The Express.
London, England, 1851-01-15 00:00:00

- - - -
Mr. Green—We hare only kW. in ksnd, and the tielita
are 80,0001.
The Comminioner-14 hat family has Mr. Byrne ?
Mr. Linklater—lle has a wile end two children.
Mr. Gr. Ca—And a mrtber worth 50,0(.01.
Mr. Linklater—The bankrupt is very sanguine that the
creditors will be paid 20s. in the pound.
Mr. Green—Tee creditors hate no such hope; but I do
not object to an allowance 0131. a week.
This was accepted, and the allowance was ordered

accordingly.
Mr. Tucker tendered • proof for 701., on behalf of Mr.
Srlwccd, the surgeon of ono of the emigrant vessels. The
claim originated in an alleged breach of contract to supply
due accommodation, Ott , to emigrants on their voyage.
The bankrupt stated that on bracing Mr. St'wood's 1
complaint he bad undertaken that, if proper affidavits were
forwarded to him, establishing the neglect to provide doe
accommodation, the claim enould be paid. The affidavits
forwarded, however, were only those of a steerage passenger,
• yuth of 17, and that of another party who resided in
Mr. fielwood's immediate locality. Its affidavit of at least
one independent cabin passenger (plight to have been
forwarded.
The proof was postponed.
Mr. Tucks! applied that a sum of 201., which the bank-
rupt had receiv.d on account of • new church at I? Urban,
might be repaid to the committee. He had undentood
arm the bankrupt that the money hal been earmarked.
Mr. eireet.—Tnere was not so much u 201. in hand at the
time of the bankrup ay.
The bankrupt said be had tendered the money, but Mr.
Tucker bad declined to ttetiTt it until he could receive the
whole of the subscriptions that bad been promised, and a
portion of them had not Seen paid.
His Honour said ha could not make any et. ler in the
matter.
A proof was tendered on a bill of exchange for 601.,
drawn by John Moreland on the bankrupt, hut accepted.
It was stated that Mr. Moreland had acted as the agent of
the bankrupt.
Hirai' ssui that Moreland had drawn /corral bills aa him
as his agent, but that tbia iltntical bill had bean drawn in
his individual character.
The proof was disallowed.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—VESTERDAT.
Bloom Idm Cosontemsza Low.
Ix fez Poser. Conmemon.—Cetxmn-ret• on EXECUTOIIB
TOS CONTZeteT.
In this case an application was made on the part of the
assignee co commit two executers to prison for contempt in
not obeying an order of the court. The insolvent, who had
been a wool ampler at Bradiord, inYorkshire, was discharged
under the act is November, 1847. la September, 1849, his
Lather-in-law (Mr. Dyson Dennison), who adao lived at
Bradford, died, and by his will left Me (iesolveaVe) wife a
legacy of 5001. and a fifth sheet of his resiauery estate. The
creditors under the insolvency claimed to partici-
pate in the property left by Mr. Dennison, which
• was opposed by the executers et the will (tee
sons of Mr. Dennison) on the ground that the
pr.pery was left to the ireolvent's wife, the daughter of the
testator, and not to him. The rule was argued in April,
and Mr. Commissioner Law decided that the property parsed
to the insolvent, and made an order on the executors to pay
2001. into court for the creditors in the schedule. The
executors had refused to obey the order so made, and the
present application was to commit them for cettempt. The
proceeding was somewhat novel and attracted a good deal of
attention.
Mr. Cooke applied to make the rule absolute fer the com-
mitment, and Mr. Dowse showed cause. Tee learned
coutsel for the exi cuter" telied or the words of the will,
which, after mrattoning the several legatees, declared that
the money was left " for their reopecttee absolute bent lit."
Now as tne intolvent's wife was one of the parties, it AU
eabmitted that the legacy wee for her sole and separate
benefit. The legacy and fifth share of the residuary
estate would amount to 1,0001., end tho wife End
celled on the executors to mke • set-le meat of
the mosey on her. The opinion of Mr. James Russell,
Q C., of the Chancery bar, had been taken, and he was at
opinion that the creditors under the insolvency could not
:Mira the legacy under the 89th section of the 1 & 2 Vie.,
chap. 110, and that the Coen of Chancery would interfere
for the benefit of the wile. It was said that the parties
were not anxious to go into chancery, and if the executors
could ba legally exonerated they would pay the money
according to the order of the court.
Mr. Cooks cited various eases to show that according to
the woods of the will, the property did not abeolutely
pats to the wife. A gilt in law as in equity to a wife, was
a gift to the husband, and unless the words of a will were
uaequivocaley clear, the husband wontd participate. In this
case, the words " their rc reties benefit" showed that the
husbeed was entitled to the property, and therefore he called
upon the court to make the rule absolute for the commit-
ment of the executors for not obeying the order for the
payment et 1001. into court.
Mr. Commissioner Law gave judges's'. He bad cons!.
dered the caution on the Conner neleision, whether the
words of the will gave the property absolutely to the wife,
ana lie then expreesed himself that they did not, and he had
beard nothime to induce him to alter his (Tinier. The
application was on the par. if credit in to pat-ideate in
property left by the insolirent's father in-law, eel he bad
ordered 2001. to be paid into COWL Teo property was not
left to toe sole and reperato use of the wife. The
executors had thought proper not to obey the order he bad
made, and therefore the present rule for their commitment
to prison for contempt would he made absolute. As far as
he was co:maned no &hey would take place in enforcing
the order for their eommitment. The rule fur the corn•
witted of the executors (or contempt was accordingly made
absolute. _ _