The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1859-06-07 00:00:00

Legal.

EXETER DISTRICT COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner AnnanWs.)
MONDAT, May 30.
REDWOOD'S HANICIUPTCT.—PETITION TO ANNUL
DISMISSED.
Re Joseph Redwood, late of Charininster, Dorset,
veterinary surgeon and apothecary. This case it will
be recollected was adjourned for his Honour's judgment.
On the opening of the Court, his Honour wished to
know what had been calculated as the net profits on each
year?
Mr. Stogdon (who appeared for Redwood, to uphold
the bankruptcy), said he had no doubt the accountant ;
(Mr. Thom') could explain that. He believed the profits !
had been estimated inure by computation than by pusi-
live evidence.
His Honour said Mr. Terrell had not furnished him
with any statement on that point.
Mr. Terrell said they had not been made ni since the
first and second years—at the end of 18.56.
Mr. Stogdon : At which time the bankrupt says they
were made up on • (else footing.
His Htmour, after examining the balance sheet. which
Mr. Stogdon at the last court said had been very ably
compiled by Mr. Thoms, observed that he had obtained
what he required it lie understood rightly, thaw ac-
counts bad not been settled.
Mr. Terrell : They have not. your Honour.
Mr. Stogdon said one-third of the net profits estimated
on the five years, from 1851 to 1659, was £175, of which
only 08 had been paid.
His Honour said he would now proceed to deliver his
judgment on the petition which sought to set aside the
bankruptcy. The first point on which the petitioner
rested, was that there had not been sufficient trading to
bring the bankrupt within the meaning of the laws of
the Court. Ile had intimated at the former hearing
that he considered there was abundant evidence to prove
trading, and that he was also an apothecary. There was
the positive evidence of the bankrupt that he had sold
drugs, not in any way connected with his vocation as A
veterinary surgeon, and that lie supplied them gene-
rally. Bankrupt had also prescribed and furnished
uiedicine in the csaie of a woman who had a had leg.
On that point, therefore, be thought the bankruptcy
must stand. Now, as regarded the next point, which
lie believed combined the second and third grounds of
the petitioner, namely, that the petition was not filed ;
for the benefit of the creditors, but with the view of
dissolving • partnership existing between the bankrupt
and Bennett ; it was one which required, and which had
received at his (his Honour's) hands a great amount of
consideration. A covenant had been entered into
between the parties, which whether a partnership or
not was not necessary for him to consider—enough that
jibed been agreed en both sides that it was a partner-
ship ; neither was it necessary for him to consider
whether the bankrupt would be relieved from that
agreement if the bankruptcy was alio ‘ed to stand.
Assuming that the deed effected in 1.834, by which the
bankrupt agreed to pay Bennett otte.fifth of the net
profit of his business, for the consideration of having
borrowed of him (Bennett) £lOO, was a part-
nership, only • small moiety of those profits—
£3B hail been paid. Shortly before Christ-
WU last. Bennett, lie found, applied to bankrupt
to have these accounts settled. Bankrupt said lie could
not pay him ; but every attempt was made by him to
settle the 'natter by arbitration, or to pay a certain sum
to get rid of this agreement. There could be no doubt
of the wishes of the bankrupt on this subject. that he
would like to have got rid of the agreement. These
measures for an amicable settlement were refused by
Bennett except on extortionate grounds, and an action
was brought and a verdict giben against Redwood. Now,
as regarded the grounds on which the petitioner reeted,
it was important that they should see what the bankrupt
had said after lie had been to Exeter ; and the evidence
on this point was very material. In the 12th paragraph
of Bennett's affidavit a conversation which was stated to
have occurred between the bankrupt and hint (Bennett)
was recorded. The ifleeting described took plaim at the
. . . .

Royal Oak Inn, Dorchester, and the bankrupt is said to
have stated that he had given Mr. Andrews, his soiici-
tor, a sum of money to settle with I (Bennett); at
the time informing liini that he lied better comply with
the agreement "for he had been to Exeter, and made
all ready, and had only to touch the telegraph wires to
be made a bankrupt." Adding, "and then where would
he your agreement? the only thing you could do with
it would be to take it into Chancery, and I should like
to see you there, for then 1 would ruin you." Bank-
rupt, by the name affidavit, was alleged to have offered
Bennett EMU, 1.140 to be paid ready money, which hav-
ing refused lie Man told "lie might do his best or his
worst." He might whistle or rule for his y, but
would not get it, es he (Redwine!) was deter aaa i a ICIt to be
Illade • bankrupt." Thin affidavit was borne out by the
evidence of two other persona. Now lie (the Commis
sioner) could not look upon these statements as mere
idle words, or that they were said under great excite-
ment. On the contrary, lie thought they were uttered
under the strong feeling that Redwood would 'mike him-
self a bankrupt to get rid of the partnership. That un-
doubtedly was one object of his coming to this court;
but was that the sole and only object? which must b-3
proved before the petition could be annulled. Mr.
Terrell had agreed that lie hail no legitimate right in
coming to the court, and in support of that had sub-
mitted that Redwood waii not insolvent, and he put it in
this way—that there was property valued at £213
44. said
.good debts £il4l Las. &1., making • total
of about His liabilities; were £616-11t9 of which
alleged to be due to bankrupt's son-in-law, Walker,
he said rasa " stumped-up claim, which, if substracted,
would reduce the liabilities to £517." He (the Commis-
sioner) was not, however, able to go with I in this
point. First, as regarded Walker's debt; he should
have thought it more desirable that one side or the other
I should have called the young man himself; but as that
I had not been clone lie must decide by the evidence now
I before him. He found the bankrupt had in his accounts
charged Walker's claim at part of the expenses of his
business, and therefore he could not hold Walker's debt
as non-existing. The bankrupt had been in the box and
had sworn to it, and his testimony lied not been shaken
by cruan-examination. There was also acother element to
be considered on this point, viz., that before the bank-
rupt could have converted his property into money, to
pay his creditors, Bennett could have c 1111 l e in anil swept
off the larger part of the property, and the bankrupt's
I affairs would then stand thus--Elilo, lees the £lO7, against
the debts and property, less the property seized by Ben-
nett.
Mr. Stogdon said this was irrespective of tho dein' on
which Mr. Bennett could prove for the £175 the
£.38 already paid.
His Honour said he had purposely omitted that ; but
without it, the account presented would show that Red-
wood was very far from being solvent ; and therefore he
might have hail another object in entering this Court.
In support of this there was the affidavit of the bank-
rupt, that on looking over his affairs he was in a state
of insolvency, and that it was in order to obtain a
proper distribution of Ina estate that lie entered the
Court. And therefore there wan the not unimportant
view of the case that the bankrupt might, he said, have
filed his petition not only to get rid of the agreement
which hung as a mill-stone round his neck, but also that
seeing that lie was insolvent, he had filed the petition
with the view he now stated: knowing that if lie went
on, and Bennett caine and swept off the property for his
debt, lie should only get worse and worne. Ile there-
fore thought the meaning of the bankrupt's statement
at the Royal Oak Inn, to somewhat enlarge it, was that
lie (the bankrupt) finding it imposnible to go on with the
business if he had to pay Bennett one-fifth, threatened
that if he did not accede to his proposals he would have
rednurse to this Court, as the 'creditors would then
get a larger dividend if he stopped. The learned Com-
missioner then read from the eases of ex parte
Borme, er Park Chellg, and ex parte Johnson,
which raw, bearing on the point, the Lord Chancellor
had held that where the petition was filed for the sole
purpose of getting rid of a partnership it could not be
allowed to Mond ' • but if it was not clearly proved that
the bankrupt had not also the benefit of his creditors in
view ill filing the petit 't could not be net aside. In
the case of ex parte Phipps, the facts were somewhat
different, and were the most favourable to the petitioner.
Th.t case, however, was dissimilar from the present one,
inasmuch as the petitioiler was in that case not insol-
vent, and therefore the petition was set aside. On the
whole, therefore, the Commienioner thought that
although doubtless Redwood's primary object in coming
into this Court was to free himself from the engagement
between him and Bennett, yet he thought the bankrupt
had also the interest of the creditors in view, and
therefore he must uphold the bankruptcy. Petition to
annul accordingly dismissed.
Mr. Terrell was afraid the result of the bankruptcy
would not in any way benefit the creditors, because if
Redwood had paid the £lOO due to his client there
. . .

would have been a greater dividend for them.
Mr. Stogdon said as Mr. Terrell seemed so anxious to
relieve the estate from all expenses, kc., he should ask
his Honour to make an order that the costs of the pre-
sent proceedings be paid by the petitioner.

Mr. Terrell rose to resist the application, but
His Honour saol he need nut trouble himself, aa be
should order the petitioning creditor to pay his own ex-
penses, and the expenses for resisting the petition to be
paid out of the estate.

SITTINGS AT NISI PRIM AT GUILDHALL.
(Before Mr. Baron CHANNILL and a COlllOlOll Jury.
JuNu 2.

ilAttßisoN r. PRINTEW UNION

CoMBINATIoN.
This was au action for libel, to which the defendant
pleaded not guilty, and a justification.
Mr. Mellish appeared as counsel for the plaintiff;
Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Robinson represented the de-
fendant. •
The plaintiff is the proprietor of the Sheffield Times,
and another paper, the Sheffield Daily reef/mph, and
the defendant is a printer in the MIMIC town. The action
was brought to recover damages for the publication of •
libel admittedly printed by the defendant, at the instance
of the Printers' frade rnion Society, and charging the
defendant with ill.treatanent of the men iii his employ.
lmm consequence of the publication of these libellous
placards several of the plaintiff's men left his service,
and one of his papers, a new publication, was completely
ruined. He bad brought actions against the proprietor
of another paper, and against other parties, for the
publication of the same libel, and had recovered verdicts.
On the caso being called on, Mr. Hawkins said he
wished to withdraw the plea of justification.
Mr. Mellish said it was entirely • question of MAI.
The plaintiff did not seek for heavy damagva.
Mr. Hawkins said there was no malice charged, as
the defendant lied merely print‘l the libel for other
parties. He suggested each side should pay their own
costa.
Mr. Baron Channel' said the defendant was legal?y
liable, and
A verdict was:then entered for the plaintiff, with 40e.
damages.