The Express.
London, England, 1847-01-28 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.

BANKES v. NERT;;;;:JT.1111;171CTION or COURTS or
Ragrears.—Mr. Hoggins showed cause against a rule ob-
tained on a former day, calling on the plaintiff to show cause
why there should not be a new trial, and why ■ suggestion
should not be entered upon the roll, by which the plaintiff
would be deprived of coats, under 46 Geo. 111., c. 88, s. 14,
which enacts that in actions for debts under 61., where the
defendant is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Requests,
no costs shall be allowed. The action was brought to recover
4181. for goods sold. The grounds for a new trial were, that
the case was called on in the Sheriffs' Court as an undefended
cause, at the sitting of the court at ten o'clock, being No. 15
on the list, and the defendant arriving at the court at live
minutes after ten, fur the purpose of defending the action.—
Mr. Noggins contended that the defendant having admitted
the delivery of the goods and the correctness of the amount to
the plaintiff's solicitor, the rause was in fact undefended, and
that the under-sheriff only followed the usual custom of the
court, in taking undefended cases at the earliest' hour.
With regard to the entering of a suggestion on the roll to
deprive the plaintiff of costs, it was urged that the jurisdic-
tion of the Court of Requests of Brixton„in which the defend-
, ant lived when the action was brought, should have been
pleaded. Besides which the goods were delivered at a time
when the defendant was living in the jurisdiction of the
Westminster Court of Requests.
Mr.' Justice Erie having intimated an opinion that there
should be no rule for a new trial, as it was clear a judge had
power to dispose of causes in such order as he thought most
convenient to the suitors, and that, taking such causes as
were undefended first was a proper course—Mr. Newton, in
support of the second part of the rule, urged that the debt
should have been recovered in the Court of Requests for
Brixton, where the defendant lived at the time of the
bringing of the action, and that the goods being delivered
while the defendant was in the jurisdiction of the West.
minster Court of Requests made no difference, as the sub-
sequent removal into the other jurisdiction subjected the
defendant to the liabilities arising in that jurisdiction, and,
therefore, he was entitled to its immunities.—Mr. Justice Erle
said he would considerhisjudgment.—Yesterday Mr. Justice
Erle delivered judgment. There would be no new trial, as he
was of opinion that the plaintiff's attorney having stated
that this was an undefended cause (and he had good reason
for doing so), the case was taken in the usual course pursued
in the Sheriff's Court, and was tried on the principle which
he wished to be generally understood, that it is the duty
of a iudge to take causes in such order as was moat condu-
cive to the convenience of the suitors, and the proper disposi-
tion of the public time. With regard to the other point, the
entering a suggestion on the roll to deprive the plaintiff of
costs, the defendant /dated that he was residing in the jurisdic-
tion of the Brixton Court of Requests when the writ was served
on him, and that the debt was under 51.; so that he
came within the provisions of the statute. But it appeared
that when the goods were ordered the plaintiff inquired
where the defendant lived, and it was stated that he resided
in Manchester-buildings, and the goods were delivered there,
nor was any intimation given of his having any other resi-
dence, and he was described as of that place in the writ. Al-
though it was shown that the place where the goods were
delivered was only one of his residences, yet it was a con-
tinuing residence until the time of the service of the writ.
After having consulted the ether judges, he VIM of opinion
that the rule should be discharged. It would be an enor-
mous injustice if a person residing inWestrainster, and carry-
ing on litigation as if he lived there, were to
go to an unknown residence out of that juris-
diction and avail hitnself of the immunities of another.
The statute gave a right of summons against debtors in the
half-hundred of Brixton, who, in the first place, "inhabited
resided, and lodged;" in the next, against " those who kept
shops, sheds, and stalls ;" and lastly, " against those who
worked for their livelihood." It therefore contemplated not
merely residence in its widest sense, but " inhabiting and
, lodging." The defendant only stated in his affidavit that he
resided there, when he had also held out that he lived in

Manchester-buildings, and, is fact, did live there. He did
not, therefore, come within the rale intended by the act.—
Rale discharged on both pinta.
THE QUEEN V. NEWPORT.—THE CLAVERINO MURDER.
—CEurtostasti.—Mr. Hawkins moved for a certiorari to
bring up the depositions against thin prisoner, who had been '
committed by the magistrates of Essex on suspicion of incit-
ing one Chesham to the murder of Solomon Taylor. The
only reason for it was, that he vas intimate with Chesham;
and five or six years ago, when the mother of the child mur-
dered was pregnant with it, he had been heard to say to
Chesham he had better get rid of it.—Writ granted, the
do lions to be returned at chambers.
MICAH V. PACILWOOD.—AN ATTORNEY WHO Acre AS
ADVOCATE CANNOT BE ALSO A WITNESS IN THE CASE.—
Mr. Gray showed cause against a rule obtained by Mr.
Wiles for a new trial on the ground that the attorney who
conducted the case acted as advocate, addressed the jury,
and afterwards gave evidence in the cause.
Mr. Justice Erie said that the question had been decided
by Lord Tenterden, in a very important political case, in
which he laid down that if a person made a speech, and also
gave evidence, it was difficult for a jury to distinguish be-
tween them.—Rule absolute.

COURT OF REVIEW.
Ex PARTE WERSTER, RE ACRAMAN—DIDOCTION FROM
PROOF OF MONEY RECEIVED TIDY ANOTHER PARTY
LIARLI.—The bankrupts were the well-known firm of Acra-
, man and Co:, at Bristol, and this was the petition of the
' trustees of the Union Bank of London, seeking to prove the
amount of two bills of exchange for 3,0001. and 3,0261. In
respect of the former bill, the drawer had paid a composi-
tion of 4s. 6d. in the pound before any claim to prove upon
it was made ' • but it was now stated that this composition
had been paid under a special arrangement, by which certain
consignments had been delivered up to the creditors of the
drawer. The bill of exchange of 3,0001., had been lost;

which occasioned the necessity of an application to the court,
the commissioner having admitted n claim for the amount, lest
the sum received front the drawer by way of composition.
Mr. Russell and Mr. Bagabawe, in support of the petition,
referred to "Ex parte Shepherd," 3 Montague, Deacon,
and De Get, 204, and 1 Phillips, 66. Mr. Bacon and Mr.
Roxburghe for the assignees.
The Chief Judge held that the proof upon the bill for
3.0001. must be admitted, deducting what the commissioner
should find to have been paid, in respect et the debt, before
the claim was enforced. The question as to the other bill
was ordered to stand over till 'Tuesday next.
Ex PANTE BOBANQUIST, BE BOTD.—Moirroxoe or Po-
LICY ON A Same, WHIRR THU MOITOAOI OP A SHIP IT-
sect, IS INVALID PON WANT OF REGISTRY.—CONTRACT
ny P BINDING Ftaw.—This was the petition of the
Southwark branch of the London and Westminster Bank, to
have effect given to a mortgage made by one of the bank-
rupts, of certain ships, and the poliein of assurance upon
them, to secure the payment of a bill of exchange of
2,5001., discounted by the petitioners. The validity of
the security was disputed on the ground that it was
purported to be created by a deed of assignment
of partnership property by one partner alone, it being
objected that one partner could not bind the firm by deed.
Another objection was, that, as to several of the ships
expressed to be assigned, the security had not been regis-
tered in compiance with the Ship-Registry Acts, and was
consequently wholly void. The only two questions argued
w. re as to the' power of a partner to bind the firm, and as
to the validity of the security with regard to certain policies
of asnuranee on one of the chips which had been lost at
see; it being admitted that as to the ship itself the security
would have been void for want of registration. It appeared
that before the deed was executed there had been an agree-
ment to give the security, and a draft prepared and agreed
upon. As to the latter question, it was admitted, when the
&reunion had proceeded to some length, that the ship had
been lest before the execution of the security. Mr. Russell
and Mr. Hall supported the petition ; Mr. Lewis opposed it;
and Mr. C. P. Cooper and Mr. Daniell, appeared for parties
ism rested.

The Chief Judge said, the proposition that a partner
could not, without express authorii, bind the firm by deed,
meant only that he could not make the deed the deed of
his partner. Here, there was a contract, previously to the
execution of the deed, to give • security upon the partner-
ship property for a partnership debt,—• contract which, his
Honour thought, it was within the general plear of a
partner to enter into on behalf of the firm. Nor did his
Honour think, as had been contended, that the contract was
merged in, or displaced by, the subsequent execution of the
deed, as far as this argument was concerned. As to the
policies on the ship which had been lost, the monies secured
by them had become a debt before the execution of the se-
curity. An assignment of that debt was not affected by the
Ship-registry Acts. As to these monies, therefore, and as to
a ship called the Arab, in respect of which the requisitions
of the act had been complied with, the security was good.
As to other matters, the petition was ordered to stand over
till Tuesday, to be argued generally on the question of rsgistry.
RE LEEDS AND WEST RIDING BANKING COMPANY.—
FIAT AGAINST A. PUBLIC COMPANT.—This was a petition
to annul a fiat which had been issued against the above
company, under the new Act 7 and 8 Vict., c. 111.—Mr.
Swanston and Mr. Glasse, who appeared in support of the
petition, said, arrangements had been made with creditors
to the amount of 130,0001., and no one was now desirous of
proceeding with the fiat. It was arranged that the petition
should stand over for three weeks, in which time, it was
stated, there was every probability of the whole matter
being arranged. The advertisemeut was ordered to be
staved in the mean time.
RK PARTE COMBER, RR Cox.—RIGHT or ASSIGNEES or
RETIRED COMMISSIONER OF BANKRUPTS TO HIS CO3IPIIN.
RATION SALARY.—The bankrupt was a solicitor and a com-
missioner of bankrupts, at Daventry, under the old bank-
' rupt law. One of the petitioners had been his partner, with
an agreement for an equal participation in the emoluments
of the coamissionership. They afterwards dissolved part-
nership, and by the dissolution deed the bankrupt cove-
nanted to pay half the annual compensation allowance
to which he might become entitled on the change
of the bankrupt law, to the outgoing partner. By
a treasury minute, under the compensation clauses of the
5 and 6 Vic., c. 122, this compensation was fixed at 35:.
per annum. Afterwards the fiat issued, and this was the
petition of the bankrupt's late partner and the official as-
signee fir sn order, directing the Accountant-General in
Bankruptcy to pay the compensation to the petitioners in
equal shares. Mr. Glasse appeared in support of the petition,
bu, the Chief Judge required the production of the order of
the Lord Chancellor for payment of t comper.sation, and
the case stood over for that purpose.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. Cmaminsioner lonhlanque.
. . .

Tux " IRON Timits."—The bankrupts-SI-Leh, Holt, and
Neale, were the proprietors of the defunct Iron Times news-
psper, and this day Smith applied for his certificate, which
was granted without any oppo•i•ion.
Beane Mr. Curnrni.vioner Evan..

DELAY IN SUIIIIENI)Ek.—This day Mr. Lawrence applied
to the court to grant further time for the bankrupt, Donald
Maclean, M.P., to surrender. The bankrupt had sent certain
books from abroad, but, as yet, they had not reached the
court, and notice of the present application had been given
to the assignees and a creditor who had some claim to urge.
—A creditor said that this was the third or fourth applica-
tion made by the bankrupt to delay the period for surrender,
on the grounds of indisposition ; and there was nothing to
show but a physician's certificate. There ought to be an
affidavit. Mr. Maclean might keep away for ever. He was
absent under very suspiciouscircum-tances. As soon as the fiat
had been issued he had gone off to Italy, remaining there
ever since. Surely the British consul there might send over
an attestation as to the health of Mr. Maclean.—Mr. Com-
missioner Evans could make no such order ; because nu
the neat occasion, when be would require affidavits as to
Mr. Maclean's health, he might be upon his death-bed.—
The creditor observed that there was only 1001. in the official
assignees' hands, and debts to the amount of 70,0001. had
been already proved.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
Before the Chief Commisearmer and Commissioner Phillip,
Picomrurrs BCIIIIDr:Ln.—W. Oon.lite, the insolvent,
had appeared before the Bankruptcy Court as an insolvent,
when he was ordered by the commissioner to pay twenty
per cent. annually for the benefit of his creditors ; on which
condition his final order was granted him. On the expiration
of his protection order, he wan arrested by a creditor, whose
name was not inserted in the schedule filed in Bankruptcy.
The insolvent now applied to this court to be liberated from
all his liabilities, thus setting aside the judgment of the
court in Basinghall•street. The warned
observed that they could not hear the insolvent until he
should apply to the Bankruptcy Court. They could not
constitute themselves a court of appeal from the other court ;
and, after expressing a wish that the law could be admi•
nistered under one system, adjourned the case for the pur-
pose of giving the insolvent an opportunity of making an
application to the Court of Bankruptcy.

SECONDARIES COURT.
Before Mr. geo.ondary Potter.
IMPORTANT DECISION.—SeaI, the plaintiff in this ac-
tion, is one of the officers to the Merit!' of Surrey, and he
'ought to recover from the defendant (Hudaaw), an attor-
ney, the fees for the execution of a writ upon the person
and goods of the defendant in an action in the Court of
Queen'. Bench, in which the present defendant was the
plaintiff's attorney. For the plaintiff, several sheriffs' officers
proved the execution of the writ, which was endorsed by the
defendant. When called upon for fees, defendant refused to
pay more than one guinea, and after four years' delay the
present action was brought to recover.—The defendant, in
person, contested his liability, nod objected to the writ being
produced, as it had been held that the copy of the record of
the writ, after it was returnable, was the only legal evidence.
Be submitted to the learned Secondary that the plaintiff was
out of court, on the authority of a case, " Robins e. Briggs.'
In that ease it had been decided that an attorney who in his
professional capacity serves a subpoena no a witness, is not
responsible fur that witness's expenses ; that he was only
acting in a professional capacity ; and that he was not legally
responsible for the cost of its execution.—The court non-
suited the plaintiff, with liberty to move.