The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1818-11-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF COANCERY, iTawrytuirft, 711101111)" NOVEMIER 12. This was mo►ion day. The LORD CHANCELLOR came into Court at half-pas: ten o'clock, and Counsel being only prepared in a few motions of course, his Lordship bad gone through the Bar at eleven o'clock. Mr. HEALD a short time afterwards entered the Court, and said he had a motion to make. Mr. 1-lAttr requested that it might he postponed to this dry week. as, from the great length of the 11111W11X, which were only filed two days, he had not been able to look into them. Mr. HEA LD said. he had DO objection to lICCOM modote his Learned Friend. but ■s he war then in pussesvion of the Court, he thought Mr. Hort could Dot refuse to let him move it on next Thur , day before any motions he (Mr. Hart) might have to make on that day. Mr. Haar—" As to myself, I can have no ob. jection to my Learned Friend's taking the pre cedence, but I cannot answer for the assent of my clients." The Low CHANCELLOR—" Take what I am going to say as it is intended, good humouredly, Mr. Heald. if you had been one minute later in coming into Court, you would have been in entire possession of it, as T was just going to rise, us I bud been bitting here 15 minutes without any business before me. Under these circumstances, Ido not think you can build much on being in possession of the Court." Mr. 1-IEALD-= 4 T should have been in Conn much sooner. but I thought the Counsel who take precedence of me would have occupied the time of our Lordship." FORRESI' C. sE Li. E RS. Mr. HEALD—" I have a motion to make in this cube, but base been requested by Mr. Roupel to postpone it until he comes into Court." The LORD CH ANCELLOR—" Go on, Mr. Heald ; I will wait for so person." Mr. ROOPEL then came into Court, and re quested that the motion might be postponed for a week—he undertaking, on the part of his client., that the proceedings in the Court below should be stayed in the mean time. The LORD CHANCELLOR--" That is an ac commodation which must be settled between your. selves : I can have nothing to do with it." Motion postponed. The Earl ff SDATTRIMERT, Lord ROBERT aPElt era, stud omen, v. his Grace Me bake of MARLBOROUGH. Sir ARTHUR PIGGOTT moved for an injunction to restrain the Noble Defendant from receiving the rents of certain estates which were vested in trier tees, and from bringing ejectment. against seven of the tenants ou the estates. Mr. !halts said, that be had to request of .the Learned Counsel to postpone his motion. Sir ARTHUR PIGGOTT said, that when he stated his grounds for the motion, he was certain that the Learned Counsel would withdraw his request. There was • decree in the cause, and a receiver appointed, at which time Mr. Blackstone was in possession of the estate,, and afterwards became trustee with the Noble Plaintiff, Lord Robert Spencer. who was the brother of the late Duke of Marlborough, and uncle of the present. They consented that a receiver should he appointed, nod the Noble Defendant supposed, because • receiver was appointed. that lie !his Greet-) was entitled to receive the resits, and actually had received some of them, which they must get hack as well as they could. if the Noble Defendant had acted under a mistake, he aught to he thankful that the motion w.,s made to set hint right ; for it must be unpleit *ant to him to be obliged to undo what he hail done. Some of the tenants had refused to pay their rents to the Noble Duke, mod he was proceeding to eject them out of possession. It was antler those cir cumstances that he moved for the injunction. Mr. BLAKE stated, that he was a stranger to the merits of the case, as he only held the brief for Mr. Bell, but he understood that the notice of motion oat only served yesterday on the Solicitor for the Defendant, and he wished to coder with his Noble l'herit before the motion was made. Sir ARTHUR PIGGore" We can take the or der fur the injunction, subject to any opposition that may be hereafter made." The Loon CHANCELLOR—" That will Ise the Iwo way. Let the Defendant be restrained from receiving the rents, and from proceeding with the rjectinents.”—lnjunction granted. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Wrrnaturtft, THURSDAY, NOTEMOEt 12. CRIMINAL INFORMATION. The COMNION-SSAJEA NT moved fur • rule to she» caii.e why • criminal information should not hr tiled against John Jarrett, William Jariatt, Thomas Pybns, and Henry Gibbs. He stated that lie moved this at the instance of Jame. Robert Berne, and his partner, Nolan, who were pro fessional Gentlemen residing in the town of Alaid stone. Mr. Bertie's affidavit *et forth, that, nit the tub of June last, lie was standing in • street in Al:Mistime, in company with his partner, and se veral other person., when si slumber of squibs were thrown at him, by a sere of John Jarratt, a had about seventeen years of age, one of which struck him on the thigh, and burned his small-clothes. Deponent went over and inquired his name, which hr refused to state, at the same time treistii.4 him with great above and insult. Deponent saitl he %%mild cer tainly punish him, though, at first, he did not seriously intend it. He, however, took out a writ, which was served on the offender. On the sth of August he went to a hence, the Haunch of Venison, which was much frequented by the Gentlemen of Alatdstone, anti which, on that day, appeared to Litt more fully attended then usual. Ile hail nut hetio there lotig, alien John Jarrett came and pulled out a writ, with the copy of which his sou had been served. He handed it over to au other person, of the name of Thomas Pyhar, who read it in a t aun tn ig an d ridiculous manner. 1 1' hen he came to the name of the complainant, James Hobert Brute, to which the appellation of " lea fier/mu" was attached, lie repeated the word seve ral tames, ai if by doubted whether it wus correctly applied—and, when ite came to the name of the Chief Justice, Sir Vicar) , Gibbs, the writ being sued out its the Common Pleas, -he exclaimeil " What the devil has Sir Weary Gihhs to du with it:" Mr. Bertie retained his temper and left the room peaceably. This was a few days after the writ issued out. as the 6th of August, the day after, as lie was going through the town, he ob served William, soother son of Julio Jarratt, at tended by a considerable number of persons, in the street. lle did tint suppose they contemplated any thing against him, hut, when he came up there were shouting, and groaning, and a cry of " 'Ware Hawk P' He was joined by his partner, and, as he passed along, he found all the little passages, in the High -street. filled with persons shouting " 'Ware hawk I" They followed from the High street to his residence, which was iii Stone-atreet, with the same exclamation. He also swore he was informed that the father, John jorratt, had caused the writ to be framed and glazed, and hung ul► slung with a piece of meat, outside of his house, which was in a very populous place—and this exhi bition, he thought, excited the tumult that took place in the evening, it happening to be market day. On the 4th of September, William Jarrett passed by Complainant's house with a number of persons. They stopped at his office, and again used the cry of " 'Ware Hawk!" On the 16th and 17th of September (the former being market day, the latter that appropriated to the sale of cat tle), a number of persons assailed him with the same cry. He stated likewise, that on the 13th of October, Henry Gibbs appeared with a consider able mob, and followed him and his partner, still reiterating the shout of " 'Ware HawkP' which exposed them to insults, and continued for some time. Mr. Nolan, the partner of Mr. Bertie, de posed, that, since the writ had been framed and glazed, he had seen it, from day to day, till late in the month of October, holding Mr. Bertie up to contempt—he also spoke to the insult offered to him by the cry of " 'Ware Hawk!" which had given then great nominees, and had, he be lieved, hurt them in their business. They had not resented, or personally repelled those insults, meaning to rely on the protection of the law, which they trusted the Court would extend to them. Mr. Paget. a Gentleman, who resided near them, swore that he saw the writ framed and glazed, so lately as the present month, and publicly exposed outside of ..farratt's shop. After the circumstance occurred, he went to the shop and inquired, what it could be about—did it relate to Mr. Bertie the Attorney ? William Jarrett answered, " 0 no! you see it is a Genf/maw—not an Miami , y! 'Ware Hawk for that." The Cuts's. Jurrica- 41 I observe by the state• meat that the parties are not all acting together OR uue occasion. Therefore take your rule to shew cause why a criminal information should not be Pled against one or more of them." The COMMON SERJEANT" Mr. Bertie states that he remonstrated with Jarrett, the father, twice on the subject, who stated that be had full advice how to act—and would not desist. What made his conduct still worse was, he mentioned the names of persons of high respectability in the town, who, he stated, were his advisers." The Cnicr JUITICE--" Take your rule—but let it be drawn ,up in the way I have suggested." TYRISHITT, Esg. V. WYNN, Bars. and ILLIS JONES. Mr. PUKE moved fora rule to shew cause why the verdict for the Plaintiff in this case shonld not be set aside, and a new trial granted. He stated that it was an action of trespass brought by the Plain tiff owning Sir W. W. Wynn, and was tried before Mr. Baron Garrow, at the last Shropshire Assizes. The question at issue was, whether the Plaintiff, as Proprietor of the enclosed farm of Blanautyre, had n right to claim • mountain tract, containing 1,000 acres, or whether that right was vested in Sir %Yadkin, as Lord of the manor of Llangwerst ? The Learned Counsel stated that the Plaintiff gave no written evidence, and contented himself with proving acts of ownership. He certainly could not con tend—if those acts were not controverted by other tvidence—or if the Learned Judge was correct in refusing the documents offered by the Defendant —that the verdict was against evidence. The Plaintiff purchased the farm from • person named Lewis Jones, some years since, and he did not even produce at the trial his deed of purchase. The chief evidence was that of Lewis Jones himself, who, heieg released, was clearly a competent wastes,. Jones swore that for many years, in his own and his father's time, they had exercised right of pro perty on those one thousand acres of land, which lie called their sheep-walk. They grazed their sheep, he said, all over that land, and the sheep of other persons that strayed there were driven off. They also exercised the right of cutting turves for fuel—and, in a few instances, they had cut down mountain ash. The witness also stated, that, smite few years ego s when Sir %Vatkisi wished to build a robin on the ground for the accommodation of him *Oland friends, in the grouse-shooting season, his game-keeper, Ellis Jones, applied to him fur leave to cut turves and take sedge's for that purpose. Ile likewise said, that at a certain time, Sir Wel kin stated to him, that the building of the cabin would he of nu prejudice to his right, but was merell for the use of his (Sir W.'s) friends. He further stated, that when lie sold the farm to the Plaintiff, he sent to Ellis Jones for the key of the cabin, which was Seta to him, and by him given up to the Plaintiff. The enclosed farm was about sixty acres, and he had received 2,000/. for it, As long as he could recollect, a fee farm rent of Bd. had been paid to Sir Watkin, who, with the exception or cutting turf, and grazing sheep, used the tract without molestation, by sporting over it himself, mid permitting his friends to do the same. It was contended on the other side, that the Plaintiff had only the right of past4dre and tar /nay. The first evidence put in was a part of Jerre„ 1., by which the manor was given to Lord IVotton. It was then endeavoured to be proved, that the manor was now held front Lord Winton, and for that purpose a document, dated the 13th November, 1614, was put in, This document was an ancient parchment writing, found among the muni.oeNts at ‘l'yunstay. It did not purport to be au original deed—end, in fact, from • certificate at the bottom of it, it appenred to be • copy. Nwice was given to the Plaintiff to produce u st un:Jr drill, «Lich was understood to lie in his pus section, and which Lewis Jones had delivered over to him when he made the purchase. Mr. Jervis objected, that the instrument produced was ito evi dence, as it did not appear that any original deed had ever been executed. He knew that in the case of Swinkethman v. the Marquis of Stafford, n charter, from the Abbot of Stone, which hod been brought from the British Museum, w as not consi dered evidence. But in that case, it should be observed, the Clattery, as it was called, did not come from any proper custody—th e Briti,t, Mu seum being a place for keeping curiosities, not do cuments of this nature. In the case of Bull v. Mitchell, 2d Price, 389. it appeared that a Char key from the Abbey of Glastonbury was produced as evidence—but Mr. Justice Chamh►e rejected it. But, when it came before the Conn of Excheyner, the Court, with the exception of Mr. Baron Wood, held, that, as it came from the Marquis of Bath, who claimed a part of the lands, it was proper to Lie received, as having been in good custody. Now, in this case, he contended, that the document re jected by Mr. Baron Garrow, having been in the possession of the individual owing the feefarm rent, was receivable in evidence. The Plaintiff being called on to produce any deed under which he held his title, did give in a document, which was almost, if not Tide, a f n s simile of that found at Wynn stay, the seat of Sir Watkin. On the case of Doe on demise of Brun v. Rawlins (VA East) being cited, he said, it did not apply to the present ac tion, but he would receive the first document as a paper coming out of the hands of the Defendant, but not as any evidence of the deed of which it purported to be a copy. Mr. Justice BATLEY — " Were the two docu ments copies ?" Mr. PRAMS answered that they were. Now he submitted, if the case rested here, that this was not a legal and proper way of receiving this document, which deserved more weight. There was, however, a great deal of other evidence offered on the part of the Defendant, and also rejected, subject to no condition whatever. The general provision of the deed produced from W)ntistay, was "op/pleat, by which Lord Wotton granted to Thomas Ap.Ed ward • farm, which was not named, and therefore the evidence was not decicve, containing 61i acres"—(and it was remarkable that Lewis Jones admitted that the farm of Blanaiityre coutamed about 60 acres)—" with common of pasture mid common of turhary on the mountains, and all other waste lands and grounds, belonging to the Monas tery of Valk-Crucis." This deed •lso reserved • fee farm rent of 41. 13s. 4d.—hut it was to be ob served that another farm, of about the same dimen sions, was granted by the instrument. For each farm, therefore, the rent war 2L 6s. Bd. agreeing with that spoken to by Lewis Junes. Mr. Justice BAYLEY—•' Is there now any other farm which pays 2/. 6s. id. ?" Mr. Pease answered, that there was—and this agreed with the sum of 4/. 13s. 4d. mentioned in the deed, as the rent of two farms. The entire sum was paid till the year 1686, when, what he contended to he the second farm was conveyed to William Williams, Esq. afterwards Sir W. Wil liams, and Speaker of the House of Commons, an ancestor of Sir Watkin, but under whom lie had not derived the manor. The Defendant could have proved that, in 1686, one of the farms in the ffeoffment mentioned, was conveyed to William Wil liams, Esq. who was to pay a fee farm rent of 2/. 6s. Bd. but his Counsel was precluded from producing the necessary document.—(Mr. Peake here recited the terms of the indenture by which the farm was conveyed.)—He could not state that 21. 6.. Bd. had been regularly paid. He could, indeed, produce the rental of the stewards or Wynn.. stay, but they were not properly signed, till the year 1712—and from that period, down to the pre sent, regular entries of a fee farm rent, for two farms, of 2/. 68.8 d. each, were to be found. The CIIIEF Juserca-41 Did you prove, nega• tively, that there was no other rent of 41. 131. 4d. paid to the Lord of the Manor, for two farms ?" Mr. PEARS said, he had—and he then offered evf• dence, which, he humbly conceived, the Learned Judge was not correct in rejecting. The tract of land was all mountain, and, by the documents pro daced, a reservation of rights of mine to the Lord of the Manor, was quite evident. He wished to put in leases or grants of mine upon the waste, with in the same manor, but not within the same town ship, that had been made to different persons. He contended, that, Sir %akin being Lord of the Manor, possessed all the manorial rights—auct, as it was one long mountain tract, quite undivided, he was justified in producing grants or deeds re lative to any matters connected with the manor. Mr. Justice BAYLEY —" You offered evidence where your right was indisputed." Mr. PEARS then proceeded to read several leases of coal and iron -stone, granted on different parts of the manor (excepting that immediately in dispute) by the Wynn family. Mr. Justice BAYLEY—. 'to have introduced this in evidence, ought you not to have alleged that the locus is quo was part of the general minor—. and that the right to the *hole possession was in him? If you do not, you come by surprise on the other party." Mr. PEALE said, the whole question here wu, whether this tract was the possession and freehold of Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, or of the Plaintiff —and he submitted, that if those leases went to prove that the place in question was the possession and freehold of the Defendant, which he conceived it did, as strewing a right in various parts of the tract, they were clearly evidence in this part of the case. In Stanley v. White, 14th East, 932, this doctrine was laid down. There a belt of trees, it appeared, surrounded a district of considerable extent, and containing the lands of A. B. and C. It was there held, that the right of cutting down trees, in one part of that belt, was evidence of a right to cut down timber in another. He con ceived, under all the circumstances, it was a case worthy of further consideration. Rule granted. At two o'clock their Lordships proceeded to the Court of Exchequer, to prick for Sheriffs. COVRT OF COMMON PIRA& Wernstorrti, TIIIIJIIIDAY, NOVEDIIIIIIII 12. itt the waiter of BURGIIII. This was a question of law, referred by the Chan cellor to this Court, to hare a certificate of its opi nien. The question arose under the following cir• cuinvtatices Burgess had drawn an inland fill of exchange for 981. I la. on Butterworth anti Evans, payable at three mouths after date. After passing through varioua hands, the bill fell item the Po.setision of Cropley, who endorsed it to another. 'Ole bill was pretested for tom-payrnent, and returned to Cropley, who paid the amount or it. Some linse after, Burgess, the drawer, being supposed to have committed an eta of bankruptcy, Cropley peti tioned the Lord Chancellor to imitir a commission, including in the debt sworn to, aloo f ; with time value of the bill, the cost of the protest awl other charges, a atom of I/. 17s. for iliac-rest from time protest, in order to make his debt amount to ton/. without which he could not he a properly qualified peti tioning creditor. The point for consideration was, 'whether the interest on the hill was a debt of such a nature as could be sworn to by, a creditor, to enable him to petition for a communion. Mr. Serjeant HULLOCK stated and argued the case for Cropley. He observed, that of late . ycera there was a considerable change introduced into the law respecting the interest on debts of the presmt deacription, due by a bankrupt. The rale origi nally was, that the Commissioners never allowed the creditors to prove interest on hills of exchange or promissory notes, because they held it to be merely recoverable as damages from a Jury, and that as they were not competent to assess damages, they could not allow the interest to form part of the debts. But a considerable relaxation had lat terly been made in this rule, as he was prepared to 'sinew by various cases. In 3d Brae . n's Chan-try Cases, 436, the question being whether, where there was an original express contract, that a debt should bear interest, the interest should be allowed with the debt by the Cotnininiioners. Lord Thurlow declared that he was quite clear it should. Now the law must be the same where there was an implied contract to the same effect as here, for it was quite clear that when a bill of exchange, payable at a certain day, was passed, the parties intruded that it should be liable to interest after that day, and in an action brought on u bill the Jury always allowed interest as a thingof course. And in 3d Vesey, 133, in the matter of Hutchinson, the Master of the Rolls says, that on consulting Lord Kenyon as to the practice of his Court in such cases, Lcird Kenyon answered, that in case of notes payable at day certain, he had no hesitation in directing the Jury to find a verdict for the interest—interest could be recovered for a number of years on a bill by an iadebitatus assurpsit, or All action of debt. it was true, that in the case, Ist Vextris. 198, it had been held, that debt did not lie for interest, but assumpsit; but Lord Kenyon strongly expressed his disapprobation of that opinion. The Learned Counsel then referred to Dow's Parliamentary C'eses, vol. i, 133—that was au action of debt brought on a foreign judgment in the Court of King's Bench, thence removed to the Exchequer Chamber, and finally brought before the House of Lords, where it was argued—the result was • decision, that an action of assumpsit or of debt would lie for interest on a bill of exchange; if so, it was a debt provable under a commistion of bank ruptcy, and consequently could form a part of the petitioning creditor's debt.—But in addition to this argument, drawn from rules of law and analogy, the statutes 9 and 10 William 111. c. 17, sect. 1. made the drawer liable for interest and other costs and damages, on inland bills of exchattge, if pro tested. The Court observed, that to he entitled to the remedy given by this statute, the forms and terms of the statute must be observed. Serjeant HULLOCK resumed—The remedy was extended by the Sd and 4th Anne, and in the pre sent case the terms of the former statutes had been strictly complied with, and notice of the protest given to the drawer in due time. What would be the consequence if the interest was not thus lowed? It could not be proved before the Commis sioners: when the certificate was obtained, it would protect against all debts doe mtAlie time of issuing the commission—no action could be maintained for it—end the decision would therefore operate as a partial repeal of the statute. Mr. Justice Yeas inquired, whether the argu ment applied to all creditors of this description, or only to petitioning ones? The Counsel replied in the idlirmative—he was unable to draw a line of distinction. Mr. Justice PA RK -" This then is the difficulty ; that all the creditors may require to prove for in terest, and thus contradict all that has keen said by Lord Hardwicke and Lord Kenyon, as well us the constant and uniform course of practice." Mr. Serjeant HULLOCK begged leave to say, he was warranted in hid argument by the words of Lord Kenyon, and all legal analogy, and concluded by referring to another confirmatory case, 2d Albin, 548. The CHIRP JUSTICE desired to know what had passed in the other Court at the time this case bad been sent down. Mr. Serjeant LENS. for. Burgess, stated, that the Lord Chancellor had sent it down against his own opinion; that lie had had no doubt on the saliject himself; and had, beside., consulted Lord Etien borough, who concurred in opinion, and said that damages to he ascertained by a Jury were not debts till they had been so ascertained ; but from the earnestness of the party, and ability with which the arguments had been urged on the other side, he had reluctantly consented to the case going down. He (Serjemit I.rn•j apprehended that the position laid down by his Learned Friend would contradict the principle of all the cases he had procired— which wit., that where nothing like a contract be tween the parties appeared, there interest was not a legal debt. He was not aware of any relaxation in the rule, and he did not believe there was any ; that where it is necessary to go before a Jury to obtain interest on a debt, the Commissioners never allow it. All castes shrew, that, in order to render interest provable before them, there must either be a special contract contained in the instrument ; or, in ac counts between bankers or traders, something oa their books to chew that interest had been carnally paid. It was perfectly clear that the original sum was the only legal debt, and that the remainder was merely damages. It was by no means law that Interest was due on every debt ; it had been (1.1.-r -mined by the Court of King's Bench, that it did not lie on money lent. lie apprehended it was not at this day law, that interest wise due of course on 1•• 10.4. - • i t t ' • r a promi,Erry note, f4tstitcatise the day or pay. wentl.4a passed. Mr. Jtpoice l'Aute--:""there IS w lrory Strong ca.e to that purpose, that of Lee find Lingard. rl . fpft. There it was held, that exe c utio n co uld mit te..tHken nut for intiq . .est of d to lit dne on u certmin dm!. icstoo-d. butt lit MOM VO to a Jiffy: . In bile RlnoristAry ortl.d (Setjeitta LFNS proceeded), triad been Ilferc r ly deternfinrd that debt fay for interest clue but litre the question wag. whether itoere.t was doe ? sji The CHIEF JUSTICF:—• 6 We Are in consider whether listvurst went tver sllowr4l a such It es;se Lt• the Conlin...inners—and tf lot, whether we ntt• to overturn lie invsri4ble bite of pineLler." M e . Jwaice l'Aet%—" I wak u Coontnioioner s. Bankrupt for nine year*, and I lit-Ver knew it to be allowed ; my Mother Burrough wa. one fur a longer time, lie 1 . 1411 p.tate 4•Xprrleil:•r." Mr. Justice Iluuttovintt—" l nas q Commis stoner from the year 1785 till 1 wa... tundra Judge; hundreds of similar applications n'evr spark to us. hut I never kievta interest to be proved. except on fort-ign Mr. . 4 t•titre PART(—" The shourdity is that we would uut tilluw the full debt, but leave the Cumin: .s.uouera of:envoi& to cut it down." Mr. Serjeant Liars omit iiiii ed—lf it was a legal debt here, it must be so fitfore the Commissionels; but the whole course of pryetice teat to slier/. that it was not a legal debt. The Commas inners hatl tau riglit to consider it or such; it was not legal till assessed by a Joey. Neither was the law on this head altered by the Statute D and 10 William 111. That Statute applied only to cases where interest was already tine by law. For a blintlred years had never hetire been cited, to she w that interest was a legal debt on till hills of exchange and pro missory notes; the Statute Made no alteration in the law, but only gave u remedy where there was stone before. It Vas not its intent 19 give interest where it was not before due. The Learned Conn'. eel lastly cited Ist Rose's likttkruprry Coves, 317, wherein it was said, 'hit the d• Courts of Law gave interest, not as debt, but us datuagt-s." Mr. Serjeatit Lt.ocit, in reply, sail% that his Learned hieetl's argument seemed pvincip illy to rely on what had been the practice, lint the ques tion here was, whether that practice had hero cor rect. He had heard nothing alleged against the principle, which was, that the interest was a legal debt, the criterion of which was the anode in which it wiis recoverable. Ills Learned Friend had not attempted to hew that he would be obliged to have recourse to an actioa On the cave. It could cera. thinly be recovered by debt, or indebitatill atrump. tit, which established his principle. There was no stronger contract in the law than a promissory note or bill of exchange, to whew that the itarties intend ed interest should he payable when the day of pay ment was past. l'he present law of the latol intuit be derived front the Statute, whatever bay have been the practice. The Leartivil Seijelint here quoted the words of the Statute at lengtie, and coil tended that it was incap a ble of the coitstrtsction ;tot upon it by his Learned Friend. If its application was confined to cases where interest was due before, its operation, so far from . being remedial, would be onerous, itiustuutli as it imposed a owe and trouble some process. The COURT intimated it would certify on anothet day. The Judges proceeded to the Court of Eachiei quer at two o'clock. iNSO LT' ENT DEBTORS' coma; :77, P • NOVICIIISCR 14. This day the Court met ; twelve rases stood for this ilmy's hearing. twenty-one siis..d for Friday, ai.d thirty-one for t3aturday. Wm. Holcombe Scett was opposed on the ground of his not having *mart-tett in his schedule the parti culars of a mortgage of certain hostiles of which lie was possessed in Devon. This otnisenne was ad. mitred by the insolvent, but lie explained that it vo,s became the ailment or the eimitgsge greatly ex ceeded the value of the property, which, in cause sitience, hail totally devolved upon the mortgagee. Rubes' Pryng contradicted the Insolvent's' eras deuce respecting the disposal of the property. The Counr remanded the Insolvent for a con cealment of property, in his not inserting in has schedule the particulars of this mortgage. 'Thos. Giffin was opposed ty Joseph Stumpy, a tailor, for a debt of 11/. Us. The opposing creditor complained, that last March the insolvent came to I • and got clothes to the at:lomat mentioned, and in two or three days after went to minstlire tailor and got credit to the same amount. He never paid either, and offered bills which were not honoured. The COURT said, that the opposing creditor had to blame himself for giving credit iii the loose manner he had done. The Insolvent was do.- char•ed. 111 r. Noants said, he had to apply to the Court that the case of John Cuizer, which nom on this day's list, might be postponed until to-morrow,- He made the application on the part of Liesstenitst Hickman. who claimed to be a creditor to the amount of 12/. although the Insolvent had insetted his name in his sclieduk, as a debtor to Min in the sum of IG/. Liententait irlickman bad hail no notice of the Insolvent's application, and lie now sought that the case should stand over until te morrow, to allow liiM to prepare the grounds of iio• oppositson. The COURT- 01 As your client has had no tiotic» from the Insolvent, the discharge of the luster can have no effect upon Lieutenant Hickmiiii's debt." Nneats---" But the discharge front the op posing creditor is already lodged 1 . .4 the Iminlerlit— and we 6111111 not know where to find hum to-twit-low to tiii,ert our claim. unless the Court postpones hearing for PO short a perio&—aud the HMI it ton small to obtain a detainer." Lieutenant Hickman here addressed the Court he said that the Insolvent was master of hi. Mujest ship Redwing. and he (Lieutenant H.) stmt Lieutenant. tie was then about to state come vt 'uvular* reppreting their mess occOunt, wiwo 11, CoURT interposed, and permitted the case to stand over till to-morrow„ „. Hobert Hall applied for his discharge. Mr. 111- . ATH opposed the nppliextion, and .1441 that the Insolvent had been frlll.4lltit it a V O O l r fur a concralment of property, and hll,l, ifi t• ( • 1 6. 1 period, made two inclfestoal attriapts to sbto,J, a • k 611 1