The Express.
London, England, 1855-01-18 00:00:00

COURT OF ILILCHEQUER.-.7•14. 17.
ormolu Ul DANID-•••`013 TUB WY CNINI DAMN AND RAMIS
DAMS. ALDSPION. AND KAMM
OF • 0017SYY COOST

Ella. IP.

- - - -
Mr. Bass and Mr. Keathley showed cause in this use ea
behalf of the plaintiff and Mr. T. U. Marshall, the kedge
of the county court.
This was a rule for a prohibition to restrain Mr. Marshall,
the jedge of the county court of Leeds, from taking farther
proceedings in this cause, on the grossed that that court had
ao jurisdiction in the cause, as the amount claimed by the
plaintiff exeeided 601. During last term the rule had been
granted on affidavits, which stated that the plaintiffs
annelid amounted to 961. Ns., which sum was reduced by
the plaintiff crediting the defendant with certain payments,
to ;631. Is. 3}1., but without the consent of the defendant.
On an objection being raised as to the jurisdiction of the
learned judge, and a case cited in support of this objection,
he said be would not be guided by any such technical ob-
jections, but " would kelp the plaintiff all he could,"
and he accordingly directed the plaintiff to amend the parti-
culars of demand so uto reduce the amount to 601. This
was done without the consent of defendant's counsel. It
was farther stated in the affidavits that the defendant
having left the court, the judge directed the bill of para-
sitism so amended to be served on his attorney, and pro-
leaded with the case, and finally gave a verdict for the plain-
or lor 601., with immediate execution, and in oppoation to
e!ics= . Con made by the defendant's attorney to stay
s, so that the verdict might be appealed against.
the lest bill of particulars, which set forth that 631.
Is. 3d. was claimed, was attached this aotics by the plain•
tiff—. And I seek to recover, 60 '., the extent of the juris-
diction of this court." The amended bill of particulars did
not give the defendant credit fur payments made by or for
him, but stated that, " This action is brought to recover
the sum of 601., in satisfaction of the sum of 961. 16s. Bd.,
the amount due to me oa the following account, and I
abandon the excess." In now showing cause against the rule,
the learned counsel said that the saw had been originally
postponed for the accommodation of the defendant; that
when the cause came to be beard and the objection was made
as to thejurisdictiun of the court, and the power to amend,
the judge din not state what was attributed to him, and
further that the defendant having refused to produce the
copy of the particulsn served on him, the plaintiff'. at-
torney amended the bill of particulars in her presence, by
which the tuns was rebuqu'shed. The affidavits of the
learned fudge also contradicted the expressions ascribed to
him by the plaintirs affidavits, and stated that he had
admit-ed the authority cited as the bill of particulars then
stow, but as that authority did not go so far as to provost
the court from amending the particulars, he agreed to an
application from plaintiff's attorney to amend on his
abandonit.g all the excess beyond the 601. The judge had
advised the plaintiff to consent to a nonsuit, and them to
take out another summons with a bill of particulate,
which could not be objected th, but as the plaintirs as.
torney refused to acquiesce in this course, he tried the
cause is the presence of the defendant's counsel and attor-
ney, who took no pert in the proceedings. The &die
strongly denied that be assumed a jurisdiction which he tildl
not porn's, but that he exercised that Jacinto
Con, which he considered a technical oleasaa would
not deprive him of. Upon these askant., the
learned counsel submitted that no County Court
had jarisdietios, and that it could not be deprived of CM
jurisdiction by a faulty bill of particulars in the fiat tee
stance, but that the particulars objected to contained an
abandonment of ailed:dui beyond the sum of 501., which we.
all that was necessary to give the court jurisdiction. The
nrticalan set forth that the balance was an agreed balaate
between the parties. The judge had exercised a proper
discretion and power in making the amendment.
The Court—The judge was not empowered to amend so
as to preclude the defendant from his right to est off the
nem of 431. beyond the 601.
Mr. Bliss submitted that the defendant did not loos his
right to sue the plaintiff for his set off.
Mr. Baron Parke—lf the defendant could set off his noes

—..
demand, the plaintiff would virtually be giving up her
Maim to recover 61. I am sure she, together with her at-
torney, were in ignorance of what was going on, and that
the amendment of the bill of particulars would have that
effect.
Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Prentice having called the
learned Baron's attention to the circumstance of the plaintiff
herself having made no affidavit,
The court expressed an opinion that there WM ne power
to make the amendment ; and looking at all the circum-
stances of the case, it was clear th►t no jurisdiction existed.
The rule, therefore, would be made absolute.
Rule accordingly.

COLLINS 0.

Si MIL SAXON PLATT AND OCII
MUM.

Mr. Hawkins appeared for the plaiuif, and Mr. Lush
for the defendant. -

This wu as action brought by the plaintit4 a bone-
dealer, residing at Bevenoeks, against the defendant, a
farmer in the neighbourhood, to recover 101. 10s., the value
of a maze sold by him to the defendant,who pleaded, firstly,
that he had never bought the animal; and secondly,
that he bad delivered bar back to the plaintiff in satiatao
tion of his claim. There mu also a demand for some

_ --
clover; but it formed, according to the opinion of the
learned Jodie no element in the action. The terms of
the bargain had bean at the time reduced to writing, and
were as follows:—.. 6th of Sept., 1864.-Bold Mr. Wm.
Meade, a bay mare for IW. 104., and a stack of clover, and
be to cut it and send it in. The money to be paid in • fort'
night." I here was also verbal evidence of an agreement
entered into between the parties that the plaintiff would,
if required, take bark or change the mare within a fort-
night, three weeks, or a month; hut no such stipulation
was salaamed in the contract. The mare was in a per-
fectly saleable condition, though not free from sold on the
day of the sae. The defendant returned her on the following
day, and she was then so ill that she died the neat eaant-
lag. The plaintiff, it appeared, made no objection to re-
ceiving her, bat on the contrary showed the defendant other';
hones, but none would suit him.
. _

Mr. Baron Platt, in summon up, laid there were two
questions for the jury—nrstly, hed there been a sale of the
snare r sad a. many, bad she bees delivered back to the
plaintiff is satishonon of hie dales ?
The jars foand that there bad bee. a sal*, and that the
defendant bad returned the animal in satisfaction of the
plaintiff's chairs.
A verdict was this entered COT the plaintiff on the first
end for the defendant on the second hews, being is hat a
verdict forth. defendant.

CONSISTORY COURT.-JAx. 17.
...... DL IX=UMW.
lIIIITIATON V. LIDDILL LID °TAW.

This was a cause of issuing a decree under seal of the
hosourahl• court, at the suit of Kr. Wasters:or, one of the
churchwardens of fit. Paul's, Ysightsbridge, against the
Hon. sod Bey. Hebert Liddell, perpetual estate, and James
Thomas Horne, the other churchwarden, sad the parish-
ioners and iababitaats of the said district, to show cense
why a Resew should not be grated to Mr. Waterton to
remove the high altar, and cloths now seed for sneering
the same, together with the wooden cram elevated
thereon end fixed thereto, as well es the eaa-
dlesticks thereon, together with the ertidentia, preparatory
altar or eradiates table which ate now used is the said
ad the
ad:esasse
dumb, and which are ofisualve to the INV, of
a large portion of the phabiteats
said distriet who are thereby peel by esseilaatiou.
rootteek Iron unending&rise service at
him sad elisseli, or
y
" show owe, if they or ait et them Issas say,
why assume should act be easevei, awl beat
wattalmaiag
instead a onset table far the aLiJ
of Os Levee
Sapper mad Re Osemessiess mad • tin A=
thereto. as by the lase sod wise of
Chore!' is preeeribed. Mr. Watson INA nada as W-
eevil ia osmoses of tte risottos, is stile he UMW
that la has W a dece.:3 ecalgainisa..._
..ugale.g.haa_
altar of wood was set up is ITZ. "'''..........."—-,,p
which altar was eessetaatly covered with a .0"'""'"'" "-
Sloths decorated in a lancifut ay kid" and
that a wooden eras two feet high, ,t4olisi-ta
breadis, wile axed thereto, aad ....=.. .in .
wales ages imam is elresuateriaes, ma when sow ass

yeti le WO; wets pissed 'theme. TM weeleo2inaTs;:-
timid Yr andavis alleged she isms et IPA ustass. fs`iiss
slimed *et hew Cardwell's Desestaiiii us& sp.
mewl Isseesstioes woes Weed by W led sisaidispi
Is SW lir of Edward VI., Um, est ilbeleseb. fee In
quiries se be {..Heated es Si w)sfbsity. and
is level& serseessials bad 'um ississsi, sod
sebedised tam mew WWI smiesii tag seignists
aineDia•ZiardZrea it Yr. Waterton.
w
TM mere 'fake thee essesiier tN selfeet.

lIIVA O. LIDO'S& MID 0111111111.
This eras ay. applioatioa nada as behalf of Mr. Bosh of a
altars doll AS to dm lasi, with reaped to the Char* of St.
Mambas.
Tin 00 art would panes th• sons inns is Oda aa la the
forvaor seal.

OOURT OF
soma

r.-JAN. 17.

-
Maude. the the eartileate is the ease of H. J.
of Crown-mart, Murillo,
I wo. et a fee Mies, whim the bankrupt mes sp-
ying* ste the geowed thee he had brought himself mile the
eselions et Me set by ebtakideg credit on a !MOW
eieestetiw es le the enienge of hignspital.
Mhaemenenen pee judgment. He said the banking..
=Mtliar N. 'eyebath bed bees treated by the ad
, enthgness se tee cry seek eases were; be WI
node no resesek, bat had klit the saes is the
heeds of the ezet,rni=by *rewires wholly Mee
the tout the which rested spin the
assignees. But the bankrupt's applicatioa had Woe
opposed by Measn. Brooke sod ilemaison. enable% elms
*captained that the beakeept bed seminal& a debt with
'them by moans of a false preens*. Oa this point ocestra-
dietary evidence was gives by Mr. Doerieston, the rope,-
mutton of Mesas. Breaks awl Retakes. and the bank-
rupt; ea& this entailed on the gout the disagreeable duty
of determining which of the yard a had spoken untruly ;
for both amounts could sot be true. Another question
was, whether the evidence was sufileient to bring the bank-
rupt within the very penal provisions of this act, which
involved twelve months imprisonment, unless the period
were shortened by order of the court. No bankrupt ought
to be subject to so highly penal a provision, except upon the
clearest proof thathe had been guilty of the offences charged.
The court would first look at the general features of the case.
These were by no means favourable. This wayone of the very
numerous cases where a party began to trade, at no very
distant period, without any available capital, and contrived
to obtain credit (such were now the facilities for doing so)
to a very considerable amount, 1,7001. or 1,8001. His pro-
fits had been very small compared with his enpensee—not
us-third of the latter. He had gone forward as long as he
could, collecting all the debts he could get in, and making
bad ones with very little caution ; and when he came to that
court the book debts owing to him were jut 235. 3d. The
result was there would not be a farthing for any of the
creditors. He sew asked for what was called " • certificate
of conformity," bet which, if properly interpreted in the
language of commonsense, meant an acquittance in full
fur every by-gone; liability, and a sort of letter
of license to go and practise similar conduct else•
where, if he could find people credulous enough to trust him.
And this was not at all unlikely to happen; for credit was
not only given, but almost forced upon people, no matter
whether they had failed before, or what bad been their
previous conduct, so long as they would take goods, and the
salesman could get rid of them, without considering whether
ever they were to be paid for or nut. There was but one
favourable feature in the case—the bankrupt's books were
for the most part regularly kept. On the charge of fraud,
as alleged by the eppoeing creditors, the question arose
whether the debt had been fraudulently costumed; for, as
had been properly contended by Mr. Liskiater, the fraud
mast be in the contract. It was not enough that, having
obtained the goods, he was afterwards rendered unable to
pay for them, or that even, had his accounts been
wound up on the instant, he was unable to defray
the debt. Had Mr. Dorrington's account been eaten-
tradicted, the court must have come to the conclusion
that the contract was fraudulently made ; but there was an
important fact, admitted on both sides, that Dorrinson
pretsed and urged the bankrupt to take the goods. Un-
doubtedly, he was entitled to do to, if the npresentatioa
had been previously made that the bankrupt had his
capital of 1,0001. undiminished; bat there was considerable
doubt about that. It was asserted by Dorrington and
denied by the bankrupt; they also differed as to the num-
ber of interviews • and the bankrupt denied altogether that
he had said anything about 1,0001. Where the evidence
was so confiicting,j esti.' demanded that the doubt should
be given in favour of the person scouted rather than that •
penalty so extreme should be unjustly inflicted. What led
the court very much to this conclusion was the fact that
the order had been pressed for. Creditors ought to be
told that it was better to hold their hand in
this respect ; if they would press goods upon parties without
Isufficient inquiry as to whether they were entitled to credit,
they mast take the consequences; and they had no right to
some and complain under such circumstances. If, by means
of a clearly false representation, • trader instilled into the
creditor's mind such au opinion of his solvency that he
thought it would be a !pod thing to get his custom, the
court did not say that he ought not to ask for it But here
the evidence left very considerable doubt ; and the court
therefore came to the conclusion that the bankrupt was net
labia the penal sections of the act. If he had sworn
Ihisely, the court regretted It, and he might rely upon it
the esmeetpienos to himself would be far more serious than
Vemoilalpgia mint which the court could inflict. Having
to the general features of the case, the court would
stipend the certificate for six months from the present
time; when granted, it would be of the third clue. Mean-
time, u the bankrupt was absolved from the charges under
the penal sections, protection would be granted fa three
months, renewable at the end of that time unless due cause
were shows to the contrary.
IWO= us. 00111111•101r12 FOXIIIANOCT.
IN as DAVID LZOPOLD LIMA.

This wail the first meeting, for proof of debts and ehoien
of assignees, in the bankruptcy of David Leopold Lewis,
described as • merchant, of Batten...hall-court, Cannon-
street, but whose principal dealings had imam a discounter
of bill,.
Mr. Chidley tendered a proof for 2,5001. on behalf of Mr.
Mould, on asomint of the bankrupt's dishonoured drafts
upon Mr. Hudson, M.P. The proof was admitted.
Mr. M'Leod tendered a proof for 53,1901. on behalf of the
assignees of George Bennett. There had been a judgment
for 63,0001, but some proceedings were now pending in
Chancery. Mr. Lewis bad said that he was only the agent
of Mr. Kennett, and that though there might be a legal
claim, there was no right in equity.
Mr. Bagley, for the bankrupt, said that there was no
admiseion on his part of the debt. The bankruptcy was on
his own petition, and be was willing to abide by the decision
of the court oa this claim.
His Honour said he would admit the proof, subject to
investigation, to be turned into an absolute proof online
impeached before the first dividend.
Mr. Lunette tendered a proof for 25,5001. on account of
the bankrupt's drafts on Mr. Hudson, M.P. Mr. Lunette
was sworn, and stated that he was • sharebroker, and had
been so for seven years. He had had many transactions
with Mr. Mackenzie in respect to bills and Westminster
Improvement Bonds. Mr. Lewis's name was on some of
the bills. The money was lent to Mr. Mackenzie on Lewis's
bills. He had an account with the London sad County
Bank. He made the advances in the shape of short bills.
He bad not these short bills merely as the agent of Mac-
kenzie, to get them discounted. No other person was in-
terested in the bills. They were not lent to him for the
purpose of enabling him to make a proof against the estate.
The bills might or might not have been in his pomade's a
week ago.
The Commissioner—Might or might not is no answer.
Were they ?
Witasse—They were.
After some farther questions,
His Honour said that sufficient had been shown to in-
duce him not to admit the proof until after the choice of

assignees.
Mr. Chidley said there had been transactions to the
amount of thousands, he might say hundreds of thousands,
between the bankrupt and Mr. Mackenzie. The latter did
not wish to come forward to prove, as this would lead to a
pudic investigation. B. was connected with the bank-
rupt, sad the object was to get the choice into his own
hands. . .

Some ether proofs were tendered end disposed of in a
similar way.
Mr. Henry Taylor, of South-street, Finsbury, a creditor
for 5,0001., was then appointed trade assignee, and Mr.
Chidley the solicitor M the case.
The debts proved during the day amounted to about
9,3001.4 the Meal liabilities are said to exceed 160,000*.