to
run ; 27/. 65., 91 days ; upon them the commission was
one per cent.

Now, with that one exception, is there any other
occasion during those periods on which so much as
1 per cent. was charged ?—The papers are all dated,
therefore I cannot say.
You say you did not discount much with them during
that period. Now did you not discount upwards of
3,700/. between June 1840 and the same period in 1841?
—I have no doubt I did, but that was small in pro-
portion to former dealings.
A long examination was gone into with respect to
discount transactions, in order to show that during the
period above named, Cook and Co. had not charged
more than 3/. Bs. at times, and never more than 1 per
cent. as commission, but it turned out that half per cent.
commission had been paid upon bills having 24 days and
28 days to run.
Re-examined by Mr. MARDON—What security did
Messrs. Eales'and Co. hold at the time they discounted
for you ?—No security whatever.
Did Messrs. Cook and Co. hold any, and what
security at the time they were discounting for you ?
Between June 40, and June 41, they did hold security ;
they held the lease of 114, Regent-street, my brothers
security for 7,0001., the lease of 118, Regent-street.
Eales' bill for 8631., making together 14,500/.
What amount of Cook's debt was unsecured in Jan.
1841 ?—I owed them then 18,022/. 17s. Bd. I had seeuri•
ties in their hands to the amount of 10,7001., leaving a
balance unsecured of 7,382/. 17s. Bd.

You have stated that at the time of the fiat you owed
them 19,829/. 10s. What amount of securities did they
then hold ?—Securities to the amount of 15,832/. 9s. 9d.,
leaving a balance then unsecured of 3,997/. ls. 3d. By
this you will observe that the securities had increased
upwards of 3,466/. 16s. 5d., although the account was a
little larger.
Can you state what you owed them in May ?-21,7401.
That is without interest due on the 7,000/.

Can you state the average rate of interest and com-
mission paid by you upon the ,bills discounted by Cook
and Co., between June 1840 and 1841 ?—I cannot, but
I believe the interest per annum to be about IQ to 12 per
cent. This, however, I Can explain more fully by having
time and referring to the discount papers.
You have Stated that Ni r. Cook knew you were dis-
counting bills with Mr. Glaister. Was Mr. Glaister a
clerk in their employ before that period ?—He was six
or seven years ago.

This finished stie examination of the bankrupt.
Mr. MARDow then called Mr, Warwick, in order to
corroborate the bankrupt in respect of the references
given by him, to Cook and Co.
Mr. HUMFREY objected. Such an inquiry was wholly
irrelevant to the question before the Court, which was
the balance-sheet of the bankrupt. He admitted that
Messrs. Cook and Co. had undoubted faith in the bank-
rupt until a certain period, and they had spoken highly
of him down to July, 1841, most conscientiously ; but
whether they had done so or not was a matter that was
wholly beside the question which was before the Court for
adjudication. He was merely anxious to save time. He
would call Messrs. Cook and Gladstone, but it would be
to the balance-sheet.

Mr. BUTT said he appeared for the assignees, Messrs.
Brown and Llewellyn, and he must object to the course
his Learned Friend was pursuing. Let the witnesses be
called, and then the objection would be in time.
Mr. HUMFREY said his Learned Friend appeared
nominally for the assignees,but in reality for the bankrupt.
Mr. BUTT denied the statement. His Learned Friend
had no right to say anything of the kind.
Mr. IlumFnEy charged those for whom his Learned
Friend appeared, to be the friends of the bankrupt, and
they were doing all in their power in his favour. He
would oppose, generally, the calling of any witnesses for
the purpose of proving that which he admitted, that his
clients had spoken well of the bankrupt down to July,
1841. lle would, however, strongly oppose the admis-
sion of the letter from Mr. Wheeler, which it was pro-
posed to offer in evidence. He would much like to see
that person in the box, for since that inquiry had com-
menced he had been to Cook and Co., and said, " I don't
want to say anything against you—have you 'anything
to offer me." Such a man- must be produced, or his
letter altogether excluded. But he submitted that the
proposed inquiry was wholly irrelevant to the proceed-
ings before the Court.

-Mr. MAkDoN said a very onerous duty had been cast
upon him by the manner in which Mr. Ashurst had con-
ducted the examination. The whole question now re-
solved into one of the credit to be given to the bankrupt
—therefore he wanted to produce evidence in corrobora-
tion of his statement. Unless he was allowed to do that
he would not be able to do justice to his client.
The COMMISSIONER did not think it irrelevant, but he
would not shut out the evidence.

Mr. Warwick, of the firm of Ovington and Warwick,
examined by Mr. MARDON.—He was referred twice to
Mr. Cook by the bankrupt. He went on the 16th March,
and then he saw Mr. Cook, senior. He said he had been
referred to him, and he presumed upon their old friend-
ship, that he should give such a reference as would en-
able him either to go on or close the account. Mr. Cook
spoke in the most flattering manner of the bankrupt—
that he did business with him to a very large, amount,
and had the most perfect confidence in him, and that in
all his dealings he had never detected him in a false-
hood—that his account was many thousands. He asked
Mr. Cook as to his property. Mr. Cook said the last
time the balance-sheet was shown him, he showed a ba-
lance of between 3,000/. and 4,000/. Witness told him
that he had no confidence in him. He had lent him
1,0001, and as his buyer was repeatedly in their house,
his account might become too large. He said " I hear
you hold the lease as security ; do you hold any other
security ?" He answered, " The securities we hold would
not cover one-third of our liabilities." He then asked
him had he inquired into Hitchcock's affairs, in respect
of Eales, and whether there was any accommodation be-
tween them. Mr. Cook said he had investigated into
the matter, and there was no foundation for
the report. He asked as to the amount of their own
account, and very particularly as to the fact of whether
they, Cook and Co., held any other security besides the
lease, that being the question that he went to get
answered. Ile made a memorandum of the matter at the
time, which was as follows :—" Mr. Cook has closely in-
vestigated the affairs of Wm. Hitchcock, and there was
no bill between him and Eales that value was not given
for. Mr. Cook's account is very large ; he holds the
lease, and that is the only security. Their account is
some thousands." And they, upon this, sold him goods
to the amount of 1,400/. to open his new shop with. In
consequence of the reference they sold the bankrupt
goods, and they were now creditors to the amount of
5601. lie was again referred to Mr. Cook in August
last, but did not go. Mr. Cook called upon him on the
Ist of January last, and stated that he understood wit-
ness was to be subpoenaed to give evidence in the matter
of William Hitchcock, and he wished to see his (wit-
ness's) reference-book ; but it was refused. On being
told what would be the nature of his evidence if he was
called, and that if he had informed witness of the fact
that he held so many securities, they would not have
been a creditor for a single shilling, he said both Mr.
Gladstone and himself had always answered the question
as to securities, that it would not cover above one-third of
their debt. He said he never intended to deceive witness, and
would rather have had his right hand cut off than have
deceived any one. Witness asked why he did not inform
him of the joint note he held. He said, had he done so,
he (witness) would not have trusted him.
Mr. Wheeler had not been subpoenaed, because he was
now at the Isle of Wight.

Mr. Smith was calfed, but his solicitor objected to his
being examined, because he was going to take proceedings
against Messrs. Cook and Gladstone,. and his being ex-
amined now might prejudice him in another Court.
Mr. HI:WILEY 'again admitted that his clients had
spoken well of the bankrupt up to July, 1841. Where
was the use of calling witnesses to prove an admitted fact?
Mr. MARDON submitted that he was entitled to exa-
mine the witness, in order to show that Cook and Co.
gave references long after they knew the bankrupt was
insolvent.

The COM3IISSIONER thought they were onlywasting
time. What had the question of Cook and Co.. giving
references to other parties to do with (liee question, if the
bankrupt had given true answers in reference to his
balance-sheet He would not examine Mr. Smith.
Mr. BUTT said those parties for whom he appeared
were only anxious that the Commissioner should elicit
the truth of a case which did no credit to any of the par-
ties concerned in it.
Mr. MARDON said his case was closed.
Mr. Hu3lFaEv desired it to be clearly understood that
after he had commenced his case he would object to Mr.
Mardon calling any more witnesses, and the bankrupt's
statements might be confirmed by his brother and his
shopmen.

MARDON declined to call them, and the further
hearing of the case was adjourned till Wednesday next.
JANUARY 20.

THE BANKRUPTCY OF WRIGHT AND CO., LATE BANKERS
OF HENRIETTA-STREET, COVENT-GARDEN. -IN RE
BIDDULPH WRIGHT AND co.
This day was appointed for the declaration of a divi-
dend upon the joint-estate of the bankrupts, and also
upon the separate estate of Biddulph Wright. A num-
ber of creditors were in attendance, and several additional
proofs were admitted without any opposition.
At the last sitting Mr. Dixon (the barrister) was heard
at some length in support of a claim made by the joint
estate against the separate estate of Mr. John Wright