The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-08-04 00:00:00

EQUITY COURTS.

RE DEANE AND YOULE, BasicattPrs.—On Friday the
Lords Justices of Appeal delivered judgment in this
case; Which was argued on the 7th July, by Mr. Cairns'
Q.C., and Mr. De G :It, for the appellant, and Mr
Bacon, Q.C., and Mr. Aspland, for the respondents.
The appeal was from the decision of Mr. Commissioner
Perry, of the Liverpool district, disallowing a proof
tendered under the following circumstances :—George
Deane and F. Youle were merchants trading at Liverpool
.under the style of Deane, Youle, and Company ; they
also, jointly with A. P. Youle, carried on business at
Pernambuco under the same style. The Pernambuco
firm were in the habit of sending consignments of goods
to the Liverpool firm, which goods were paid
for by bills drawn by the Pernambuco firm, and
accepted by the Liverpool firm. The claim of the
petitioner was in respect of certain bills thus drawn
and accepted, and of which he was the holder as agent
of the Brazilian government. The bankruptcy of the
Liverpool firm occurred in November, 1854, and in 1855
the Pernambuco house having become insolvent, took
the Preece lings which, under the Brazilian law, were
requisite for the distribution of their assets amongst
their. creditors. Under these proceedings the petitioner
had received a dividend or dividends upon the
amount of the bills in his hands, and he also
sought to prove against the Liverpool house in
respect of the same bills. Mr. Commissioner Perry
disallowed the proof, whence the present appeal. Lord
Justi.:te Knight Bruce said that though the members
of the Liverp )ol firm were also members of the Pernam-
buco firm, the two firms were separate and distinct firms;
the bills being drawn by the latter firm and accepted by
the former in the ordinary course of business. The peti-
tioner became the holder of the bills for valuable con-
sideration, whether with or without notice that the
members of the Liverpool firm were also memberS of the
Pernambudo firm, was in his (his lordship's) opinion
immaterial. Treating the case upon that assumption, his
opinion, differing from those of the commissioner and
of his learned brother, was in favour of the petitioner.
Lord Justice Turner said he was of opinion that what
took- place in the Brazils amounted to the bankruptcy of
the Pernambuco firm, and that the question of proof
against the Liverpool firm was to be disposed of accord-
ing to the English law ; and he thought himself bound
by the state of the authorities upon the question of
notice to refuse that double proof. Their lordships
having thus taken different views upon the question
before them the appeal was dismissed, but without
coots.

NEW ACT ON COUNTY COURTS.-= On Friday the 'hew act
to amend the acts relating to the County Courts, which
received the royal assent on the prorogation, was printed:
The act will come into operation on the Ist ofOctober next,
except the provision relating to framing a scale of costs, and
making rules and orders of practice and forrasof proceeding,
which are at once to take effect. There are eighty-six
sections in the act, and several schedules. In the latter are
the fees to be received, and also the names of the judges to
receive £1,500a year —eighteen at £1,500 and two at £1,350.
An important alteration is made in respect of judgment by
default. In cases Where the demand cloca'nbt 'exceed £2O
the plaintiff may reqUire the defendant to give notice in
'writing of his intention to defend, or otherwise judgment
will go by default without giving any,proof of his claim.
Where an action of contract is broughtin one of thesuperior
courts to recover a sum not exceeding £2O, and the defendant
in the ac ion' suffers judgment by default, the plaintiff
shall recover no costs unless upon an application to such
court or to 4 jgdge, as such court or judge shall otherwise
direct. The Lord Chancellor is empowered to appoint five
county court judges to frame rules and orders forregulating
the practice. When a judgment does not exceed £2O, the
judge may order payment by instalments; in other cases
the consent of plaintiff is necessary. The 49th sectionis of
cpnsiderable importance. If a judge of a Fuoetioric ,urt,
shall be satisfied that a party againit whom judgment
amount exceeding ',L2O, exclusive of costs oaineil 7 a
nall;
county court, has no goods or chattels to satisfy the same,
he may order a writ cf certiorari to issue to remove the
judgment into one of the superior courts, and " when
removed it shall have the same force and effect, and the
same proceedings mar be taken thereon as in the case of a
judgment of such. superior court, but no aciien shall be
brought upon such judgment." The salaries of theljedges
are to be paid out of the consolidated fund, aid the travel-
ling expenses 'out of money toted by pirlianiont,