The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-28 00:00:00

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.

Yesterday a cue of considerable in tt rest mine on before the Court,
and occupied it upwards of five hour'.
In the year 1815, an Antwerp merchant, named Joseph Hozai,
became a bankrupt there. A short time ago Messrs...icon, Oar.
net, and Palmer, were parties to an attachment of considerable
property in the hands of Mesas. Booker, of Aldermanbury, in
the name of the beakrupt, and Ale. Benhayer claimed that pro-
perry now as apprimer or assignee to the bsnkrupi's estate, for the
benefit of the mediton. There were therefore four parties In the
case, and the &mover stood in the condition of plaintiff, and Mr.
Hosea in that orifedendent.
BoLLAwD, for the approver, stated, that he had simply. to
prove the bankruptcy of 31r. Flezai at Antwerp, and the possession
by the garnishee of the property of the bankrupt, to show that his
client was ermtled to a verdict.
Mr. Cannon, tlerk,of Messrs. Decking and Co. of Fenchurch-
strreet, stated, that he went to Antwerp last month in order to get do.
cumenta from the Chamber of Commerce there to prove that 31e.
Renhayer was appointed syndic to the bankruptcy of Joseph Ho-
zai. Witness went to 31r. Herryns, a Judge of the Chamber of
Commerce, stated the object of his visit, and was by him intro-
duced to Mr. Schram, the President. Mr. °ovens, another Judge
of the Chamber of Commerce, was also present, as well as the Re-
gistrar, who produced a book, from which witness Riede extracts,
which be compared with the contents of the book in the presence of
the President, Judges, and Registrar, who afterwards authenticated
and set the seal to the documents.
Those documents were understood to establish the bankruptcy.
Mr. Law. for the defendant, observed, that he considered the
Chamber of Commerce of Antwerp as no more than a Chamber of
moonshine.
31r. Joseph Schram, has a house in business at Antwerp,
as well as in London. His brother, Emanuel Schram, was Pre.
eldest of the Tribunal or Chamber f Commerce at Antwerp, and
that gentleman's signature was attached to the documen ts alluded to.
By the Cot; lIT—Ho you know that questions of bankruptcy are
discussed in the place called the Tribunal of Commerce ?
The witness answered in the affirmative. Mr. floral was a mer-
chant at Antwerp in 11113, and witness believed his affairs were
at that time distressed. Had not, however, seen Mr. Boast since
the year 1813.
Mr. HOLLAND then put In the documents.
31r. Law objected to the reading of the documents. It had not.
he said, been proved that 31r. Hozai, whose property was attached,
was the Antwerp bankrupt.
Mr. Bortatxn, in reply, referred to the pleadings, io which it
was stated that Alr.llezat became a bankrupt, in 1815, at Antwerp,
and that the usual proceedings were resorted to, by which an ap-
prover was appointor, and that such approver was the only per-
son entitled to bring an action in the present case. To this the
Learned Counsel said, a replication was made that the approver
had no right or title to claim the property of Ale. Hozat, and
therefore issue was joined. lie considered the evidence that Mr.
Mai was a merchant residing at Antwerp, in 1813, sufficient fur
the Jury, and he looked upon the replication as recognising and
admitting that 31r. Ilozai was the person alluded to.
Mr. BAH WARD, on the same side, argued that this was not only
a prima facie case for a Jury, but that there was very strong evi-
dence.
Alr. Law insisted that there was nn proof of the bankruptcy, and
that there might be, in so large a place as Antwerp, several Mr.
Howls, as well as there were several Mr. Smiths in London. A
London Jury were not to be prevailed upon to look upon as con-
elusive, what wax said or done by a set of men, who took•
it into their heads to make bankrupts of persons they knew
nothing at all about. It was a story too much savouring of the
Arabian Nights' tmtertaimuent to carry weight with it. There
was here no evidence of personal identity, a thing indispensable in
such a case. . . .

Mr. ROLLAND said, the defendants were called upon to prove
that Mr. Hoiai was not the Antwerp bankrupt. A case had the
other day occurred in the Court of King's Bench, that of Duncan
v. the proprietors of the Marxist,: Adrertiser. in which Mr.
Brougham had taken an objection, that the Mr. Duncan might be
the lather of the person miam ; and when it was answered that the
father was bail for the son, Mr. Brougham argued that it might be
the grandfather, upon which the Chief Justice observed, that the
defendant had not proved that there was a grandfather.
Mr. Law said that was no reaw:n that 3lr. Hozai, who was the
defendant in this case, should be the bankrupt of Antwerp.
The RECORDER said, the defendant had it in his power, if lie
was not the bankrupt, to prove that fact. There could, surely, be
no difficulty in saying that he was not a bankrupt, if he could
say so.
Mr. Law contended, that at all events there was no evidence
to prove the right and authority of the Antwerp Chamber of Com-
merce to vest the property cf a bankrupt in an assigiee. There
was no proof of the law of that place as to bankrupts.
Mr. BOLLARD said, he had documents signed by the Authorities
in proof of his ease. If such prolif were not admissible, how could
conincercial affairs be carried on with foreign countries? It was
perfectly well known that in ail foreign countries tribunals of com-
merce decided in cases of bankruptcy. Did his Learned Friend
mean to say Cent if documents signed by him, as commissioner ef
bankrupts, to no more than the extent of his authority. were pro-
ducsd in a foreign country, they would not be conclusive ?
Mr. BARNARD said, that as it was impossible to compel the
President or the Judges to come ever here to give evidence, all that
could be done was to give the best evidence that could be had, and
such evidence was admissible upon the principle with respect to all
known and unknown Courts, that 0111111 J presumunint juisec rile
twin. Now it happened that the plaintiff was actually encumbered
with the load of proof.
Mr. LAW contended that the principle mania pranmuntur Mese
rite nets was too dangerous to be extended to all known and un-
known Courts. He would instatce a case in which it was far from
being admitted. Indeed, the presumption was (and so was the
fact) that there was gross misconduct upon the part of the person
in question. It was stated before a relation of his (Mr. haw) that
the Governor of an Island had imprisoned a British subject in a
very confined place, and the principle just quoted was stated in
support of the act; upon which the Judge said he could look to the
authority of the person, whether he Walla Governor or not, who pre.
sumed to imprison an English subject in a room of such limited
dimensions, and he would look most narrowly too. He (Mr. Law)
trusted that the Jury would look with as much caution upon the
conduct of the Authorities of Antwerp, who, he contended, were
not able to clothe any man with such a right as the plaintiff claimed
in this case. _ .

The• Recoarma said, there was no Judge whose decisions
were deserving of more respect than Lord Ellenborough ; but the
instanc.! just cited had no reference to the question before the Jury.
The documents were then admitted in evidence. They stated,
that in May, 1815, Joseph Hozai having stopped payment, was
adjudged to be a bankrupt, and that Mr. l3enhaper was appointed
approver for the benefit of the creditors.
this was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. LAW then rose for the defendant. He observed, that what
was called a bankruptcy was a failure quite distinct from • bank-
ruptcy ; that there was no identity proved as to the person who
was charged with Laving been declared by what were called the
authorities of Antwerp a bankrupt; and he contended that his
client must receive a verdict upon these grounds, as well as upon
the fact of the want of proof that the bankrupt laws of Antwerp
divested bankrupts of property which might have been obtained
after bankruptcy.
The RECORDER, in addressing the Jury Raid, that except they
could say upon their oaths that they believed the defendant was
not the person who became bankrupt at Antwerp, they were hound
to find for the plaintiff. The defendant, if he was not the bank-
rupt, was bound to prove it.
The Jury consulted for some time, and
The RECORDER again addressed them. He told them that if
they found for the approver the effect would be--
Mr. Law begged to inform the Court that the Jury ought not to
be informed of the effret of their verdict.

.The RECORDER said it was his duty to inform them. If they
found for the approver he would not immediately come upon the
property, but must bring his action against the garnisher.
'l'ne Jury, atter some deliberation, returned a verdict for the de-
fendant.

MIDDLESEX ADJOURNED SESSIONS,
TIIUItbD•Y, J•WIT•IIT 27.

Sarah Parson', a dealer in marine stores, in Gray's Inn-lane-
road, was indicted for receiving a quantity of iron pipes, the pro-
perty of the Gas and Coke Company of St. Pancras parish, know-
ing the same to have been stolen.
Mr. A DOILPHU s stated the case to the Jury, and called
Robert Woolley, a Bow-street patrol, who stated that on the
10th of December he saw four boys, from about ten to fourteen
years of age, with pieces of iron pipe, going towards the defendant's
shop. lie apprehended one of the boys, named Earle, from whom
he learnt that he and his comrades were in the habit of stealing
pieces of iron pipes, and disposing thereof to hirs. Parsons. The
witness then followed Earle to the defendant's shop, and after she
had paid 24d. for about 14Ibs. weight of iron, he searched the pre.
mists, and found about one hundred weight of iron pipes, the pro-
perty of the Gas and Coke Company.
blr. ALLEY cross-examined Woolley, and afterwards took an
objection to the form of tale indictment, which was overruled by the
Chairman.

Mr. Glindell, storekeeper to the Gas and Coke Company, iden-
tified a pan of the pipes as the property of his employers. -Rut, on
his cross-examination by Mr. Alicy, it appeared that he had pos.
session of the piece of iron after the officers apprehended Earle,
and before the boy was sent therewith to the defendant's shop to
sell.

The CHAIRMAN here stated, that there was no case to go to the
Jury, and the defendant was acquitted.

A Rail-road, between Tunbridge Al'ells and Maidstone,
is now upon the tapis.—Rri4r4ton Paper.
AIELANCHOLY ACCTTIENT.—On Friday morning last,
John Iluskis, one of the Carron Company's overseers at
Carronhall colliery, after having got all his men as usual
down the pit, had just seated himself in the bucket, when
the hook to which the chain was attached gave way, and
he was instantly precipitated to the bottom, a depth of
above twelve fathoms, and was killed on the spot. The de-
ceased was about 40 years of age, bore an excellent charac-
ter, and has left a widow and seven childrea to deplore his
It is rather a singular coincidence, that his father
was also an overseer at the same work, and was killed there
fourteen years ago by a similar accident.—G/argoo
L Herald.