The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-03-16 00:00:00

PETITIONS

Mr. Bonham Carter presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Notting bill, praying for the removal or
toll gates in the neighbourhood of the metropolis.
Mr. Hadfield presented a petition from Manchester
against a rate for educational purposes.

MR. FPE AZ ER'S RETIREMENT.

The Chance lor of the Exchequer brought up the
report on the allo►cance of £4OOO a year to the Speaker
on his retirement, and a bill was directed to be pre-
pared.
The Bill Was afterwards brought in and read a first
time.

WAYS AND MEANS.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer brought up the re-
port, which was agreed to.

MUTINY BILL.

Mr. Peel moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Henley said he ohs( reed that the bill, es reprinted,
contained some important changes. Would the hon.
gentleman explain the nature of them ?
11 r. Peel said some of the alterations were not of any
material importance ; but there was one he- niight men-
tion, and which had reference to billeting in Scotland
In the case of Scotland, private houses were liable to
have soldiers billeted upon them, and great objectiona
had been Made to that eystem,-which was considered to
he a grievance and oppression which ought to be remedied.
A. resolution was passed to that effect during the course of
last session, and the present law bad been amended by
striking out the provisions with regard to Scotland, and
extending the provisions which now applied to England
to the whole of Great Britain. (Hear, hear )
Mr. Ewart thought it would be well if the military
department of the government would consider the pro
priety of placing soldiers in barracks altogether—a system
which would conduce very much to the good order of
towns. He was much pleased with the provisions of the
hill which altered the system of billeting upon private
houses in Scotland.
Mr. Duncan offered his best thanks to the hon. gentle-
man (Mr. Peel) for the altered provisions of the bill
but he did not think that even now Scotland had been
placed upon a fair level with England. In Scotland the
public houses and h,tels were on a far less extensive scale
than in England, and afforded very insufficient accommo-
dation. (Hear, hear.)
Sir W. Codrington thought that some provision should
be made for the permanent qoarteting of the troops.
Mr. Packe said that the publicans throughout the
country were considerably aggrieved at the increase in
the number of hotels in which spirits were not sold, and
which were exempt from billeting. These temperance
hotels had increased to a great extent, and, with the
exception of selling spirits, were in all relpects public
houses, The publicans contended that both classes of
houses should be placed upon the same footing. (Hear,
hear.)
The bill was then read a second time. and ordered to
be committed on Monday.
MARINE MUTINY AIM.

The bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Monday.

SAVINGS' BANKS BILL.

Mr. Sotheron Esteourt said he regretted that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had been obliged to with-
draw his Savings' Bank bill, the provisions of which were
highly satisfactory, and which would h ire conferred
very, great binefit upon the country. He hoped the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would be enabled to bring
in the same bill early in the New Parliament, and that it
would be allowed to pass without unnecessary delay.
Mr. H. Herbert concurred in the remarks which had
been made by the bon gentleman who bad just sat down.
He trasted they would have a pledge from the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, that if possible he would proceed with
his bill during the next szssi nof Parliament. Every
Chancellor of the Exchequer during the last seven
years had promised a bill upon this subject. Some time
ago, in the county he represented (Kerry), there were
some most frightful scenes in consequence of the
failure of the Savings' Batik. He was .personally
a witness to the misery which had been occasioned. It
was but natural, under the present system, that in
counties where these cases occurred, that men refused
to put their money into savings backs. He believed that
in a modified state the same thing existed in many parts
of the kingdom, paricularly in Irebnd. He hoped that
the bill would be introduced early next session, in order
that it might undergo due consideration.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the house was
well aware of the great zeal and assiduity which had
been displayed by the hon. member for-Wiltshire-(Mr.
Setheron Esteourt) on the subject of savings banks and
of the great authority with wh:ch be spoke on that
question. He accepted, therefore, with great satisfaction
the testimony the hon. gentleman had given in favour of
the bill he had laid upon the table of the house. It was
his intention, if he bad the honour,of a seat in the new
Parliament, to ask the house to allow him to introduce
that bill as nearly as possible in the form in which it no*
stood ; and he sincerely hoped that managers, secretaries,
and other persons interested in the subject of saving
banks, would take the opportunity during the next four
months to make themselves acquainted with the details
and probable working of the bill, more especially as the
time during the next session which would be available
for the discussion of such measures would in all pro-
bability he shorter than usual. Und-r these circumstances
he theught he might reasonably express a hope that there
woald be no unnec..ssari delay in the progress of the
measure through the house. He felt with the hon.
gentleman the member for Kerry (Mr. Herbert) the
severe infliction which had been cast upon his country by
the failure of those savings banks, and he hoped his bill
would provide a sufficient protection against such cala-
mities in future.

EXCHF(IIIIER BMA.
The Chancellor of the MeltAuer brought in a bill on
F. chequer bilk which wad read a first time, and ordered
for second reading on Monday.

THE APPR PRIATION BILL.
The Chine:Tor of the Exchequer broug!it in this bill,
which was read a first time.
The holve adjourned at twenty Minutes past one.

A circular has been this week issued by the solicitors to
the assignees of Mr. Edwin Baldwin, announcing that the
copyriehts of the .Iforniny !braid, Standard, and St Jame*
Chronicle newspapers are for sale, acid that they are reedy
to receive tenders tor their purchase, either together or
separately.—Literary Gazette.
MURDER OF Two CHILDREN BY THEIR MOTHER.—A
double murder and suicide have this week taken place at
the village of Sunnybrow, near Willington, about eight
nites from D ahem. The murderess is a woman named
Jane Parkinson, the wife of a pitman working at Bowden
Close C 'nicety, and the other two victims are her children,
the eldest, a boy aged two years and nine months, and the
youngest, au infant, aged about nine months. No explana-
tion is givers of the cause of the crime.
THE CASE OF PRACTICAL JOKING AT BRENTWOHL—A
correspondsnt says :—" A memorial to Llrd Palm etston is
now in course of signature by some of the jurors empan-
nel'ed in this case (who reside chiefly in this district),
recommending a remission of the sentence passed by Justice
Cresswell on Cooper and the Hoofs, and the substitution of
a fine. tn the event of the application succeeding, it is
understood the young men have promised to pace £5OO at
the dizposal of the widow."—Chelinsford Chronicle.
" MANSLAUGHTER BY MISTAKE."—At the Cavan assizes,
Dr. Wiltiain Wright, a very old men, and nearly blind,
plea-led euilty of the, manslaughter of as intnete of the
Union workhouse. He had been t.ctites f,e- Dr. Taylor, the
medical attendant of the Mantic treteueit p -torhouse, and by
mistake gave strychnia for calomel. The label on the side
of the bottle at which he looked was nearly defaced,
although there was a distinct one on th,e other side. Tes•
timonv was given that the state of the prisonet's health
was such that he could net endure confinement. He bad
previously held two dispensaries in the county. The judge
observed that those who allowed this old man to practice
were greatly to blame, and sentenced him to be confined for
one month.—?tfedicai Times and Gazette.
TILE RENTERS DI•PUTE AT DRURY LANE THEATRE.—
Mr. Gye intended to open the season's campaign; running
to the end of August, at Drury lane, and accordingly
eetered into arrangements with Mr. Smith, the lessee,
subject to such a compromise as could be made with the
renters. Mr. Gte accepted Mr. Smith's proposal, namely,
that the renters should have twenty five stalls in the best
part of the pit, with free access to all parts of the house
except the dress circle, the first and second tier and the. pit
and gallery stalls A meeting of renters was held on
Thursday last, when thirty out of the thirty two renters
present
.agreed is it. It was necessary, however, that they
should be unanimous, and another meeting was held
yesterday in the saloon of the theatre,- when Mr. Kinsey,
the solicitor, detailed the above -facts. A large number
signed, but some four or five proposed an amendmats for
fifty reserved pit seat.s to be made to Mr. Gye as a suggestion.
One gentleman, however, refused to sign anything, and
expressed his determination to exercise his right to any
place before the curtain. The result of this opposition will,
it is feared, be that there can he no Italian opera at Drury
lsao this soson,— Morning root

BANKRUPTCY COURT.

BEFORE MR. COMMISSIONER STEVENSON.

Re RELSBY, ex parte FAIRHURST. —On Saturday,
judgment in proof of the above case was given, and as it
invoived a question of considerable importance, we give it in
its entirety :—Hia Honour said : In this case a proof is pro-
posed to be made in behalf of a Mr. Fairhurst, as one of
the executors of the will of the late Thomas Walker.
against the joint estate of these bankrupts, for the sum of £6OB
9s ed, being a portion of the balance of monies received by
Robert Helshy, one of the bankrupts, and who was the other
executor of this will, aed applied by him for the purpitses of
his btsiness, and which monies formed part of the
testator's ovate. The assignees object to this proof,
alleging it to be a claim sustainable only against the
separate estate of Robert Helsby. The circumstances
under which this proof- is claimed to be made against this
joint estate are these : Previously to the year 1852, and up to
the month of December, 1854, the bankrupt, Robert Helsby,
was in partnership with his brother William, in the business
of builders This partnership was dissolved in December,
1854, and the same business was continued mil carried on in
partnership between the present bankrupts, Robert and Joseph
Flelsby. The testator, Thomas Walker (of whose will
Robert Helsby, and the claimant, Mr. Fairhurst, were
appointed executors)' did] in May, 1849. This will was
proved by both executors, but Robert Helsby took the active
part in such executorship, and from the year 1852, to the
month of December, 1854, he froth time to time received
various sums of money on account of the testator's estate,
and applied them for the purposes of his then partnership busi-
ness, and an account was entered in the partnership belles of
such monies, which were then credited to the estate of the
testator. 0 i the dissolution of the partnership .between
Robert and William Helsby, a balance sheet was made out,
in which it was shown that there was a large balance then due
from the partnership to the estate of the testator. On the
arrangement for the new partnership between the present
bankrupts, it was agreed that Joseph Helsby should take an
equal share in the business, and share also equally in the then
stock in trade and, book debts, and bear an equal share
in all liabilities of the former partnership. The hooks of the
former partnership were continued to be used by the new firm,
and Robert Helsby continued to receive monies on account of
the testator's estate, which were also applied for the purposes of
such new partnership business, and the account of such monies
were entered in like manner as before and credited to the
estate of the testator. Several payments have been made since
the commencement of this new partnership on account of the
testator's estate out of the assets of this partnership, and far
exceed the amounts which have been received from such
estate since such partnership commenced ; and the sum
of £6OB 9a 51, now alleged to be proveable on the joint estate
of these bankrupts, together with another sum which Is not
claimed to be so proveable, now form the balance due to the
testator's estate in respect to monies thus received on account
of such estate. It appears that Joseph Helsby was employed
so far back as 1850 on account of the partnership business of
Robert and William Helsby, and in the exercise of his duties
as such clerk, he occasionally made entries in the cash book,
and there are a few entries therein in his handwriting, of
cash received on account of the testator's estate in the
months of August and September, 1851, but which were
made by him under the direction of Robert Helsby. The
balance sheet made on the dissolution of the partnership,
between Robert and William Helsby, in which the balance
due to the testator's estate was mentioned, was (as it is stated
by Robert Helsby) ateo seen and examined by Joseph Helsby,
and the new partnership books were from time to time inspected
by him. Joseph Helsby had nothing to do with the executor-
ship, and no communication was ever made respecting
this joint account entered in the partnership books
either to the other executor, Mr. Fairhu.st, or to
any of the persons interested under the will. *tinder
these circumstances it is contended on behalf of Mr.
Fairhurst that inasmuch as the application of the monies
belonging to the testator's estate in the bus.ness of the former
parnership was a breach of trust, of which Mr. Joseph Helsby
had notice at the time of his entering into parnership with
Robert Helsby, and as he, with such notice, took an equal
share with Robert Ite!aby of all the then assets of the former
parnership as well as an equal share of all its liabilities, that ho
consequently became liable together with Robert Helsby, to
the balance then due to the testator's estate, and therefore, is
now jointly liable to the reduced balance remaining
due. Now that the application of the trust monies in the '
former paitnership business was a breach of trust there is no
doubt, and in respect of which, very. probably, William as well
at; Robert Helsby Would be held liable to the testator's estate ;
there having been dtie notice given of such misapplication by
means of the entries in the partnership books ; and Joseph•
Helsby, from the knowledge which he acquired of the
liabilities of the former partnership, by means' of the balance
emit made on its dissolution, as well as of the entries in
the partnership books after the commencement of the
new partnership, must also, I think, be deemed to have had
notice of this misapplication. And as to the monies which
had been received since the new partnership, he, Joseph Helsby,
would no doubt have been j .intly liable with Rpbert Holsby,
had not that liability been discharged be the eayments made
since out of the assets of such new, partnership. But with
regard to the sum proposed wise now proved as constituting
pat of the balance remaining of the liability of the former
• partnership, there doe's not appear to me any ground upon
which that can be sustained as a proof against the joint
estate of these bankrupts. It is true that Joseph Helsby tea
a share in the assets of the former partnership, au! ject to
this debt due to the testator's estate, as part of the liabilities
of the former partnership; but ho did not (as it is admitted)
thereby became personally liable at law for such debt. But it
is contended that, by taking a abate in these assets with the
knowledge of this breach of ti use and which assets, it is
argued, must be considered to have proceeded from, or to
consist of, the monies received from the testator's estate,
Mr. Joseph Helsby must be held liable in equity to this debt
jointly with Robert Holsby. But to support this asgutuent, it
should, at all events, be shown " that there were, at least at
the time of the dissoliition-of the partnership, some surplus
mercer of such partnership' after deduction being Made for
all the liabilities of the partnership, exclusive of this trust debt.
And, upon enquiry, it appears that there were no such surplus
assets, the debts • of such partnership, exclusive of this trust
debt, far exceeding the assets. But Ido not think that the
question of the joint liability of these bankrupts, or rather of
their present jeiht estate, depends upon this result, for I think
it clear that a general epplicatira of such trust monies,
ultimately resulting in producing such joint estate, is not
sufiicient to attach a claim upon each estate in respect to this
breach of trust. Upon these grounds, therefore, f consider
that this proof cannot be allowed, as proposed, against the joint
estate of these bankrupts.