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

COURT OE BANKRUPTCY, Feb. 3.

And was it not to take up the bill due on that day ?—I don't
know anything at all about that. The 2,000/. might have been
applied to tak 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 look ng 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 chich it was to
be applied ?—The bankrupt wished it for the purposes of his
trade.
What would be the gross profits of such a trade as the bank
rupt's ?—I can't tell.
What would be a fair profit to mark on his goods ?
per cent.
Have you stated that you made an offer to the bankrupt of
2,5e01., 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 lie could get a party to take it.
Again, in what manlier did you under tand that was to be
done?—That was left entirely to the bankrupt.
COMMISSIONER—What did you mean by taking your unse-
cured debt?—That is to say they should become ereditora to
the bankrupt in our stead.
Mr. BUT 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 do 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
a 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 he was security for all the unsecured debt?—l believe he
was

)—Fdtecn

Now, you have stated in your examination something relating
to the bankrupt paying 105. 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 2,5001. "
Will you fix the time when the conversation to which I have
referred took place ?--The 3d July.
Referring to the bill of 2,000/. due on the 4th May, can you
now by reference to your book, say with whom you dis-
counted it?—Ye=, with Overy and Co., through Barclay and
Co., rn the 15th 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
bill?—lt. was not given by me at all, it was given by our
house, and I, personally, cannot speak of it.
Have you any doubt that it was so given ?—I have no know-
ledae of it, I think it very likely it was 113 applied.
You know the distinction between given and applied—do
you know whether it was so given ?—I 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 ?
alr. Parkinson.
Were Barclay and Co. the bankrupt's broker?—No.
Produce your cheque-book ?--The book was not in Court.
Examined by Mr. HUMFREY—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 Nay.
Was it before the first sum was advanced ?—I should think
on the same day the first sum was advanced. 7,000/. was
advanced on the Ist of May.
Do you keep the books ?—I take the direction of the books,
but I don't keep any.
Mr. Cook was then called.
Mr. H UMFREY 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. BUTT said it was a very unfair trick to play.—( Several
persons in Court here expressed their approbation by capping
their hands.)
Mr. HUMFREY said this was a most unwarrantable assertion,
and appealed to the Learned Commissioner.
The Commissionza 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. MARDON said he was at a loss to know who was going
on with the case, Mr. Humfrey or Mr. Butt.
Mr. Hu MFREY said he had nothing to ask Mr. Cook.
After a short and angry discussion between the Counsel,
Mr. Cook was cross-examined by Mr. MARDON.
Did you on the 28th of December, 1840, apply to Mr.
George Hitchcock for any and what security, and what sum ?
—I did for 1,000/. ; I asked him for a guarantee, vilich 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 ?--T 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
1,0001. 9—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 you on the 29th December, 1840, see a Mr. Gubian, of
Paris, and did any conversation take place 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 now produced to you, marked C, written by
you and given to Mr. Gubian.—lt was.
How long before that p,Tiod had you known Mr. Galan ?
—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 *lti 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 en--
cumtances ?—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. Haywlil, one
of the bankrupt's buyers, went to Paris • t buy
goods through that introduction?—l 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 accornt, I
am very much surprised to find such a letter in your pessesion."
Are you not aware that, in the months of Jan. anl Feb.
1841, the bankrupt was making alterations in his premises?—
I was not aware that he was about making alterations. I mought
they were about finished at that time.
Did you call at Regent-street on the 10th or 11th Alerch in
that year ?—Not to my recollection.
Did you call at any time about that period to see the bank-
rupt, and express yourself in terms of approbation at the alter-
ation of the premises, that bring the first day of his opening?
I do not recollect the date, but I expressed myself to that effect.
Do you 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 that company?
—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
were more interested in his estate ; and did you not then recom-
mend him not to send intotho Campany 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
will get a much better price for it from your builder or glazier,
I did not advise him anything about the bill of the Company,
nor do I believe he mentioned anything 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 is hat 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 thousands beyond his security. He
then stated " I hear, or believe you hold the lease as security."
I answered yes, Ido not recollect any more.

IN RE WAI. HITCHCOCK.
This case was resumed this morning, and the examination
of Mr. Gladstime, of the firm of Cook and Gladstone, was
proceeded with by Mr. Butt.
You stated yesterday that the 7,0001. was not advanced to
pay an old account ?—.Yes ; I can now explain the circum-
stances. On the 2d Nov., 1839, we discounted various bills
for the bankrupt amounting to 2,2341. 16s. 7d. Amongst o her
bills was one drawn by George Hitchcock upon the bankrupt
for 2,0001., which fell due on the 4th May, the cash for which
was given to the bankrupt on the 2d of Nov., and formed no
part of 7,0001. advanced in May.
Have you gut that bill for 2,0001. in your possession now ?
We have not.
What has become of it ?
given up to the party.
Was that bill presented in due course do not know.
Now, just look at this account, and look out the bill for 2,0001.
Was not that bill of 2,0001. part of the 7,000/?—Certainly not.
Will you swear that you ever had a bill drawn by George
Hitchcock for 2,000/. ? 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 account
to be advanced on the 7th May, form part of the 7,000/. ?—lt
does.

)—When it was paid it was of coarse