The Express.
London, England, 1863-03-24 00:00:00

lab) InteUttnct.

COURT OF BANICRUPTCL—Masca 22.
(Wore sr. COOMilltioller Goalbura.)
IX IN 11014 MOS UNDO.

The bankrupt was described as a oommiesimi agent, of
Islington. Tais was the examination sitting, being the
fourth adjoarnmeat. The debts are about 3,0001.
Kr. E. Reed, for the aasipees, stated that revisiting,
had been made to the bankrupt, but instead of answering
them, he had left the cotuitry. He bad bees bankrupt so
recently as May last, between that time and August last he
bad contracted fresh debts of MOW. or 4,0001., by purcha-
sing wines under very extraordinary circumstances, and bad
than come again to the court.
His Honour directed an adjournment sine die.
IN 8g DANIZI. 31/TCIINLI. DAVIDSON.
- -

The bankrupt was formerly a member of the firm of
Davidson end Gordon, colonial brokers, of Mincinglane.
who failed se loog ago as June, 1854, and whose certificates
were wholly refused in January, 1889. He now applied for
an order of discharge, under the 160th sec.!of the new act,
which allows bankrupts to do so after the lapse of three
years from the refusal of the aortic cafe.
His Honour, after referring to the terms of the section,
said he would begin by asking the assigoees—who had been
eo very active in this matter, and who had conducted the
case so entirely to the satisfaction of everybody concerned—
what they had toes, to this application.
Mr. Linklater, who appeared for the assiguees, stated
the circumstance' of the ease. Thehaokrupts had been con-
victed, and had suffered two years' unpiteoument with hard
labour. Mr. Beddoe, one of the assignees. had not the
slightest wish to oppose the granting of the discharge, nor
had Mr. Hesse, the other &advise ; but Mr. Wlfillan,
• creditor residing in Scotland, wished to oppose. Personally
be (Mr. Linklater) should be sorry to be the means of Mr.
Davidson's application being refused, but it was his bounden
duty to take up the opposition of Mr. M'Millan. Only
two cases of this kind bad gooe to the Court of Appeal -
three of Mathieson, of Liverpool, and Gibson, of St.
Albans ; the court, in the absence of opposition by creditors,
did not express any opinion on Gibson's case ; and in
Mathiceon's, there was no evidence of any offence under
the new act.
His Honour said that this case, if brought at all within
the new act, must be brought under the clean by which
bankrupts might be indicted ; and he could not order the
bankrupt to be indicted again for an offence for which he
had already been indicted and had suffered imprisonment.
Mr. Lioklater said the court was still at liberty to enter-
tain the charge against the bankrupt of having obtained
goods within three months of his bankruptcy, under the
false colour and pretence of carrying on business.
His Honour was of opinion that when a man had been
convicted and had suffered imprisonment the offence was
gone.
Mr. Bristowe said be appeared to oppose on behalf of the
parties who were contingently entitled to a certain fund to
!which the bankrupt would be entitled if he got his order of

disc
Mbr tgley, for the bankrupt, objected to Mr. Bristow'
being beard.
His Honour said the learned gentleman could not be
heard unless he appeared for 100111 creditor.
Mr. Bristowe contended that there was nothing is the act
of 1861 to confine opposition to creditors. Proceedings were
now going on in Chancery with reference to the fund in
question ; and it was important to show that the facts bad
been brought before his Honour previous to the order of
discharge being granted.
Ilia Honour said he was much obliged to Mr. Linklater for
the great pales he had taken in the case. A bankrupt
could only be opposed by creditors, or by the aniguees re-
presenting creditors ; and it was entirely new for person. to
seek to oppose who were not only not creditors, but did not
even seek to prove, and who merely alleged that there was
a contingent interest somewhere or somehow, which might
possibly be affected by the granting of the bankrupt's dis-
charge. The court could not Eaten to the opposition of the
learned gentleman. The court ought not to do more than
hear the opposition of the petitioning creditor. Lord J amnia
Turner had laid it down, in Mathieson's case, that the court
ought to be governed by the particular circumstances of each
case, and that the offences specified under the 256th section
of the old act were in a manner blotted out and could not
be cooeidered. The court must look at the case under the
new act, and ask itself whether, regard being had to the
offences specified in that act, this man bad nut suffered
enough already. For the offence of not surrender-
ing to his bankruptcy, the bankrupt had been in-
dicted and acquittal; therefore if the court ordered
him to be indicted again for that, be would have
nothing to do but to plead autrefois acquit. There
was soother offence of which he had certainly been guilty,
that of obtaining goods within three months of his bank-
ruptcy, under the fides colour and pretsoce of carrying on
Wide with intent to defraud his creditors. But of that be
bad been convicted, and had suffered a vlbry severe sentence
—Dot more thin he deserved—that of two years imprison-
ment with hard labour. If any principle of law was more
clear than another it was this—that where a man had been
indicted and had suffered a full punishment the offence
was blotted out, and be was absolved from its coesequeoces.
Therefore there was notbiog for the court to act upon. The
bankrupt had been without his certificate or discharge since
Jane, 18.54 ; he had been pursued through Europe as a
felon, brought back to this country, kept is primp eight
moneys before his triaLsantesoed to two years penal ser-
vitude ; and nobody could say that such • punishment
war sot quite sufficient. Mr. Linklater had expressed •
hope that tbe time might come when the bankrupts might
yet redeem their character,. The court entertained the
same hope, particularly with regard to Davidson, is whose
case there were some circumstances which did not exist in
the other, and to give him the opportunity of making
amends for the put by his conduct in the future, the court
would now award him his discharge.