The Express.
London, England, 1857-03-07 00:00:00

TN RE ORRIO.-111PORTANT OTIIITION AS TO TEE

Thla was the dividend meeting in the case of John Teter
Mllorland °wig, eabinettuakiT, of Ilirtlett's-buildings,
Holborn. He w one of those unfortunate 11101 who have
been driven into bankruptey by the failure of the British
Bank, in which be held 16 Awes. At the last meeting a
claim had been put upon the proceedings on behalf of Mr.
Harding, the arranger of the luck, who claimed to
prove fur 1,20 W. in nepect of the call of 7.1 f. per share on 16
sham.

Mr. ffia.kolm now spriest:Non behalf of the Nikita manager,
and asked that the claim might be turned into a proof. It
was supported by the affidavit of Mr. Harding, who deposed
that he was the official manager of the bank, appointed by
virtue of the statute, and that the bankrupt was justly and
truly indebted to him 1,200/. in respect of the cull of 7M. per
share on the 16 shares held by him before the bankruptcy,
and that in respect of such Rhine he had been placed on the
list of rentributuries by Charles Pugh, Em., chief clerk to
Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.
An order was also put in, signed "Chas. Pugh, Ch.
C 1.," and heeded" Vice-Chancellor Kindcrelcy, in Cham-
bers," directing Mr. Harding to prove against tho bank-
rupt's estate fur the amount of the call.
Mr. Aspland, on the part of the rosignera to the bankrupt,
took several objections to the proof. It did not appear when
the call was made, or by whom ; ho understood it was Oct
made until after the Makrupery.
His Honour said be should be glad to imow under what
statute the Vice-Cheneellor's clerks were empowered to per-
form acts which were directed to be done by the court.
Mr. Malcolm confeased that he was unable to show any
alatutable authority. for the.practiete.
Mr. Doris, as motets eurue, stated that it was a practice
which had grown up within the last three or four years,
niece the pawing of the Chummy Practice Amendment Act
(16 and N Vic.; esp. 80), and had been generally acquiesced
in sea matter of convenience. If either party objected to ea
order being made by the chief clerk, the matter went before
the judge.
lie Honour thought the practice a very mischievous one,
and one that might be attended with gnat &tiger. Meet
important ants, ho was nifortued., were done by the chief
clerk,—as the appointment of ofht Ist manager in this Cone of
the Royal British Bank. Nothing could le more impertant
to the creditors, and all panne concerned. Had it hem
intended to give the chief clerk authority to act of his own
motion as • judge, the natuto would have maid so.
Mr. Melee/in submitted that the Vioe-Chancellor was sup-
pord to be resent, and the order was to he taken as his.
The Commissioner—But the order is signed by the chief
clerk himself; and it deem not ap that the Vice-Chancel-
Kies judgment was ewer eso the matter. This Keine '
to me a very strong power to delegate. The proof had better
bo adjourned • and m the ineentune, if you can show me
from Nay of the Vice-Chnnuellore authorising
these eiders to be made by their clerks, or if you could get
the order athe Vice-Chancellor himself, that would put it
beyond o.4llml:ice. I should not think myself warranted,
practice of such very recent date, in holding that any
orderslOied by the chid clerk was on order of the Vice-
Chanor. The clerk might sign anything, end put Vice-
Chancellor Kindersley" upon it, though, in fan, it had
never come under his observetion. That would be • very
mush proposition to lay down. It would be in fact, to
place three chief darks in the position of the Vice-Chan-
cellor.

Mr. kakilm said there were mowing reasons against an
adjotunment, and he wished to take the judgment of the court
sal the awe stood

II; Honour add the proof did not state that the bankrupt
Was indebted in the amount of the call at the time of the
bankruptcy ; nor could it do so, for it appeared that the call
wannot then made ; it wee not mode until after the choice of
assignees. It did not even state by what authority the call
WWI made. The claim was not sustained by auflkient
evidence to justify him in ordering it to be turned into a
proof. Theta WAY nothing to chow that the list of contribu-
tories was settled by competent authority. He could not
uudenitand that any practice in the chambers of the
Vice-Chancellors, particularly one of such vet 7 recent
origin, could justify us a legal principle the right
of the chief clerk to do all those act, which the
stututee said should be done
~by the 'Master of the
Rolls or the Vice-Chancellors, Including such important
act. as the settling of line of oontributories. The proof did
not state by whom the call was mode at all ; it did not even
say that it wa• made by the chief Oak. For aught that ap-
peared it might have been made by the chief clerk's andabust
underwriter. Then again the direction to prove was signed
only by the chief clerk. The court could do no other then
strike out the claim, there being no evidence to authorise its
being turned into • proof. The question was one of each
important* that the parties would be fully justified in taking
the opinion of the Court of Appeal as to whether the chid
clerk could do all thew acts judicially, in his own person,
without moulting or having recourse to the Vice-Chan-
collor, either to sanction them, or to sign his name to in%
order when made.

Mr. Masi wiled to have the dividend stayed.
Hite Heurie reerald not do that, hut would duvet a eum to
be removed irellelont for a dividend on this claim, should it
ultimata"' be elbstaatieted es a roof.
It wee shreed ther ■ dividend of Cos. in the pound would be
paid in the wane of a week.
Mr. Linklater tendered a proof for 800 t, on behalf of the
arrignere of the Itoy.l British Bank, in respect of the call of
601. made by the directors on the 9th of September.
This wee sdialttrod as a claim, subject to further disensaion.
(Before Mr. Commiarioner Fane.)
ANOTHER BRITIAN RANK CHAIR-
WADER.

IN 16

The bankrupt was a draper at Richmond. Re was the
holder of ono share only in thin unfortunate concern ; be had
paid the call, and had a surplus of some 3001. ; but being
threatened with executions by judgment creditors, he ha
been driven to this court. Assignees were now chosen.
Mr. Mason to the court, looking at the hardship of
the case, to ges with the usual formal balance-Meet,
which could only he prepared at • considerable expense to the
bankrupt.
Ilia Honour signified his readinrea to sanction any comae
in that reepect, which might be approved of by the sang-

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—MARcn 6.
(Bdore Mr. Commissimar Murphy.)

The learned Commissioner announced that he bad received
for Mrs. holes (the poor private teacher whose case had
created • Food deal of public sympathy) 31. from Mr. Leicet-
ter, of Kensington, and 2/. 3s. fid. from • " Lady "
(Brighton). The firetnassed amount was s contribution from
• mug abroad.
IN RI GEORMI I'lllON.
This inaolvent, a prisoner in iloreentontr-lane Gaol,
appeared on his petition, and asked for an adjournment, as
his counsel, a member of the common law bar, could not
attend, and he desired the attendance of a witness.
• Mr. Rood, who appeared to oppose, resisted an adjourn-
meet.
The insolvent and one of the opposing creditors spphcd
very strong epithets to one another.
Mr. Commissioner Murphy with difficulty silenced them,
and threatened to come& for contempt. The learned Com-
missioner wished the insolvent to go on with his came.
The insolvent reflood and declined to be sworn.
Mr. Reed asked tho court to dismiss the petition, as the
Insolvent had set the court at defiance.
The insolvent wished an sdjournment, and mid a prisoner
bad not the means to prepare his ease.
Mr. Commissioner Murphy said, as there wee no precedent
for sorb a ease, he should make one; and, as the insolvent
had set the court at defiance, he should dismiss his order for
hearing.
The order for hearing was accordingly dismissed.