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

BEFORE MR. COMMISSIONER PERRY.

In re GEORGE W1LL1A31.3.--6;l7ankr4t, applied this
day for his certificate. His Honour granted an immediate
certificate of the third class.
In re M'LARTY AND CO.—ln this case the balance
sheet has begn filed ; but as it dates from 1854, the matter
has been furTher adjourned for three weeks, in order that
a fresh balance sheet, dating from 1852, may be filed.
Ex parte DuNCAN in re HAWDEN AND 511 GREGOR—
. Commissioner Stevenson gave judgment on Saturday,
as follows :—ln this case a proof is sought to be made by
Messrs. Duncan for the sum of £12,784 17s against the
separate estate of J. J. Hawden, one of the bankrupts, the
claim to which sum arises upon various bills of exchange,
two of which are drawn by both the bankrupts upon and
accepted by the said J. J. Hawden, and endorsed over to
Messrs. Duncan, and the remainder of which bills are
drawn by Messrs. Duncan upon and accepted by the said
J. J. Hawden, and made payable to Messrs. Duncan or
order. This proof is opposed on the part of the assignees,
upon the ground that, under the special circumstances
under which these bills were given, no separate liability
was incurred upon them by the bankrupt Hawden as to and
between him and Messrs. Duncan. These circumstances
are as follow—The bankrupts, Hadwen and M•Gregor,
carried on business at the Havannah, as merchants, under
the firm of Hadwen, M'Gregor, and Co., and the bankrupt
Hadwen carried on business at Liverpool, also as a mer-
chant, but alone, and totally distinct from the business of
the firm, except in acting as the agent of the firm. Mr.
John Duncan and his recent firm of Duncan and Co., have
been in the habit, ever since the year 1843, of making
shipments of goods to the bankrupts' firm at the Haven-
nab, on the joint account of themselves and of the bank-
rupts, and in equal interests ; and two invoices of the
goOds thus shipped were supplied and sent out to the
Havannah, one being made out as shipments on consign-
ment to Messrs. Hadwen, M‘Gregor and Co., on joint
account, Messrs. Hadwen, M•Gregor and Co., and John
Duncan, or Messrs. Duncan, and the other of the nett cash
cost of the goods at six months credit ; acid on each occasion
John Duncan, or Messrs. Duncan, drew upon the bankrupt
Hadwea individually, for the whole amount of the nett cash
amount of each invoice at 6 months' date, which he accepted
in due course. The evidence of the bankruptHadwen (which
is not opposed or questioned) she ws that the agreement
or understanding between him and John Duncan, and his
firm of John Duncan and Co., was, that their acceptances
were given by way of advance, until the results of the
shipments were known, and that he, John Duncan, and
his said firm, engaged to keep him, the said Hadwen, out
of cash advances on these acceptances until proceeds were
received from the Havannah, and that the course, on the
acceptances falling due, was that if the proceeds had been
received from the Havannah, he, Hadwen, took up the
bills, but if they had not arrived, John Duncan, or his
said firm, re-drew on him and remitted to him, the bank-
rupt, the cash to take up the bill falling due, and of which
renewals there were numerous instances—and of all which
transactions there was an account entered, wherein
(according to the evidence of the bankrupt's brother,
Charles Hadwen, who was his bookkeeper) the account of
John Duncan and Co. with the bankrupt was credited
with the invoice amount of goods consigned to the
Havannah, and debited with the acceptances given for such
shipments, and at the end of each six months the account
was credited with the money received from Messrs.
Duncan for the renewal of the acceptances and with the
proceeds received from the Havannah. The bankrupt
Hadwen, however, admits that he often retired these
bills out of his own cash in hand when it was convenient
to him, without waiting for remittances from the
Havannah, rather than have the bills renewed, but
that he did not consider it obligatory upon him
to do so, and iu corroboration of this, he refers to a
letter from himself to Messrs. Duncan, dated the 13th
ot' isecember, 1845, containing the following passage:—
" For these goods I will accept as before your draft at six
months on your engaging to keep me out of cash advance
at maturity until the returns come home from the other
side ;" and this represents, as the bankrupt alleges, the
arrangement upon which he had always acted in his trans.
actions with Mr. Duncan. Of this letter the bankrupt
received an acknowledgement from Mr. Duncan, dated
the following I sth of December, and in which is the fol-
fowiag passage :—" I think if we keep moderate in our
accounts there is no fear of keeping you clear of cash
advanced for all done yet, and in prospect there is not the
slightest." The bills in question, upon which the proposed
proof is sought to be made, were given and accepted in
respect of goods shipped and consigned to the firm at the
Havannah, on the like joint account and under the like
circumstances as those before referred to, and it is there.
fore contended, on the part of the assignees, that no
separate liability was incurred by the bankrupt Hadwen
upon such bills as to and between him and Messrs. Dun-
can, and in support of this view was cited the case of
Castrigne v. Battigieg, decided by the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council, and reported in volume 27th of the
Law Times, page 111. The decision in this case was, that
an agent endorsing a bill over to his principal was not
liable to his principal upon such endorsement, although
made without any reservation, the course of dealing
between the parties showing that the indorser was acting
as agent for the indorsee, on whose account. he bought and
remitted the bill, and there being no special circumstances
showing that such liability was intended. In the judg-
ment pronounced by Sir W. H. Maule, very important
clown ao to tho qucotion of liability
incurred by an indorser of a bill, which, besides the
authority of the decision on the case itself, appear to me
to be applicable and completely in point to the question
raised in the present instance. The learned judge there
observes, that the liability of an indorser to his immediate
indorsee arises out of a contract between them, and which
contract in no case consists exclusively in the indorse-
ment, but that contract arises out of the writ ten indorse-
ment itself, and also the delivery of the bill to the
indorser, and the intention with which that delivery was
made and accepted, as evinced by the words spoken or
written, and the circumstances (such as the usage of the
place, the course of dealing between the parties, and
their relative situations) under which the delivery takes
place. Thus, a bill with an unqualified written indorsement
may be delivered and received for the purpose of enabling
the indorsee to receive the money on account of the indorser,
or to enable the indorsee to raise money for his own use
on the credit of the signature of the indorser ; in all which
cases the learned judge observed, that the indorser is not
liable to the indorsee. Now, according to the doctrine
thus laid down by Sir W. H. Maule, as well as the prin-
ciple of the decision in the cited case, the acceptances of
the bankrupt Hadwen in the present case will not per se
create any separate liability as to and between him and
Messrs. Duncan, but such a liability must also depend
upon the contract or understanding entered into or implied
between them upon the giving of such acceptances. Now,
by the evidence adduced in this case it is, I think, clearly
shown that, as well by the express terms of the arrange-
ment between the bankrupt Hadwen and Messrs. Duncan
as by the course of dealing between them, it was not their
intention that the former should be liable to Messrs.
Duncan upon these acceptances, but that they were given
to Messrs. Duncan by way of advance in anticipation of
their share of the proceeds of the shipments consigned to
the firm at the Havannah, and to enable Messrs. Duncan
to raise money for their own use on the credit of such
acceptances ; and thus the present case appears to me to
fall completely within the doctrine laid down in the before
cited case. It has been urged, that a distinction ought
to be made in respect of the two first-mentioned bills,
which were for the sums of "735 9s 6d and £735, and
were drawn by Hadwen, M‘Gregor and Co., upon and
accepted by, Hadwen, and made payable to the order of
Messrs: Duecan, upon the ground that th se bills were
drawn in respect of' proceeds of consignments then in the
hands of the firm at the Havannah, and on which account,
and by reason of these bills having been drawn by the
firm upon qr. Hadwen, and not by Messrs. Duncan, it is
contended they do not fall within the same category as
the other bills. But it does not appear that Mr. Hadwen
had any remittance from the Havannah to meet these
bills; and they were drawn, as I understand, to represent
the amount of certain account sales, and not in respect to
any share of Messrs. Duncan in the proceeds of the con-
signments. Therefore, considering the relation between
the two firms as co adventurers, and the course of dealing
between Mr. Had wen and Messrs. Duncan, these bills
cannot, I think, be considered as between them, to be an
actual appropriation to Messrs. Duncan of such amount
of the proceeds of the consignments as part of their
expectant share in the adventure, but must be taken as a
cash advance generally in anticipation of such share, and,
therefore, to be subject, in like manner as the other bills,
to the arrangement between them and Mr. Hadwen.
Upon these grounds, therefore, I consider that the pro-
posed proof in respect of any of these bills cannot be
sustained against the separate estate of this bankrupt.

A Mys-rEmous PERSONAGE. —lnto a certain well known
restaurant in Park Row, every day, punctually at 2i p.m.,
walks an elderly gentleman who proceeds straight to private
box No. 7, which at this time of day is always reserved for
him. There he draws down the curtain and busies himself
reading one of the morning papers until his dinner, which
i 3 invariably composed of the same dishes, is prepared for
him. His gold headed cane, with black silk cord and
tassel, his ruffled shirt, his queue, and his white neckcloth,
and, more than all, his precise and lofty, polite demeanour,
declare him a gentleman of the old school. When his dinner
is ready it is set before him and two small bottles of claret
wine are uncorked, and with two wine glasses are placed on
the table. The old gentleman then systematically proceeds
to finish both his dinner and his wine, and his manner of
disposing of the latter is what causes him to be regarded
with unusual curiosity by the frequenters of the house. He
fills two glasses, drinks the contents of one himself, and
spills the other on the floor, and thus continues until both
bottles are emptied. What invisible friend he imagines to
be present with himself to enjoy the feast, what unknown
deity he propitiates by this profuse libation, no one can
tell. Certain it is that for more than three years he has
persisted in this curious custom, and during that time has
not spoken to any one connected with the establishment one
single word. His first order was written on a slip of paper,
with instructions to duplicate it every day until the order
was countermanded. Who the individual is who perseveres
in these strange whims, the proprietor of the restaurant
does not know, and he has too much good sense and too
much respect for his pocket to interfere with the peculiari-
ties of his mysterious customer.—New York Tribune.