The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-22 00:00:00

BIGAMY.

Eliza Berry, 33, pleaded guilty to a charge of having,
at Prestwich, married one Samuel Arrowsmith, her former
hUsband, William Berry, being then alive.
John Hardman, alias John Nicholls, 30, pleaded guilty
to a charge of having, at. Wigan, married one Anne Can-
liffe, widow, his former wile Elizabeth, being then alive.
FORGERY AND BIGAMY.

Charles Kniuhl, a very fashionably dressed young gen-
tleman, pleaded guilty to a charge of having forged the
names of his brothers, Messrs. James and Isaac Knight,
accountants, to two cheques upon the batik of Messrs.
Jones, Loyd, and Co.. of Manchester, wherehy he had
obtained money to the amount of £283. There was
another indictment against the prisoner, charging him
with having committed bigamy by marrying one Maria
Wardle, at St. Mary's Church, Manchester,,on the morn-
ing of Tuesday last, his first wife being still alive. He
pleaded not guilty to the latter indictment. He was given
in charge for the bigamy and was undefended.
Mr. YATEs conducted the prosecution and proved the
first marriage, and that the female was still living. The
second marriage was proved by the evidence of Maria
Wardle herself. _ _

The prisoner, with reference to the first marriage, urged
the same objection as he did before the magistrates at
Manchester, the examination before whom will be found
in another column, but his lordship said it did not affect
the validity of the marriage. He then submitted another
objection ; that no time had elapsed between the applica-
tion for and the granting of the license on the first
marriage, but the judge decided against him.
His LORDSHIP then proceeded to charge the jury, tel-
ling them that, with respect to the fact of the first and
second marriage having taken place, there could scarcely
exist any doubt, and that the objections raised by the pri-
sonea were entirelp unfounded in point of law. Formerly,
it was the law that a minor, in case of martiage, should
have the consent of her parents, and that the prosecutor
should prove distinctly that she had obtained such consent ;
but that law had been altered by the last marriage act,
which merely directed that there should be such a consent,
but did not annul the marriage in case there should not.
If, indeed, the question was asked at the time of applying
for the license, the:parties were bound to make oath that
they had obtained consent, and,.if a false oath were then
taken, they were liable to punishment, but it by no means
followed that the marriage was thereby invalid. If this
were otherwise, the same unhappy results would follow
now as were found to prevail under the former law • and,
therefore, the prisoner's objections were entirely un-
founded:.
After a short consultation, the jury returned a verdict
of guilty.
The court adjourned soon after five o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY.
His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock.
CAMPBELL AND ANOTHER V. HILES.
Verdict for the plaintiff; damages £64 16s.
DOE DEM. GOODFELLOW AND ANOTHER V. LEA.
The plaintiff did not appear, and was nonsuited.

ASHTON AND OTHERS V. JONES.

Verdict, IWCOnsent,fWtheplintiffidamages £44 Os.

BENNETT V. BROGDEN.

This was a defended cause, in which Mr. Martin and
Mr. Cole appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wortley and
Mr. Atherton for the defendant. The question at issue
was, in the first place, whether an agreement had been
made for the purchase of two horses ; and, secondly, if
an agreement was made, whether a warranty had been
given ; and, if so, whether one of the horses was not un-
sound. Verdict for the plaintiff, that there was no con-
tract.

SMITH AND OTHERS V. TOMLIN.
An undefended action on a bill of exchange. Verdict
for the plaintiff for £5l.

WHITEHEAD V. BERRY AND ANOTHER.
An action of trespass, which was undefended. Verdict
for the plaintiff, damages £42 2s. 6d.
KNOWLES AND ANOTHER V. BROOKS.
In this case the parties agreed to a verdict for the plain-
tiff, subject to a reference.

CHEW V. HOLDEN AND OTHERS.
This was an action of trespass. Mr. Knowles and Mr.
Cowling were for the plaintiff, Mr. Atherton for the de-
fendant. The plaintiff, Mr. William Chew, is a farmer,
occupying his own land. at Dewhurst, in Over Darwen,
in this county; and the defendants, Ralph Jolin and
Thomas Holden, who stand in the relation of father and
son to each other, occupied a farm adjoining the plaintiff's
land. The present action was brought to recover the value
of a quantity of coal, which, it was alleged, the defendants
had taken from underneath the plaintiff's land, and with
a perfect knowledge of what they were doing. The value
of the coal was estimated to be worth £65, at the pit's
mouth. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £6O.

ALLEGED FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE.
POTT AND OTHERS V. POWNALL.

In this caus,civi;:l3;iWesQ Kr.i'honllinson appeared
for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Watson and Mr. Cowling for the
defendant.

Mr. BAINES said that this was an action brought by
the plaintiffs, who were the assignees of Thomas Cart-
wright, a bankrupt, for the purpose of obtaining pos-
session of certain deeds of a mortgage, which, they
alleged, had been given to the defendant, Mr. Peter
Pownall, by a fraudulent preference over the rest of the
creditors of the estate. The defendant was a person of
considerable landed property in the county of Cheshire.
The bankrupt formerly, and for many years, carried on
business as a draper in Stockport; but he had, latterly,
been concerned in several joint-stock banks, and that was
the trading in which he became a bankrupt. The de-
fendant was a creditor of Cartwright to the extent of about
£429, and on the Ist of August, 1842, a mortgage of a
mill at Adswood, near Cheadle Moseley, in Cheshire, was
executed by the bankrupt to the defendant, and, at the
same time, certain title-deeds were handed over to him ;
up to that time the mill had been in the possession of the
bankrupt. At the time that this transaction took place
the circumstances of Cartwright were such that he must
have known that his bankruptcy was in the highest de-
gree probable, nay, inevitable; and he voluntarily, or at
least without any pressure from the defendant, gave him
this preference. To show that this was the case, the
learned counsel read the examination of the defandant be-
fore the commissioners of bankruptcy, in which he stated
that the debt was contracted in 1826 ; that he had as
security a note of hand, which was frequently renewed ;
that he on several occasions, during the preceding ten
years, had expressed a wish to have better security; that
Cartwright, when he called on him, said, " I have brought
these deeds as a further security for you." The defendant
replied, " Very well, just as you please." Mr. Cartwright
thereupon observed, " Mr. Turner, my brother-in.law,
is well acquainted with the title, and he will prepare the
mortgage." At the same time, Cartwright produced a
letter for his (the defendant's) signature, which was to
the effect, that he (defendant) required further security.
That letter defendant signed, and returned it to Cart-
wright. Such was Mr. Pownall's own explanation of the
manner in which he became possessed of the title-deeds
in question. To show that at the time of the execution
of mortgage Mr. Cartwright was well aware of his
approaching bankruptcy, the learned counsel stated, that
the Bark ut Manchester had, on the 11th of June, 1842,
issued a writ against him for certain bills, to the amount
of £9500, which he had accepted, and of £lB,OOO which
he had endorsed, on behalf of two of his sons, who were
connected with the extensive paper works of Messrs.
Henry and Edward Hilton, and who had become bank-
rupts. When the writ was served on Mr. Cartwright, lie
said he could not pay as many shillims ; that he was a
ruined man ; that he had been ruined by his connexion
with the Hiltons. An action was brought against him at
the last summer assizes, for the £9500, and on the 30th
of July, two days before the execution of the mortgage,
an arrangement was entered into between the parties, by
which the defendant submitted to a judgment aginst him,
in the event of certain demurrers which he had filed going
in favour of the plaintiff. When the demurrers came to
be argued, they were laughed at; Cartwright executed a
voluntary assignment, and a fiat of bankruptcy issued.
nia whole assets amounted to £731, being the amount
realised by his furniture.
Witnesses having been cailed to prove these facts,
Mr. WATSON addressed the Jury, pointing out in the
first place, that the object was to obtain these deeds, not
for the benefit of the whole of the creditors of Mr. Cart-
wright, but for the benefit of the Bank of Manchester,
which was the only creditor on the fiat. He then pro-
ceeded to contend, that there was no fraudulent preference
inasmuch as one of the elements of a fraudulent prefer-
ence, contemplation of bankruptcy, had not been made
out. Mr. Cartwright was a gentleman who had realized
a fortune of £20,000 or £30,000, and who had retired
from business ; but, like many other persons in his situa-
tion, he invested a small sum of money in a few shares in
a joint stock bank, the Bank of Manchester. In 1839,
when the two sons of Mr. C. were contemplating to enter
into partnership with the Messrs. Hilton, of Darwen, he '
applied to the bank to know in what credit the Hiltons
happened to be, and was informed by Mr. Burdekin, the
manager, that they were in good credit, and had a large
balance in the hands of the bank, although, at the very
time, they were largely indebted to the bank. Under
these circumstances, he was induced to put his sons into
the business of Hilton and Co. He advanced them
£lO,OOO as their part of the capital. But the Hiltons,
notwithstanding this assistance, fell into difficulties, and
the defendant supported his sons. He became sureties
for Hilton and Co. to the Bank of Manchester. He en-
dorsed biils to the extent of £lB,OOO, and accepted four
bills for 1'9,500. This was not his own debt. Ile had no con-
nexion with the house except through his sons. But there
was no doubt that the debt due to the defendant was a just
and lawful debt of the bankrupt, and he determined to
pay the individual debt, honestly incurred, rather than to
meet those liabilities which he had been induced to enter
into through fraud and misrepresentation.
Mr. Cartwright was himself called, and stated, that he
had been out of business for the last twenty-five years.
The only trade in which he was engaged, during that pe-
riod, was the holding of a few shares in the Bank of Man-
chester. In February, last year, when he paid the de-
fendant the interest on the 1:452 which he had borrowed
from him, the defendant became more pressing for a bet-
ter security. He asked for a mortgage, and the mortgage
was consequently prepared. When his sons entered into
partnership with the Hiltons, £20,000 was to be paid by
him in consideration ; but it was understood that one-half
would only be wanted. Before the partnership was formed,
the bank told him that the Hilton's kept a good account;
but, after the deed of partnership had been drawn up, they
told him that it was overdrawn. At the time he made the
mortgage, he had not the slightest idea of becoming a
bankrupt, knowing that he had no creditors in trade of
any consequence, and that the bank of Mr. Hilton had
sufficient assets to cover what he owed them. He be-

came a bankrupt owing to the inducements of his friends,
and, by the advice of the same parties, he executed a deed
of assignment.

Cross-examined.—Could not say whether, at that time,
,the 19th of January,) he had heard of the judgment against
him two days before. He rather thought not. Dr. Tur-
ner ao-cl others had had a security for many years, for
£6,000, on his personal property. Had a debt to a Mr.
Shaw for -£367, but he held a mortgage. Owed INIr. Po-
cock £l6O, who held a deed. One of the Hilton's mar-
ried his (witness's) daughter. His bankruptcy took place
on the 21st of January, 1842. The petitioning creditor
was his own brother-in-law, Mr. Turner.
Re-examined :—His (Mr. Turner's) debt was £lOOO.
Had he (witness) known that the Hiltons were in difficul-
ties he would have shuddered at the idea of allowing his
sons to enter into partnership with them.
Mr. BA INES replied, maintaining that the memory of
the unfortunate bankrupt, for he did not wish to speak
harshly of him, 4 not to be trusted ; and that the evi-
dence distinctly showed that, on the Ist of August, he, as
a reasonable man, must have been clearly cognizant that
he was on the verge of bankruptcy. As to the Bank of
Manchester, his learned friend had thrown out some insi-
nuations, inducing the impression that there had been
some mismanagement of its affairs, and that, therefore,
this claim ought, in comparison with that of the defend-
ant, to be unheeded. But what, if there had been mis-
management, of which, however, there was no proof, the
debt to the bank was a bona fide one, and the innocent
shareholders were as much entitled to consideration as any
other creditor of the bankrupt.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL summed up. The jury, after
a short consultation, found for the plaintiff for £3OOO,
subject to be reduced to 40s. on the deeds being given up.
They said they thought the mortgage had been given with-
out pressure, and in contemplation of remote bankruptcy.
The court adjourned at five minutes after seven o'clock.

CHESHIRE ASSIZES.

CHESTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 15.
(Before Mr. Baron Gurney.)

HANMER V. EYTON.

This case was resumed at the sitting of the court this
morning, when two additional witnesses were examined
on the part of the plaintiff. Mr. Jervis then addressed
the Jury at considerable length in favour of the defend-
ant, and contended that the whole tenor of the evidence
showed that there was not any wilful negligence on his
client's part in working the mines. His Lordship, in
summing up the case, recapitulated the whole of the evi-
dence; and at one o'clock the Jury retired. They retur--
ned into court in about an hour and a half, and• returned
a verdict for the plaintiff for £6,227 damages, with leave
to Mr. Jervis to move to reduce them to £1,600.

THURSDAY.
EXPARTE DARER.

It will be remembered that on a former day of the late
assizes at Chester, a rule bad been obtained by Mr. Jer-
vis, on behalf of Miss Caroline Phillips Baker, the
tenant, calling upon Mr. John James, the landlord, to
show cause why he should not re-deliver to her a house
and land at Oxton, Cheshire, possession of which had
been given to him by an order of two magistrates of that
county under the provisions of the 11th Geo. 11. c. 19.
Mr. Townsend now appeared to show cause against the
rule, on behalf of the landlord. The case turned princi-
pally on the question, whether the rent had been properly
described as a rack rent, so as to come within the act in
question. The respondent's affidavits went to show that
the premises could not now be let for more than the rent
reserved by the lease. But the learned Judge said he
could not shut his eyes to the circumstance that since the
lease was granted a house had been built on part of the
land, which must have increased its value ; and that the
surveyors who spoke to the value of the land unhuilt on,
treated it as agricultural land, whereas it appears to have
been let by the square yard, which was inconsistent with
an agricultural letting. He could n( t therefore consider
that the rent was a rack rent, consequently the case did
not come within the clause of the statute on which the
respondent had proceeded, and the rule must therefore be
made absolute. His lordship, however, stated that he
came to this conclusion with great regret, as the substan-
tial justice of the case was, he thought, on the side of the
respondent, and he was glad to know that the landlord
had another legal remedy to which he might have recourse.
The affidavits also made by the appellant's agentcontained
statements as to his being taken by surprize, and other
allegations, the object of which was to throw aspersions
on the magistrates, (who had only acted in strict dis-
charge of their duty,) which had been entirely disproved.

THE CONDEMNED MURDERER AT CHESTER.—James
Ratcliffe, condemned to he hung at these assizes, for the
wilful murder of his wife, at Stockport, in June last, is
destined to expiate the horrible crime on Saturday, the
3rd of September next, by the punishment of death.:

Mr. PALMER'S 109TH VISIT TO THE ASSIZES.—Our
townsman, Mr. Palmer, has this week made his 109th
visit to the assizes at Lancaster, without any interruption
having once occurred in the very numerous series of visits,
a circumstance, we fully believe, of which no other gen-
tleman in the country is enabled to boast.—Preston Pilot.

TRIAL OF ARTHUR O'NEILL .—At the Stafford assizes,
on Saturday, this person was put upon his trial for a sedi-
tious speech on the 26th August last. The defendant
concluded his speech, when the court adjourned until
Monday (yesterday).
At the Bridgewater Assizes, eight men who were ac-
quitted on a former day of the assizes of the felony of
destroying a house for collecting tolls, were indicted for
a misdemeanour in pulling down the tollhouse. The
jury acquitted the prisoners, but Mr. Justice Coleridge
said he could not concur in the verdict.

At Durham Assizes, on Friday week, Joseph Atkinson
was convicted of illegally solemnizing a marriage. lie
kept a toll-house within the Scottish border, and usually
officiated as priest. A couple sought his offices, but found
that he had gone to Berwick, whither they followed him.
At first he refused to marry them ; but being made drunk,
be complied : a confusion of legal geography which caused
him to be sentenced to seven years' transportation.
SENTENCE OF DEATH ON A CHILD THIRTEEN
YEARS OF AGE.—At the late Warwick Assizes, Jane
Smith, aged thirteen years, was sentenced to death for
setting fire to a dwelling. Her mistress having scolded
her for some misconduct she proceeded to one of the
upper rooms and set fire to some clothes ; but fortunately
it was soon discovered and extinguished. The prisoner
confessed to the act, and wurosentenced by the judge as
above, with an intimation that he would recommend her
case to the mercy of the Queen.

AN EXTRAORDINARY VERDICT was, on Thursday last,
returned by a coroner's jury at North Petherton, Somer-
set, relative to the death of one Richard Hall, a boatman,
who recently lost his life in consequence of his boat
striking against the timber work of a bridge belonging to
the Bristol and Exeter railway. A verdict was returned
of " Manslaughter agaiiist the chairman, vice-chairman,
and directors of the Bristol and Exeter Railway Company,"
alleging that the deceased came by his death owing to the
criminal neglect of the company in not removing the wood
work. The chairman is Frederick Ricketts, Esq., and
the vice-chairman the Worshipful the Mayor of Bristol;
both of whom, with Mr. Divett, M.P., are included in
this strange verdict.
Last week, at the Norwich Assizes, William Sauger, a
young man, was indicted for committing two forgeries
upon the East of England Bank. It appeared that the
prisoner was a clerk in the bank, and that, having access
to the forms for the payment of money, which were signed
in blank by the manager, he filled up two of them for
£2500 and £5OO respectively, in favour of a fictitious cor-
respondent, and despatched them by the mail to the Lon-
don agents. This done, he himself proceeded to town by
the same conveyance, and presenting himself at the agents
on the next day, demanded the payment of the two sums
above mentioned, for which purpose he forged two cheques
in the name of the supposed correspondent. The money
was forthwith paid, but the fraud was soon detected.
When arrested nearly the whole money was found upon
him. He pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to transpor-
tation for life.
TRANSPORTATION OF A BORDER PRIEST.—At the
Northumberland Assizes, Joseph Atkinson pleaded guilty
of unlawfully solemnizing a marriage at Berwick-upon-
Tweed, between William Brown and Catherine Cossar.
The prisoner is the " priest " of Lamberton Toll-bar,
about four miles north from Berwick, and he is in the
habit of performing the ceremony of marriage there ac-
cording to the Scotch fashion. On the arrival of the
parties in this case, the " priest " was absent, and as
there were urgent reasons for haste, it being, in fact, " a
runaway match," the parties proceeded to Berwick, and
there found the " priest"mebbeuoti
eeanunrcrdgrtyai neod
became intoxicated,
they
reason,
haoseoetornpryueu,
ttte public-house
whichdleeo. iencwl -fhaeTthuyervgoheeluaenrtbats:
invited
dertdtocees
hatad,
suspect
hlenuul
ieteestrhtdpse,
het,
eficteaupcphadtstr
parties
sei
sertdhOttnshaii
"priest"
that
,doestt,
wdyttdi eetrrphno smseeoutrleuiai fdtgonr unrdpwmo.
exceptr
liquor
stduThhenai the ceremony
being
Liireentehari
ogemes
being
he performed the ceremony at Berwick, and recorded it,
when he returned to Lamberton, as having been done at
the latter place. The case, it will thus be seen, did not
in any way involve the question of the validity of the
Scotch law, according to which the marriage ceremony is
performed at Lamberton Toll-bar. The learned Judge
sentenced the prisoner to seven years' transportation.

NEW MODE OF EXTINGUISHING FIRES.—We under-
stand that there is at present in Liverpool a gentleman,
(an engineer,) who has invented a mode of extinguishing
fires. It is his intention very shortly to open an exhibi-
tion, in which the process will be fully developed. In a
town like Liverpool, where so many disastrous fires have
taken place, there is no doubt that this plan will be in-
spected with much avidity. It is not only practicable
but the result efficacious. We shall draw attention fully
to the exhibition when it opens. •
CAT WORRYING.—On Friday, Oliver Shannon, who
keep a public-house in this town, was brought before Mr.
Rushton, at the Police-court, on a charge of permitting
two dogs to worry a number of cats in the cellar of his
house, and also with aiding in the detestable sport. The
case was proved against him by two police-officers, who
found three dead cats which had been destroyed by dogs,
three live cats in an iron cage, and four others in a bag.
Two others, it appeared, bad escaped. There was a " pit"
formed for the " sport," and a wager was pending which
of two dogs would kill six cats each in, the sbortes!rtime:
The defendant said he had not encouraged titat 10,4.
that his wife had let the parties into h! cellar
night to deitroy rats
representation that their dogs were
and be was
was " howling"
the dogs re "'review; day two other
fined £5 and costa•
i;2 costs, for the part they took on
par-
ties were fined 40s. and co
the same occasion.
and not case. It was distinctletaaittarer that he

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

DISTRICT COULT OF BANKRUPTCY.

(Brfore Mr. Con? ,sssioner Skirrow.)

Richard Price, coal dealer, of Waterloo, appeared to
pms his final examination, by adjournment from the 2d
instant. Mr. Venal)les, the barrister, was retained to
oppos.::, and Mr. John Jones, the solicitar, to support him.
Some obj;!ction sl7,:i taken io the balance sheet, which
was held by the corn noissiom?r to be lata!, aid his exami-
nation was main adjourned to the Ctil day of September
next, at eleven o'clock.

RE THOMAS AND EDWARD WILLIAMS.

These bankrupts, who were linen drapers in this town,
applied on Thursday for an allowance of their respective
certificates. Mr. James Moss, the soliciior, appeared in
support of the petitioners, and they were opposed by Mr.
Sale, of the firm of Sale and Worthington, of Man-
chest.er, solicitors. The commissioner, upon hearing the
evidence, said he would adjourn the meeting, without pre-
judice to the bankrupts, until Friday, to give him time to
consider his decision. On the sitting of the Court, his
Honour said it was necessary for him in all cases to look
at the conduct of bankrupts both before and after their
bankruptcy. In this case there certainly did appear to
have been improvidence in conducting their affairs, and
improvident dealings could offer no defence. His duty,
however, was to look at all the circumstances. The bank-
rupts had offered I ls. in the pound, which had not been
generally assmited to, and they had afterwards offered Bs.
In consideration of the two offers, and also with the
knowledge he had gained from the official assignee, (whom
on all occasions he consulted,) of the very willing conduct
of the bankrupts, and the information he had received
from them with regard to their affairs, he should not meet
the justice of the case if he either withheld or suspended
their certificates. Certificates granted accordingly.

RE THOMAS PRICE.
On Friday last Thomas Price, flour-dealer, appeared
before the learned Commissioner on a resumed examina-
tion. The bankrupt, as in former instances, was opposed
by Mr. Bardswell on behalf of the assi pees, and sup-
ported by Mr. David Evans. It may be remembered,
that the bankrupt had been three or four times a bank-
rupt before ; had once made a compromise of 7s. 6d. in
the pound •, and had taken the benefit of the Insolvent
Debtors' Act. The opposition which led to the present
adjournment was an allegation against the bankrupt that
he had not faithfully surrendered all his goods and effects,
particularly as to the reservation of certain quantities of
flour. An objection was also taken to the unsatisfactory
state of his balance-sheet, which he was studiously en-
joined to amend by his next appearance before the court.
Mr. BARDSWELL first adverted to the extravagant item
of £1,053. Ils. 4d. for household expenses in the small
space of two years and five months. in a small baker's
shop, the accuracy of which lie (Mr. Bardswell) could not
arrive at, as he kept no books. Upon further examina-
tion, he elicited from him that from the business done the
clear receipts of his shop were, on the average, £45 per
week. Calculating, therefore, from his own statement,
which he (Mr. Bardswell) impugned, there was yet a
deficit of somewhere about £3OO, which, he submitted to
the learned Commissioner, in the absence of explanation,
disentitled the bankrupt to any indulgence from the court.
Mr. DAVID EVANS replied briefly, but very energeti-
cally, in extenuation of the conduct of the bankrupt. He
was an ignorant man, had kept no books, and had given
as accurate a representation of his affairs as was in his
power. He had reserved nothing, and he trusted, under
the circumstances, that the learned Commissioner would
consider his case as one in which he could, without in-
justice to any party, afford him the indulgence solicited.
His HONOUR : The question is, whether the bankrupt
has complied with the regulations of the act. It is quite
clear to me that the bankrupt's accounts have been very
irregularly kept, and although, in ordinary cases of this
kind, I cannot punish persons simply on account of their
irregularity, yet, in this case, I must look to the simple
question, has the bankrupt given an accurate account ?
Certain sums of money, in the nature of receipts, have
been traced on his examination, and certain payments
made therefrom ; but there still remains a deficit of £BOO,
which has not yet been accounted for. On the former
examination, the court was dissatisfied with the balance
sheet, and the meeting was accordingly adjourned, to af-
ford time for the production of another balance sheet,
and to afford some additional information to his creditors
upon his transactions for the last two years. lam bound
to say, that information has not been satisfactory. I have
every wish, and, in fact, am commanded, to act leniently
with bankrupts; but, in this case, I feel I should not be
doing justice to the creditors if I did not mark my sense
of the very unsatisfactory manner in which the examina-
tionhlassatiedrnhleinfaartee,dt,haantdtahme
haagnakinracpopapmelelemdortoy
is
revert to
what singu-
larly tenacious of things which happened twelve, sixteen,
twenty, and even thirty-seven years ago, and in occur-
rences of not a month's :lapse his recollection is peculi-
arly defective. Under all these considerations, I cannot
do less than adjourn the examination of the bankrupt
sine die. I will extend his protection for three months,
if with the concurrence of the solicitor of the assignee.
Mr. BARDSWELL: Neither the assignees nor the cre-
ditors have the slightest wish to interfere with the pro-
tection offered by the learned commissioner.

Mr. EvANs : The only certificate the bankrupt will re-
quire will be the hand of death : he will never apply again.
His HONOUR did not think the expression of Mr. Evans
at all necessary, If judges were held responsible in the
exercise of their duties, however painful, by the learned
advisers of those who were brought before them, the
practice would be most incodvenient. He would give the
bankrupt his protection for one month.
Mr. EVANS explained : He only meant that the bank-
rupt's means would prevent him ever again applying to
the court ; he had given up every farthing he possessed
in the world.