The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-15 00:00:00

COURT OF REVIEW.

Ex PARTE NORTON,Ri AND TURLAT.—
INERACRING FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE UNDER BANK-
RUPTS' OWN FIAT.—The Chief Judge gave judgment in
this case, the facts of which have been stated in our reports
of t►e former homing, of the petitions. The question now
remaining to be decided was, whether the fiat ought to be
annulled as one ironed for fraudulent purposes, or with a

view to a new fiat being sued out, it having been stated that
the bankrupts had committed various acts of fraudulent pre-
ference, winch could not, it was contended, be impeached under
a fiat sued out by themselves without violating the principle
that an act of fraudulent preference could not be impeached
under a fiat sued out by any one who was party to His
Honour said that no cue had been made out for annulling
the flat on the ground of fraud. With respect to the acts
of fraudulent preference alleged to have been committed, the
parties with whom the transactions in question had taken
place; were not before the court, and his Honour would
only advert to them with reference to the question, which
bad been raised and argued, as to whether the alleged acts
of fraudulent preference could be impeached under the
existing flat. Now it appeared from the materials before
the court that when the acts were alleged to have been
committed, the bankrupts were traders, and owed at least
one debt, capable of supporting a fiat sued out by a creditor.
His HOllOll/, therefore, thought that any one, who was en-
titled to impeach the alleged acts of fraudulent preference,
might do so under the present fiat. But while the petition
must be dismissed as to the greater part, and nearly all, of the
relief which it sought, his Honour was disposed to give the
petitioner liberty, if he should be admitted to prove a debt
under the flat, of impeaching the transactions brought into
question, and of using the assignees' names for that purpose,
giving them proper indemnity. In the mean time, he must
pay all the costs, reserving the question of his right to have
any pert of them repaid out of the estate, if he succeeded in
establishing any case of fraudulent preference.

Ex PARTE MORRISON, HE LONDON AND BIRMINORAM
EXTENSION AND NOBTIIAMPTON,DATENTRY, LEAMING-
TON, AND WARWICK RAILWAY COMPANY.-ANNUELINO
FIAT AOAINST PUBLIC COMPANT.-Mr. Russell argued on
behalf of some of the respondents in this case,the facts of which
were stated in our paper of Tuesday last. The Chief Judge
said that two of the points raised were alone necessary to be
adverted to in disposing of this case. The first was as to
the objection raised to the competency of the petitioners to
present a petition to have the fiat annulled. That objection
proceeded on the ground that there was no evidence of the
petitioners being shareholders in the company. These gen-
tlemen were, however, admitted to be directors, or
members of the committee of management, and there
were two of the partin who bad been directed by the
commissioner to prepare the balance-sheet and submit to
examination, in the same way as bankrupts did, under ordi-
nary bankruptcies. It would manifestly be most unjust to
hold that persona, in such a situation, had not that amount
of interest which would qualify them to present a petition to
have the fiat annulled. The next question was, whether an
set of bankruptcy had been committed according to the pro-
visions of the act 7 & 8 Viet., c. 11l ; that is, whether the
Losiah&a, ny
at had, by virtue of a resolution duly passed in that
of directors duly summoned for that pur-
ples, caused to be filed the requisite declaration of insolvency.
Mit portion of the act had been relied upon, which provided
that a copy of the declaration and a certified minute of the
eleolution, with proof of the sealing or signature of the
declaration and minute, should be received as evidence of
the declaration and minute having been filed, and that as
further evidence should be required of the eat et
bankruptcy ; and it was conteaded that, as those mete.
.
nail existed here, the act of bankruptcy could not be WWI
troverted. The statute, however, did not provide that this
evidence should be conclusive, but only that it should be is.
exiled. Now it appeared thst the meeting, at which the se-
solution had passed, was attended by no more them lases
I directors, and that the company's deed only enabled a por-
tion of the committee to bind the whole and the subseribers,
in cases where the meeting was attended by five dire/Ors, at
least. It had, however, been argued that, as the three were
unanimous, the resolution would have been carried bad five
attended ; but it could not be told what effect the arguments
of the two might have bad, had they been present. His
Honour was therefore of opinion that the resolution in this
case could not be said to have been duly passed, and that the
requisites to constitute an act of bankruptcy were not ful-
filled. The consequence was that the fiat must be annulled,
at the cost of the petitioning creditors.

ADMIRALTY COURT.
THE IdEttotat.—Cottts this case the arguments
were resumed yesterday, the Trinity masters being again pre-
sent. The owners of the George claimed damages of the
Melons for injuries sustained by a collision. The George
was of LOS tons, with seven men, and the Mellona was
of 106 tons, with a crew of sic men. The collision took
place on March 5,184.. i, during a very heavy snow-storm.
The schooner proceeded against was on her way to Guernsey.
The place of collision was near the Newark Sand, the George
being close-hauled, with a good look-out. The plea is that
the Mellona was on the larboard-tack, end was hailed, but
kept on her course. The collision having taken place, several
of the crew of the George jumped on board the Melons,
but three were lost with the vessel, which sank. The rest of
the crew were taken by the Melons into Yarmouth.
The amount claimed was 6001. The Queen's Advo-
cate and Dr.'Bayford were far the owners of the George, and
submitted that if a good look-out had been kept by the
Mellona, the collision would have been avoided, and her
owners must be condemned in the amount of damage and
with costa—Dr. Addams and Dr. Robinson, for the owners
of the Mellona, submitted that the accident was inevitable.
—The learned judge went over the main facts, and as the
Trinity Masters held that the Mellona was to blame, the
court pronounced accordingly.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. Conundeioner Fandangus.
Ix RE LEMAN AND ANDREWS, MAHOGANY MERCHANTS.
—ls A BANKRUPT TAKING NO CAPITAL INTO A FIER EN-
TITLED TO A BTATUTABLE ALLOWANCE?—In this case Mr.
Lawrence, on behalf of Andrews, prayed the court that the
bankrupt might be allowed the !Rentable allowance, as the
joint estate in which he was a partner, had paid the creditors
more than 103, in the pound.—Mr. Bagley, for the assignees,
opposed : In the Bret place, that the application could not
be granted, as the bankrupt, Andrews, had not brought one
shilling of capital to the joint estate of himself and Leman,
and out of which he now claimed the statutable allowance;
and, 2nd, because it would be in direct contravention of the
Act of Parliament, which stated that inch allowance was
only to be granted when the bankrupt's estate, had paid
above 10s. in the pound. In this case it was clear, upon all
hands, that although the party whom he had joined (Mr.
Leman) was possessed of very considerable property, and out
I of which property alone the creditors had been paid above 10s.
in the pound, yet that Andrews not having one shilling of
capital could not be said to have had any estate at all in the
concern. It was true it was one of the conditions of the
partnership that each party should draw out 501. a month
for private expenditure, and that was done up to the time of
the bankruptcy, but nevertheless Andrews never had any
separate estate. Mr. Lawrence hoped that he should not
hear it contended by the learned counsel that the sum (6001.)
which Andrews claimed under the statute 5 and 6 Vic. c.
122, see. 40 and 41, was to go back to the assignees, nor that
it was at all events divisible amongst the general body of
creditors. He proceeded upon his statatable right, and the
more so, as this was not a case between the bankrupt and the
creditors, but between bankrupt and bankrupt —Mr. Com-
missioner Fonblanque : Then if it were by and bye discovered
that some of the creditors had not been paid, against what estate
are they to prove, especially if the money was paid over to
Andrews ?—Mr. Lawrence said he was not prepared to argue
that question, and was satisfied to urge that the policy of the
law was to entitle the bankrupt to a certain amount of pre-
mium for his honesty and his good faith in dealings with
the creditors, as was the effect in this case.—His Honour
deferred giving judgment, but if he did not give any opinion
by Friday nest, it might be taken that the application was