The Express.
London, England, 1853-02-21 00:00:00

cau.cd a oontsaioe on her arm She resonetntatl, end ha
sa i he wee coily obeying los master's orders. Mrs. Ilake•iii
',eat •iti c INarlais that her husl•ind bad refused tosupply
her w.tb mon. y or with neee.earges. eaceet tern pair. of
~SG .to. kit Re ; and that aa the dinintroinn had no blinds ,
it wag indecent for her t 4 I..sc w drew there ; that Le era.
in the receipt if 2,01101 a y.ar and that with the vole ea-
eeption of sleeping and Lrenkfas.iog in Powys-plane, he
lived at the house in Herringtuu-s.,uarr, where he kept his
wardrobe. He (Dr. Pliillingire) contended, therefore, that
Mr. Ilakewill had not obeyed the d. tree of the court, bat
had only attempted a colourable T 3,•.,, of It, in ewer to
get dismissed, alter which he had avowed his intention of
residing altogether in Harrington-square.
Dr. Jewett ridicti;ed Mr.. llaktuill's affidavit. She had
W. right to complain of the indecency of during in the
di:rung-room without blinds to the windows, when eh* had
vo.untarily selected that room; and it was absurd t i sure
pm. that the court emelt reiptlote the number of her pet-
ticoats nr the (totality of her stockings. (Laughter.)
Dr. Lushington wild he had so alternative on the former
recardos but to pronounce Mr. Ilakewill in contempt, hut
if ha. prewat et iietrent had been then befog. him lie (Dr.
Lushington; shruld not have taken that coarse without fur-
ther inquiry. Ile .boulil now dire.. t the caw to stand
r.ver till the first @vision of neat term, on which occasion
Mr. Haliewiii would be &aniseed as a, stetter of course,
tiniest Mrs. litkewill prayed to be heard against it by
act on petition. If Mrs. Itakewill appeared in that mea-
ner, and failed to show that b..r husband had not taken
L., home sod tr. a-eil her w.th n joFzl kindness he would
still he dismissed; hut if she .abetantilted her complaint,
her hustle:l4 would be again FTOllOCnCed in contempt for
disobeying the moan of the court.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-B•TCRDAT.
_ tbaugianomn TANI,

lx RR DIIMP:1111:147:7,11101; A;.:1; lii-11-8/Aftrii or

LINIITATIONS.

A question had been raised in this CLIP 011 a proof ten-
dered by the mother of the bankrupt, on which his Honour
ease the follow iiig judgment
lei. was on eppsication by Mrs. Brewer, the mother of
the bankrupt, to prove for principal and interest on two
promissory net a, one for 2001., dated March, 1810, and the
other for 40W., dated January, 1841, and fur interest on
each at 3} per nat. It is clear that the notes ere genuiae,
and that intermt was reckoned up to Christmas, 1843, and
settled on the Ilth April, 1814. From that time, however,
till the bankruptcy is this yeer, no notice appears to have
been lakes of the princisal or interest on eh. nue., nee
does it Oran, sp...r that any sum was ever paid by the
bankrupt expressly for inertial on the notes, or either of
them; sad under such circumstances it is clear the stain's,
of limitations would run in favour of the bankrupt's cre-
ditors, and p proof under the notes. But it ap-
pears that the bankrupt was also tenant under his mother
of SOMMI premises at 331. a year; sal in respect of this and
mother subject matter it is stated that there was an account
between them, and that he paid her at different times small
sums of money, the whole, however, not amountia,/ to any-
thing like the amount due for rent; sad under these ar•
camitantie it was urged before me, that as it is a prineiple
of law, that when a debtor pays mosey without limeade ap•
propriatiou at the time, the creditor may at any subsequent
time appropriate such payment to any of several debts due
to him, the mother might in this case appropriate any of
the same so paid to her as part payment of the principal or
interest en the Dow, and thus revive the notes Is &Mose
of the statute of limitations. I cannot
me that its Ab sieges in this ar-
gument ; for it seems to et would aned
be in every ease, emu whem
wane old de lad been paid, bat
the *M em* Of payment lest, if there happened to be
an Mama! Weems the parties am to sense modern dealings
entirely distinct from the principal and interest on the old
end stale demand, the creditor might put his debtor
on proof of the discharge of the old demand,
although a receipt in full may have been given
years before, end either lost or destroyed as useless.
This would prut.eally supersede the Statute of Limitations,
and would be a most dangerous doctrine. I cannot ac-
quince in it, nor do I think that any of the modern cues
sanction it. My opinion is, that to exempt a stale demand
from the effect of the Statute of Limitations, them must be
either a recognition of its existence by the party to be
charged in his writing, or a part payment within the six
years clearly referable to either the principal or interest on
the stale demand. There is nu pretence for saying in this
case that any onto( the modern payments is clearly refer-
able to the principal or interest on the old demand, aad
therefore the prootmsest be rejected. Thus views seem to
me to be sanctioned by what fell from the jadges in
" Cato* v. Partridge" (4 Scott's N. It., 819-1842), and
" Clarke v. Aleuader ' (8 Scott's N. 8.,147-1844).
The ease was argued by Mr. It. Ellis fur the creditor,
and Mr. Moll fa the assignees.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-841111DAT.
Ito us 011101011 IIIADEN.—PIITITION DISMISSID.—A
New POINT.
. _ _

This insolvent, whe had been a chemist and druggist,
applied under the Protect' at Aet.
Mr. Cooke opposed for Mr. Evans, &mining share agent ;
and Mr. Dowse supported.
In this case • new point arose. The insolvent, who bad
speculated in raining shares, to which cause he attributed
his insolventy. bed been sued by Mr. Evans, and at the
latter cad of November last be made an assignment for the
benefit of his creditors, to prevent the same beintswept
awe, by one creditor.
Mr. Cooke raised the question that the petition could not
be sustained, as the insolvent bed made an easigament
within'three months of its being filed, and not oa weeount of
one of the objects mentioned by the set.
The insolvent said he made the assignment to save the
p rt for all the creditors.
Mr. Cooke remarked that the insolvent could have filed
his petition, and given up his property without making an
assignment for the benefit of his creditors.
Mr. Dowse admitted that the ease did not come within
the receptions mentioned. He could not say that the as-
signment was for the support of the insolvent's family, or
in the ordinary coarse of his trade. But the court would
consider that it was done for the benefit of the creditors.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips was of opinion that the as-
signment did not come within the exceptions of the act, sad
that he was bound to dismias the petition, as it was executed
within three months of the date. The insolvent might,
however, file another if be was advised.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.