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

gave Did i
ny
Ilia e
h theft? ask_
lle hims a
da s
he
eo
wast h
suptnurrernte ofdoffrear reference
atrhdatapned ewsyou
r
Did he say that he must, if required, go _ s
that it would be very ctohnavtewnieenhtadto,
ihnaavdedsittaiotmedtaottthheeletonnsee, the
e
reference was made,
joint security of G. and W. Hitchcock?—Yes, or words to that
effect.
Did you assign any reason why you did not inform them
that you held the security of G. Hitchcock ?—I said he must
have misunderstood me, or I him, respecting that.
In what way do you mean that he must have misunderstood
you ?—Because he asked if I had any other security.
Do you mean that by not disclosing to Mr. Warrick that you
held the security of Mr. George Hitchcock, he misunderstood
you ?—He never asked me the question.
Did lie not ask if you held security, and the nature of that
security, in March. He said he understood you held a lease ?
—Yes ; I said we held a lease. That was at our house.
Did Mr. Warrick, in January, say, Why did you not tell me
in confidence that you held the joint note, and you replied,
that if you had done so, Mr. Warrick would not have trusted
him, or words to that effect ?—Yes; but I do not recollect his
using the words as you repeat them. If he did, my reason
would he not to injure Mr. George Hitchcock.
If you told Mr. Warrick that you held the joint note of
George Hitchcock and the bankrupt, do you believe, if it
would injure Mr. G. Hitchcock in his estimation, it would
have injured the bankrupt also, and that he would not have
trusted the bankrupt 7-1 have no belief to give on it. A per-
son may judge for himself.
Was not the reference to you respecting the credit of the
bankrupt ?—Yes.
Was it in any manner relating to the credit of G. Hitch-
cock ?—No.

Is it usual when an inquiry is made respecting the credit
of a person to disclose the nature of an account,
aid what securities are held?—That depends on the
questions put. It is not usual to put such searching ques-
ti)ns as Mr. Warrick said he put to me. I never recollect
such a reference iii my life.
Is it not usual when questions are put asking whether you
hold security, to disclose what securities you hold ?—Mr.
Warrick did not ask me concerning all the securities. He
asked me if I held a lease.

Did you see the bankrupt at any time in July at your count-
ing-house ?—Yes, I did.
Did you ask him to send any goods to you ?—Certainly not.
Did any conversation take place about the linens in your pre-
sence ?—Not any.
Did any conversation take place about the redaction of your
debt ?—The conversation that took place was in the presence
of his brother George. It was on the 31st July, respecting
a reduction to make to his brother, the bankrupt, and which
had been spoken of by Messrs. Gladstone the day before.
Do you recollect what that reduction was ?—I told his
brother George, the bankrupt had complained of our not
giving him sufficient support, and that he had not an-
swered the references so as to gain him good credit, or
words to that effect; and that having so large an
account with us was injurious to him, and said we had
no wish to injure him, and not to lie under that opinion.
We had therefore made up our minds to settle our account,
and that we had taken a partner from a very respectable house
for that purpose.
Was that all that was said ?—I do not recollect anything
more particular. He seemed to be pleased.
Had you any other interview with him ?—The bankrupt
returned the same day and wished to know how much we in-
tended to write off his account, and Mr. Gladstone replied
2,300/. The bankrupt said, that is very handsome, and that
he would take 10 days to consider of it.
Was there any calculation at that or any other interval in
July gone into by the bankrupt, at which you were present ?
Yes, about the 13th July. He called and said he could not
find for any one to take the account, but he had a proposition
to make from his brother George, that he felt very uncom-
fortable about the security of the 7,0001. ; that Mr. Rogers
knew nothing about it.
Did you ask the bankrupt if his estate would pay 10s. in the
pound you
; the bankrupt called two or three times to in-
duce us to give up the brother's security, which we, on all oc-
casions declined doing ; and upon one occasion, towards the
end of July, the bankrupt said if he were to be unfortunate and
driven into the Gazette, his estate could not pay so little as 10s.
in the pound, and therefore in any way we could not lose so much
as we offered to take off his account, urging this as a reason
why we should change securities with his brother George,
and give up the 7,000/. security. On one occasion, being
asked why he did not bring his brother George over, he said
he was very unhappy about his wife's illness, and that she never
would be setter, or words to that effect. _ _

Are you certain that this last interview occurred in the latter
end of July, or beginning of August 7-1 believe it was in July.
Did you call on the bankrupt or Mr. G. Hitchcock on 4th
June, 1841, and obtain a renewal of the promissory-note for
7,0001. 7—Yes. I called on George.
Did you obtain the renewal of that note ?—Yes.
Did you give up the original note 2—l think I did. I think
he would have required it.
Did you require payment of the original note, or any part of
it 7—No.

Did you in Feb., 1841, give instructions to your clerk to ob-
tain the bankrupt's acceptance for 5251. 12s. 6d. as interest for
the 7,000/.2—No.

•
Do you know if Mr. Gladstone or any person in your house
gave such instructions?—No. _

- Do you know if you now hold beyond the pecuniary securities
following, viz.:-1,0001., George Hitchcock's guarantee; Bs-
zecott's security for 500/.; and the note for 7,000/.;—Messrs.
Heeles and Co.'s bill for 8631. odd, and the additional security
of Heeles and Co.'s 2031. 17s. 10d., and Dobson's acceptance
for 501. ?—I think we hold the two first, and that the last has
been paid ; and that we also hold one of 5001., of which 3001.
has been paid.
Do you know if an action is pending against Heeles and Co.
for the recovery of his securities ?—Yes, I think there is.
Have you the cheque for 2,000/. ?—No.
Did you take that cheque to Messrs. Overy ?—Yes, on the
4th May.
On the occasion of your paying that cheque to Messrs.
Overy and Co., did you obtain from them the bill of ex-
change for 2,0001. ?—No.
The witness here corrected his answer as to taking the
cheque to the Messrs. Overy. Did not know to whom it was
taken.

Do you believe that cheque was given to take up the bill of
2,0001. ?—I cannot tell.

Has you firm received that bill due on the 4th of May from
Messrs. Overy ?—I do not know.
Have you received it from your own bankers ?—Not to my
knowledge.
Have you seen it since it became due?-Not to my recollec-
tion. The examination of the witness here concluded.

The case of Messrs. Cook and Gladstone terminated here.

Mr. MARDON addressed the Court on behalf of the bank-
rupt ; and regretted that a case so peculiar and so interesting
to all commercial people was not confined to abler hands.
Mr. Mardon went into the evidence as detailed, and which
we have given at so much length; and contended that
the bankrupt's balance-sheet was perfectly correct, and
that he had given up all his estate to his credi-
tors. He did not intend to justify his conduct on
the occasion of his giving up his linens to the Messrs.
Cook and Gladstone. On that occasion he was wanting in
moral courage, but he was not treated in the manner which
his straightforward conduct merited.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

John Berry, 25, was indicted for feloniously stealing a cash-
box, several bills of exchange, some draughts upon Messrs.
Glyn, Halifax, and Co., a quantity of gold and silver, and
other moneys, amounting, in the whole, to the sum of 300/.,
the property of Mr. William Chaplin, of the Swan with Two
Necks Inn, Lad-lane. The particulars of the robbery have
already appeared in The Sun.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the prisoner was
sentenced to ten years' transportation.
Joseph Cherry was indicted for feloniously cutting and
maiming John Raymond, with intent to do him some grievous
bodily harm. Mr. Clarkson defended the prisoner.
It appearod that. on Dec. 28, the prosecutor and the pri-
soner, who lodge in the same house in Whitechapel, had some
altercation together ; and the prisoner, who was very drunk
and violent, suddenly left the room, and shortly afterwards
the prosecutor was told that he was coming to him with a
knife, and he almost immediately entered the room with a knife

in his hand. The prosecutor (old him to drop it, and he re-
plied, " No, I mean it for you ;" and he immediately plunged
the knife into his right arm. It appeared that the wound was
very severe, and that the prosecutor was laid up for five weeks
in the h )spital,
The Jury found the prisoner guilty ; and Mr. Justice
CRZSSWELL sentenced him to be imprisoned and kept to hard
labour for six calendar months.

The Leirned Judges left the Court about one o'clock, for
the purpose of attending the House of Lords.
(Before the Riscoanaa.)
The officer of the Court informed the Recorder that a wit-
ness, whose name was upon the back of a bill, refused to take
the oath.

The RECORDER directed the individual to stand forward, and
he accordingly got into the witness-box. It was stated that
he was the same person mentioned in the police report of
Thursday.
The RECORDER asked why he refused to be sworn.
He answered that he had a conscientieus scruple to take an
oath, believing it contrary to the dictates of Scripture.
The RECORDER enquired whether he belonged to the So-
ciety of Friends, or to any other society that by Act of Parlia-
ment was excused from taking the ordinary oath ?—He replied
that he did not think the law exempted him, but he must de- I
cline to take the oath.

The REcortEmit said if there was any particular form of oath
which he considered binding upon his conscience, he was at
liberty to make use of it; but otherwise the law required him
to take the oath, and he was bound to obey the law, and he
(the Recorder) could not release him from his liability.
The individual said he could not take the oath. He felt so
strong a scruple to doing it, that he had allowed property to be
stolen from him without taking any proceedings against the
parties.

The RECORDER—That is to say, you acquiesce in a felony
rather than perform a duty which the law casts upon you for
the protection of society.
The person remarked that he did not think his evidence was
material.

The RECORDER baid he could not go into the question of
the materiality of his evidence.—(lt turned out that the per-
son was a pawnbroker, that some of the stolen property wes
pledged with him, and his evidence was, therefore, very
Im-
portant. )
The RECORDER observed that it appeared he was a material
witnesss, and if he refused to be sworn he must take the con-
sequences. The Court was bound to obey the law, and to put
it in force,

The bo.ok was then tendered to him, when he refused to be
sworn.

The RECORDER endeavoured to induce the person to alter
his determination, and pointed out to him the necessity of
obeying the law, which was neceuary to be enforced for the
protection of them all. He still, however, persisted in his refusal.
The COURT having held a brief consultation, said that the
person was bound 4, a recognizance of 401. to attend ani give
evidence, and if he did nut do so, that recognizance would be
forfeited.

The person said he was only bound over to produce the pro-
pert], and that he was ready to do.
The RECORDER told him that he could not, legally, produce
the property unless be was sworn in the usual way. If he re-
fused to take the oath, he would forfeit his recognizance.
The usher of the Court then again inquired of the party
whether he refused to be sworn. He replied, " Most decidedly."
The Racoaoaa then said that the parties must
go before the Grand Jury, and if he refused to take the oath,
he would be considered as not having fulfilled his recognizance,
and upon that fact being reported to the Court, orders would
be given to entreat his recognizance.
The person was about to leave the Court, when he stood still
for a minute er so, apparently pondering upon the course he
should pursue, and at length he exclaimed, " Well, I cannot
consistently take the oath, and, therefore, I must submit to the
consequence."
The parties then left the Court for the purpose of going before
the Grand Jury.

The Queen and Madame Adelaide have each
sent 500 f. to the families of come poor fishermen who were
lost off La Teste, near Bordeaux, a short time since. The
Duke of Orleans has sent 300 f., and the Duchess has given
some beautiful oblects of work for prises in a lottery on their
behalf.