The Express.
London, England, 1847-05-29 00:00:00

office had thrown no new light upon the transaction, but I
had left it precisely is the position it ems on the pre- I
ceding day. He could ware the jury, without affectatioo,
I that he had come into court that morning most earcestly
I hoping that the case might have been so cleared up as to
' have called upon him to resent, and to have enabled all the
parties, whose repulsion he was painfully obliged to assail
on the preceding day, to go cot of eosin him from the impu-
tation which he had thrown upon thin; but the additional
evidence which had been adduced was not such sa to lead
him to adopt a course which would have been more grateful
to his feelings than that which he had Men obliged to
pursue. He would grant that the charge of perjury
was of a fearful kind, and, if once made out, most dis-
astrous to the parties implicated in it as long as they lived ;
but every days experience showed that it was by no mesas
so uncommon as could be wished, and that day after day
they heard of people being indicted for perjury and con-
spiracy. The jury had nothing iu tee world to do with the
consequences of their verdict, but were bound to say •• ay"
or "no" to the issue presented for their consideration, how-
ever painful it might be to them.—Mr. James, in reply, con-
tended, on the part of the plaintiff, that it was in the highest
degree monstrous and improbable that Mr. Hill, who was a
highly respectable solicitor in Glasgow, toad Mr. Douglasand
his wife, who had been recently married, more especially the
young lady, who was just in the bloom of womanhood, could,
for the paltry sum of some 701,, be prevailed upon to commit
wilful and corrupt perjury, in stating that the deed was exe-
cuted in Glamow on the 3rd of December last. His lord
ship, in summing up the case, said, this was the trial of an
issue under the Interpleader Act, and it had arisen in
this way Mr. Bernard, the defendant, was a creditor
of Mr. Chasles M'Clary Douglas, and, being such cre-
ditor, he brought an action spinet hiin and recovered
judgment; and upon that judgment he issued the erdivary
writ of execution, and the sheriff seized the goods which were
in dispute between the parties to the issue. 'When the sh, riff
had seised the goods the plaintiff stepped in and said be had
no right to seise the goods under the execution, and that he
could only tilts such goods as belonged eo Mr. Douglas; but
these goods did not belong to Mr. Douglas, they belonged to
him, the plaintiff, to whom they had been assigned by
Douglas, by a deed executed on the 3rd of December lest,
in trust for the a pirate use of Mr. Douglas's wife. Mr.
' ltcynard, the defendant, had replant that, although the deed
' comprised the furniture in ding ate, it was fraudulent and
void, and therefore that he had a right to take the property
I in execution. It not being disputed that the deed had been
executed, the jury would have to say whether or no it wan a
void deed. If it was a void deed, why, then, of cows*, rte
property passed by end the sheriff had a right to take
the property. In that C 260 their verdict would be for the
defendant. If they thought it was a valid deed, they would
tied for the plaintiff. Whether or net it was void was a
' mixed question of law and fact. With respect te the law
' he (the learned judge) inclined etrongly to the opinion that
if they came to the (seclusion that the deed was executed
before the marriage, it was a valid deed, and could not on
any account be regarded as fraudulent against a creditor.
But in order to prevent any furth, r litigation iu the matter,
the way in whim he proposed to leave the question was this
—he proposed to tell the jury, if they came to the conclu-
sion that the deed was executed 1 efore the marriage, that
it was valid, unless they thought it was entered into
by the husband with a fraudulent intent as against his ere-
; ditors, and that the wife was a party to the fraud. By the
, law of this country, marriage was what was called " a va-
luable consideration"—that was to say, where a settlement
like thin was made iu contemplatero of marriage, or assuming
that they thought it was executed before marriage, it was
just the same thing as if the wife had purchased the goods
, which were the subject of the as-element. But certainly
, canes had arisen where people had riven a full and fair price
r for the goods, and yet, it being found that this was done for
the purpose of defrauding creditors, the transaction had
, been held to be fraudulent and void; but in cases of that
, sort, with which he fancied they a ere familiar, the ground
, on which they were held void was that the transaction was
r what was called colonrable—that was, although it seemed
, to be a deed which in point of law would convey the pro-
, party, yet the parties never intended it to operate in that
way. But such a construction cou'd not possibly arise here,
for the plain reason that Mr. Simposn, the plaintiff, had no
option as to whether this deed simile' operate or not ; the
Court of Chancery would compel him to his
perform
.rust
he could not prevent it operatiog, fir the Court of Chancery
would see that the interests, of this married woman wera
, protected. So that the usual ground on which deeds of this
, tort were held fraudulent could not possibly exist in this
cue. Neeerthelee' if the intended husband and wife were
(wand to have entered into the set:lament for the express
purpose of defrauding the heiband's creditors, the
settlement was void ; and he GI e learned judge) pro-
' posed to take the opinion of the jury whether, in
, point of fact, any fraud existed in t: a case. He would ask
them, first, was the deed executed before the marriage ?
secondly, if they found that it was, did the husband enter
into it to defraud his creditors? thirdly, was the plaintiff,
t as trustee, a party to tie fraud, if any such existed ? and,
; fourthly, was the wife a party to such fraud ? If they should
; be of opinion that the deed was executed after the marriage,
, they would have to say whether it was executr din fraud of
the husband's creditors. As to the first of these questions, it
) was certainly a case that demanded their most serious consi-
deration, because, not only might the property in dispute very
' much depend upon it, but it also involved the question
.ebe-
tLer there existed a conspiracy of the most atrocious metier
attempted to be carried into effect by the moat deliberate
perjury. The point arose in this way : The attesting wit-
nces to the deed had been called (a Mr. Hill, a writer in
, Glasgow), and he raid he saw the deed executed on the 3rdof
December, the day before the marriage. Mr. Douglas and
; his wife bad also been called, and they both swore positively
' that they executed the deed on that day. Now, if those
witnesses were perjured, they were most deliberately per-
jured, and there existed not only the determination to per-
, jure themselves on their own part, Lat it also involved Mr.
Simpson, the plaintiff, in the guilt of subornation of perjury.
It would require a very strong body of evidence to convince
the jure that thou parties, especi illy the young woman,
; would involve themselves in this suet, where the considera-
tion was no inconsiderable at in this case. People did not
Involve themselves in conspiracies and forgeries without
somethir.g like an adequate motive. (The learned judge
then recapitulated the evidence of the witnesses from the
Stamp-office, and pointed out the way in which it was recon-
cilable with that of the plaintiff's witnesses, on the supposi-
tion that the deed had been actually executed on the day of
, its date. The jury would be extremely cautious before,
; upon evidence of this kind, they came to the conclusion that
, so great a piece of enormity had been committed as was int-
. pnted on the part of the defendant t s the witnesses adduced
, to support the case of the plaintiff in this issue. If they
; were of opinion that the deal was executed before marriage
, they would then have to my whether the husband
en-
tered into it in fraud of his creditors. If they believed his
statement, it would appear he was not in emberrassedeireum-
, stances at the time of the marriage. He (the learned judge)
, believed it was not an unusual thing, owing to the uncertainty
i of mercantile pursuits, without anything being dreamt of in
, the way of fraud, to take the precaution of settling some-
; thing to the separate use of wives. It was for them to
, say whether or not the husband was a party to the fraud ?
; The next question was whether the plaintiff, the trustee,
t was a party to it ? If they thought the husband was, they
, would probably form the same opinion of the trustee; if, on
the other hand, they thought the husband was not any
party to a fraud, they would not have any hesitation in say-
. Ina that the trustee was not. Supposing they should be of
opinion that the husband sod the plaintiff were both parties
a to a plan of defrauding the husband's creditors in this deed,
, they would further give an answer to the question whether
the wife was a parts to the frau I. Really, on that part of
- the ease, he (the learned judge) could see no evidence at all.
I Thin young woman was going to be carried, and he could
see no ground that she was any party at all to a fraud.—The
; jure, without a minute's hesitation, found a verdict for the
plaintiff thereby completely negativing the charge of per-
jury and fraud on the part of Mr. Douglu and his wife and
_ 'Mr. Hill, which had been imputed to them by the defect-
, I dant's counsel.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COVET.
Bcfure the Chief Comrohsimer and Mr. Convnissllner Phillips.
The court resumed its sittings yesterday, after the Whit.
sun holidays.
A New Ruts.—The court laid down a rule referring to
bail cases. The negligence of sureties, in not attending at
the proper hoar, having caused great inconvenience, it was
ordered that in all instances when the sureties were not in
attendance at the opening of the court, cases of application
for bail should stand over to the end of the day.