The Express.
London, England, 1863-12-08 00:00:00

Lab, imentinta.

COURT OF COMMON FL/W.—Die. 7.
Sittings IA Nisi Priam in Middlassz.—(Edon Yr. Justice
Bylaw sad a Bpsaiii Jay.)

TES LONDON

COYINLIIT (thiTED) 1. KR IL

11101112710M—DISPOTZD PAYKIINT:
This was ao action to reamer 901., a sum which it was said
had hese paid to • Mr. Page instead of to the plaintiff.
The plesetiffe ease was that some time ago they advanced
1301. to Mr. Martin Page upon tbe depositof the leans of
some property in Angel lass, Stratford, which ll'ff
wr
insured is the Alliance Isettrame Company, elnc the
defendant was chairman. Of this loan 901. remained
doe whet the premises caught Ore in June last.
On the 19th of June the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants
gam; that they had a mortgage upon the property for 901. ;
and Mitmin;
oLythat amount to be paid out of the roomy doe
on the . The reply was, that "the wail wares
adopted in oases similar to the present one is to Mitch the
amount of the claim of the mortgagees is the Lord Mayor'.
Court." As attachment was acoordingly lodged. On the
7th of July Mr. Chapman, stork to We plaintiffs, went
with Mr. Page to receive the mousy, when • clerk is the
Alliance *Moe said that they could not pay natal an order
was obtained from the Lord Mayor's Court removing the
attachment. The plaintiffs' ems was that the clerk said
that upon producing that order they (the In Com-
pany) should have the money. On the 9th of Jo/ the
plaintiffs clerk again went with Mr. Page to the AI•
Mace, and said, ' I have brought the order for the
removal of the attachment," mod it was headed in.
The Alliance Company's clerk took it, and moon
afterwards he brought ..wo cheques, which he handed to Mr.
Page. The plaintiffs' clerk asked for his cheque, when he
was told that he must look to Mr. Page. The plaintiffs never
obtained tbe 901. from Page.
Mr. Hawkins, at the conclusion of the evidence for the
plaintiffs, submitted that there was no cam for the 7; that
the defendant's clerk had sot is fact made any Rothth promise
to pay the plaintiffs the 901. as would support the count in
the declaration ; aad even if he had, that he had no author
rity to do so.
Mr. Audios Bytes said his opinion was adverse to Mr.
Hawkins, and he did not propoos to reserve that point unless
he should subsequently ass some reason to do so.
Evidence was then given that the defendant's clerk had never
promised to pay anybody but Page. The notice of removal
of the attachment stated that the attachment was thereby
made " null and of no effect;" and it was submitted that
as soon as that order was served the defendant could my
I nobody but Page. The mode of mutest was this. The
defendant's clerk stood at a spare desk with the plaintiffs'
clerk on one aide of him, and Pap upon the other ; and be
handed Page two cheques, saying, " There is one for 1001.,
and another for 1701. The plaintiffs' clerk then said to
Page, " What are you going to do shoot me " and Page
" Wait natal I get to the bankers ;" and they went
away toptheT. In a few minutes the plaintiffs' clerk ro-
tarsed said that he ought to have one of the cheques ;
but he was told that the attachment having been withdrawn,
Page was the old, pinion whom they could pay.
Justice Bytes directed the jury to say whether there
was any promise to pay the plaintiffs ; whether there use
any authority in the clerk to make such promise, and who-
Sher thaawymeot through Pep was accepted by the plain-
uns payment to them.
The fury, after ociandering the matter for an hoar, found
that the defendant's clerk had authority to make the pro-
mise, but that he did not in fact make any. As to the third
perilous, they said they could not apes.

COURT OF BANKRUPTOY.—Dec. 7.
(Before Ir. Commiedem Goalbern.)
or as BEIIINZTL—IXTRAORDINAIT MPUCATION.
In this case ao adjudication had been made ; the trader,
a timber-merchant, at Canonbury, having nude default to
• judgment debtor Rummies. Ile obtained leave to show
cause against the adjudication, and this was the clay ap-
pointed far tie purpose.
Yr. Stough sow moved that the adjudication should be
annulled, and stated that no one appeared in its support.
The Oommiesiouer—Who appeared for the creditor on the
former eceadoe!
Yr. Brough—l appeared for him before.
The Commissioner—Then you represent both parties.
Yr. Brough—No, 1 do not.
The Commissiooer—lt may be right, but it strikes me as
singular. Upon the former occasion you contended that this
man was rightly adjudicated bankrupt ; it is so stated on
the proceedings. Now you come, on the part of the
debtor, to show cause against the adjudication ; and upon
asking you who appears on the other side, you tell me
that you are no longer on the other side, that nobody ap-
pears for the creditor, and that you don't think any one
will appear. That is putting you in rather a false patties.
All I can do now is to strike the case out of the paper.
Yr. Brough—Your MOM, will simply annul the adj
cation.
The Commie loner—No, I don't think so. I think the
proper course will be to strike it out. It is a new case
ahogether, and I don't know what order I ought to make.
Yr. Brougb—lt is • new statute altogether. In this case
the creditor has been satisfied.
The Commissioner—He has used the process of the court
for the purpose of making his owe terms with the debtor •
and that is just the thing which the statute of bankruptcy
ws meant to prevent. lly °mien is that I ought not to
annul the adjudication ; that I ought to state thee@ facts
shortly upon the prooeedings, and to strike the case out of
the paper. And I think it is worth considering. whether a
counsel should be on both sides in a case like this, and thus
mist the debtor.

IN 11

The bankrupt, a retired lieutenant of the 6th Royal
Battalion, formerly residing at Manchester, and since at
Walworth, applied for his order of discharge. Debts, 1101.1•
no meta. The bankrupt, it was stated, had retired pay of
1301.. a year.
Mr. Bsrgood supported. There was no opposition, and
the order was granted.