The Express.
London, England, 1861-03-16 00:00:00

JOHNSON V. GALLAGHIR.

Their lerdshipsal;ia;eittrdimnlapoa this appeal from
• decree made by Mr. W. M. James, the Vice-Chan-
cellor of the Duchy Court of Lanouter. It appeared
that the appellaat, Jane Gallagher, during the lifetime
of her husband, was entitled, under a certain deed or
settlement, to considerable property in Liverpool, for her
separate use, and during the same period she had from time
to time numbered furniture sod other goods from Messrs.
Burton and Watson, who are upholsterers in Liverpool,
and who were aware at the time of supplying the
that Mrs. Gallagher was a woman,
EiTtds living apart from her husband. The result of
these dealings between Mrs. Gallagher and Masers. Burton
and Watson was, that the last named firm were creditors of
hen to the extent of 3721. at the time when her husband
died, which happened on the 20th of October, 1858. In the
spring of the year 1859 the plaintiffs, who were the assignees
in bankruptcy of Messrs. Burton and Watson, filed • bill
against Mrs. Gallagher and her trustee, Mr. Chalkley, for
the purpose of obtaining payment of the above-mentioned
suni of 3721. out of the property which had, during her
coverture, constituted her separate estate. It appeared,
however, from the answer that, subsequently to the institu-
tion of the suit, on the 7th of October, 1850, she had executed
a bill of sale in favour of Mr. Chalkley, by means of which
she had consigned to that gentleman all the property
which had been settled to her separate use, ea a security
for the repayment of various sums of money which had
been advanced to her by Mr. Chalkley, as secretary of the
Trademman's Loan Society, and who was minty for the lady
to the society daring the lifetime of her husband. This
bill of sale was executed in exercise of apower inserted in
the settlement under which she had become entitled to
her separate estate, and in pursuance of an agreement
which she had made with Mr. Chalkley at the time of her
receiving the advances., to the effect, that all the property
comprised in the settlement should be assigned to him by
way of security, whenever he should call upon her to make
such an assigtment. The plaintiffs contended that, notwith-
standing this bill of sale, said a subsequent bill of isle to the
same effect, they were entitled to be paid their debt is
priority to Mr. Chalkley, inasmuch as Mrs. Gallagher was
not competent after her husband's death to make any dis-
positions of her separate estate to the prejudice of
who like themselves had been creditors on that state
during her husband's lifetime. They consequently prayed
that she bells of sale should be declared null and void so far
as they affected their claim on Mrs. Gallagher's impends
estate, and also that the debt due to Mr. Chalkley should
be postponed to the debt which remained owing to them by
Mrs. Gallagher.
The Vice-Chancellor of the Duchy Court of Lancaster,
by the demote appealed from, declared that the separate
skate of aprZant, alllg tMlis ht'il anal, ai bhf tint, of
the death of her Lae husband. Lame to tier plaintiffs and
her other separate creditors (if any), in proportion to their
several respective debts, and that such creditors were en•
titled to payment of their debts out of her separate estate
at the date of her husband's decease in priority to
Mr. Chalkley, and directed the representing Mr.
Chalkley to account for the Taus at that time
of the separate estate comprised in the bills
of sale executed by Mrs. Gallagher to him. T.fon the argu-
ment of the appeal on the 12th and 13th of February last,
Mr. Follett, Q.C., Mr. Giffard, Q.C., Mr. C. Hall, Mr.
Osborne, Mr. Little, and Mr. Bardawell, appeared for the
different parties.
Their Lordships reversed the decision of the court below,
holding that though the separate estate of Mrs. Gallagher
was liable under the circumstances to the plaintiffs demand
the bills of sale subsequently executed by Mrs. Gallagher
were valid, sod not impeachable for fraud or on any other
ground ; and that consequently Mr. Chalkley 's title to
the property comprised therein was preferable to that of
the plaintiffs.
The bill was thereupon dismissed, but without oasts, and
an order made for the discharge of Mrs. Gallagher from
custody, she having been attached for non-payment of the
costs since the date of the decree appealed from.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—MARca 15.
(Before Mr. Oorozoisaimer Holroyd.)

The bankrupt, an optician, of Ludgate-street, applied for
his certificate. His debts are 1,550/. • assets, about 280/.
Mr. Thompson, for the assignees, ailed attention to the
fact that the bankrupt commenced his accounts with a defi-
ciency of 780/.
Mr. Lawrence, on behalf of the bankrupt, urged that he
had been a long time in business without failure, and that
the expenditure had been moderate.
Mr. David Serjeant, • creditor for 171., alleged that be
had his. induced to lend the bankrupt money, two or three
months before the failure, by the representation that be
wan solvent. It appeared that the bankrupt had borrowed
20e. of Mr.thrjeset, giving& promineory note for 201. 17s. 6d.,
and agreeing to repay the money by instalments of 11. •
week.

The bankrupt denied that he had made any specific repre-
sentation of his solvency, and said that the circumstances
under which he borrowed the money showed that he was
in difficulties. _ . _

His Honour, observing that the bankrupt had gone on too
long, granted a certificate of the third clams.
IN 111 it 'Harris, JUN.
The bankrupt was • merchant, of Austinfriars, and of
Bombay. This was the adjourned examination meeting.
The amounts have already appeared. The liabilities are
about 11,5001. • assets between 1,000/. and 2,0001.
Mr. Linklater, for the assignees, stated that the objec-
tions which had been raised to the bankrupt's poising at the
last meeting had been removed.
The bankrupt pared.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fans.)
IN II SNITH, WITHERS, AND 00.

The baekrupts were coal-merchanta, of Deptford. This
was the adjourned examination meeting. Debts, 5,3531. ;
eases, about 1,1001.
Mr. Begley opposed for creditors, and examined the
haairrupt Withers as to an assignment made in favour of
his brother, Captain Withers, of the inerchant service, •
month before the bankruptcy. It appeared that Captain
Withers had taken no benefit under the assignment, which
was for the beeedt at the creditor' generally.
The bankrupt paned.
IN Ili ALBERT LLB WARD.

The bankrupt wee a ship and insurance broker, of Fen-
ehurcb-street. This was the certificate meeting; but an
adjournment was taken by consent.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDATONR, MARCH 15.
("Bowe Sins—(Before Mr. Justice Wight:man.)
William Lindsey Robinson, 36, a penon of very re-
spectable appearance, employed as an engineer on board one
d her Majesty's ships of war, and who, it appeared, bolds
the rank of lieutenant in the navy, was charged with felo-
niously intermarrying with Eliza Kelton, his wife Charlotte
Harriet Robinsoa being at the time and still ally..
It appeared from the evidence for the prosecution that
the prisoner was married in the year 1848, on the 28th of
Juno, to a young woman named Charlotte Harriet Hooker,
at the parish church of Erith, and they lived together until
the year 1852, when they separated by mutual consent, the
pnsoner undertaking to make an allowance to his wife for
her maintenance. After this it appeared that the prisoner
went to the Crimea, and returned to this country at the
ekes el the Russian war, and in the year 1857 he was at
Devreport, employed on board one of her Majesty's ships.
Re here became acquainted with the proseentrix, who was
the daughter of a person employed in the dockyard at
Devsepert, and after some courtship they ware mar