The Express.
London, England, 1863-01-14 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Mtkinp in Banco in Hilary Term.—(Before Lord Chief
BUM Pollock and Barons Martin, Channell, and WOO.)
Lewis, 'Ansiosren,
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., said that in this cams, which was
tried before the Lord Chief Baron, at Guildhall, and in
wind
by direction of the learned judge, • verdict was
en-
tered the plaintiff for 1561. its. sd, be had to move, in
=of leave reserved, to enter a verdict for the de-
r a nonsuit. The plaintiff was assignee of Clarke,
• bankrupt, and the defendant an auctioneer in Holborn.
Clarke and another person were in partnership se packing'
case makers. In June last Clarke became a bankrupt, sad
by the direction of his partner, who was solvent, the de-
fendant sold the goods which were the subject of this
action, which was in trover. The question was whether the
solvent partner was not • tenant in common, and could not
dispose of the common property. The learned counsel said
this point bad been decided in the case of "Morgan v.
Marquis," in which the facts were substantially the same.
It was there held that the solvent partner had • right to
deal with the property as his own.
The oourt granted a rule nisi.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
POOL V. PITT.
This ease, which relates to a Gloucestershire will, was
celled on, but it appesred that, is emsequeoce of a raft-
undseetanding on the part of the local registrar, the dom.
meat wee not forthcoming in court. The cause was there-
fore directed to stand over.
CONLIITZ AND ORMOND V. CROSS.
This was a demurrer to a plea which alleged that the tes-
tator was not aware of the contents al the will.
Dr. Warobey supported the pies.
Sir C. Cremwell (without oalhag on Dr. @pinks to argue
the demurrer) held that the plea was bad ; but he reserved
the question of costa.
EARFULS (BY m GUARDIAN) V. GRIT IT IMO&
This wan a simple suit of administratioe. The plaintiff,
!Lout only twenty years of age, was the widow of the de-
Yr. John Hansen, late of Clifton; and the defendant
was the daughter of lfr. Harrier by a former wife. The
11 is stated to be worth about 6,000/.
property is
()outmoded that the right of the widow in awe
of iatutacy was indefeasible, in the absence of any strong
reason for setting her claim aside. The learned doctor also
urged the court to condemn the defendants in the costa, on
account of a plea which they had put upon the record in-
sinuating ante-nuptial incontinence between the plaintiff
' and her haahand--an insinuation which the plaintiff
' utterly denied on her oath.
Dr. Deane (with whom was Dr. Swabey) contended that
athtiftboulority al interests was with the children, which I
not a reason simpliciter for setting aside the
widow, was a circumstance which ought to be
eoneidered. Bat the great thing to be considered
was the nature of the estate. In this instance the
demand was an ironmaster, • brickmaker, and a mat-
master ; and his estate, if not insolvent, was one that would
become so if not very carefully administered. Coder the
circumstances, be (the leading counsel) urged that the
phintlif and her father, whom she bad appointed her guar-
would be inexpedient persons ea whom to confer the
management of the property.
The Court reserved its judgment.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Orimmissiooer Goulburn.)
II ILI WITVINS. —JOIXIIIIOI7.
The bankrupt, an auctioneer, of Clapham-commoe, vs.cantly applied for his order of diecharge,; supported by Mr.
&wood and opposed by Mr. R. Griffith,, on the ground
that the bankrupt had appropriated to his owe use some
money which had come into his hands as the proceeds of
• Isle of some property at Kilburn.
His Honour now gave judgment: He said there could be
no doubt that the bankrupt had hew guilty of a very gross
trend, and one which the court would he dilliZONI to
punih ; but unfortunately the use did not come
within the 159th section ; for it could not be held
that this was a contracting of debts without ressoitabls or
probable ground or expectation of being able to pay the
same. It was, in fact, • breach of trust, for which the man
owAt to be punished ; but the court had not power to
dolt. This was one of the many cases that occurred in
which the new act left fraudulent debtors ray much at
liberty to escape the consequence of their fraud. The other
objection urged against the bankrupt, though • much
more venial offence, bad been artabliabed ; the bankrupt's
expenditure, upwards of 40001. a year, had been uojusti-
Belly extravagant He alleged that he had been obliged
to keep up • certain. position ; but the court wholly dissented
from this proposition. Creditors were often deluded by
such conduct on the part of traders, and were thus induced
to give credit where they would not otherwise have gives
R. On this ground the order of discharge would be suspended
for three months.
Mr. &mood asked for protection.
His Honour doubted whether protection ought to be
given in such • case, but would take a few days to consider
the matter.

IN RZ LYON BANUBL.
The bankrupt was a jeweller, of Bury-street, st. Mary-
sis. Debts, ; no smote • no books or papers It was
stated that this wax the fourth bankruptcy ; the certificate
hu only been recently granted under the third bankruptcy.
Mr. Goodday, for the official 'mignon, offered no oppo-
sition.

The bankrupt addressed the court at length on hie owe
behalf, • that he had been untatunate in all his tranee-
actions,and that every one struck at a man who was down.
(A laugh.) He had been three years in prison, and had only
obtained his Mean on a medical certificate.' He trusted
that his Himour would live many yearn_ (a laugh)—and
that he should not again have to appear before bun.
His Hon,,ur said the bankrupt had contracted • great
amount of debt without the lean releasable or probable
pound of bring able to pay. The order of diacbuge would
be impended for 12 months, with protection (renewable)
for three months.

IN RE C. W. ROBINS.
The bankrupt was a merchant of Leadenhalletreet. His
debts were 3,5831. of which EMI. were unsecured. There
werellabilities on accommodation bills and guarantees of
1,340 t. ; assets, 1831., besides • probable surplus from the
Prria.hllldwragence aslyeawfhoil'han adcons.joted teantshri which
ceders&

IN RE HAWKIN
The bankrupt, a superintendent ofS. the Lambeth Water-
-10114 ; no sas
erashs ComPuets. y, applied for his order of discharge Debt+,
Mr. Aldridge opposed. The bankrupt, it appeared, had
sold his furniture to his father for 151. He applied part of the
money fn bringing an action against Mr. Nixon, in which he
was nonanited. Mr. Nixon's costs were taxed at about 451.,
of which he had paid uo part. He had mooed fora new •
trial, bat the application had been refused.
Mr. B. Griffiths appeared for the bankrupt.
His Honour granted the discharge.
rN RE TOWER&
The bankrupt wee a publican, of the /3orough. This wu
the adjourned examination sitting.
Debts, 88.11. ; assets returned at 8001.
Kr. E. Reed oppued. The assignee had taken possession the bankrupt's hoars, paying out an execution and 751.
had been realised from it. AA the bankrupt had returned
his stock at lOW, the agave* wished for further inquiry.
The act of bankruptcy in this case was aa escape from the
sheriff; the bankrupt had afterwards abscondd, but had
since returned.
The bankrupt said he bad been very unfortunate in the
house he had taken. His father wee the leases of one of
the metropolitan theatre., and be had geatwelly been em-
*fed under him.
An adjournment was ordered.

IN Pi ALLEN.
The bankrupt was a coca merchant, of Poplar, unsecured
debt' 2,263/. ; assets, 1201. This was the sitting for exeunt-
natal and discharge.
Mr. T. Cos appeared for the assignees, and Mr. Sergood
for the bankrupt.
Tile bankrupt, being examined, said he attributed his
Ware to bad book-keeping, but he hoped it would be a
wanting to him.
The Oonantiesionsr—A ad to your creditors, too, I hops.