The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-01-16 00:00:00

4~

I

;

LA* llvtsulcENtk.

- -
COURT OF CHAW(UY. Lsecoxii's
TUtaloAlf, JA 66666 16.
•
lIRA*II IN ?RR MATTI'S 0, A 01114.14/
•ND OIRSI.IIANICIMPTS.
Mr. AGAR concluded his utgunieuts iD inapport
of the appeal.
Mr. Hoene, Counsel for the Petitioned con-
tended that this was a ease in which the Court bad
jerisdictimi, and that the decision of his Helmut
the Vice-Chancellor was 'correct. The jurisdiction
of the Court did not depend on the Act of the
sth George If. but on the antecedent Acts of Par.
liameut, which had not been repealed ; but it had
been most properly observed by his Lordship, that
the jurisdiction of the Corset did not depend on
srstutes, but on the principles of justice. it was a
misrepresentation when his Lordship was told that
he (Mr. Horne) had contended before the Vice:-
Chancellor that the interferetice of bankrupt. in the
choice of assignees was so far improper that the
C3urt, in every case, should declare. that the choice
made by such interference was not valid. He had
made use of no such argument ; he contended tto
such thing before his 114p,tiur ; but lie contend. d,
as he did now, that where bankrupts so improperly
interfered, as they had in this case. in the election of
enigmas, that the elected by such means were not
valid, sod that there ought to be a new choice. It
could not be contended that Mr. Carroll was a pro-
per person to be assignee, hom the cloud which
was over his debt ; he had proved a debt of 13,0004
ageing the bankrupts' estate, and said he had a
further debt, which he declined to prove, and it
appeared this debt that he objected to prove was
grounded on usurious transectioiss with the bank-
rupts. The Commissioners naturally, and he would
say most properly, refused to ret dive the proof of
the debt on the bills of exchange, without examiii-
in.; Mr. Carroll as to his other demand, to s-e
whether the bills of exchange were not mixed do
with the former transactions between him and the
bankrupts. Mr. Carroll petitioned the Vice-C
cellor against the decision of the Com • •
and his Honour confirmed their opipion, and Mr.
Carroll was obliged to submit tit be examined.
and the Commissioners hail not delivered their '
opinion whether he was entitled to prove his
debt or not. There was anutl4r question to be
considered, whether Mr. Carroll was a fit person to
be assignee in such a case as Haw, where the late-
Twit of not only the opulent but the poor were con-
cerned. A man to be an assignee in such* cave,
ought to be able to hold himself upright, and oitli
an even hand make the bulance, for a great number
of the debtorrof the bankrupts were persons of the
first rank in society, and a great number of their
creditors were pour servants, who had intrusted
their hard-earned money to their custody. He con-
sidered that the question as to Mr. Carroll being an
assigmee was put to rest, and he would very shortly
put an end to the claim of Mr. Duffe to a similar
office; that gentleman allowed that all the money
he had advanced to the bankrupts was for annuities
at a usurious interest ; it wee by his owa she
so covered with illegality, that he had not a foot to
stand 00 Nil for as his claim to be an assignee. The
other claimant, Mr. Wilkie. was not exactly so si-
tuated,.as his claiiiijeas nut vitiated by usury ; for,
in fact, fie had no claim un the bankrupts' estate
as a creditor, hut he would not quarrel with bun
on that account, for there might he many caws
where it would be desirous that an assignee should
not have an interest, on the ground that bring dis-
interested he would he the best guardian of the in.
tercets of the bona fride creditor,.
Further argument postponed until to-morrow
(this day).

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Wrninirria,
TOUDAT, JANUARY 16.

CIVILTON V. PLUM ♦RD OTHERS.
This was an Action by the Plaintiff, a respectable
Solicitor, ►essding in Chancery.lane, against the
Master of the Rolls, fur recovering a compensation
in damages for ob.truciing the light of his office by
means of the erection of a coach-house in Rolls-
yard. The cause was tried before the Lord Chief
Justice, at Westminster, when the Jury found a
verdict for the Defendants.

In the last Term Me. ilitsavereebtaiued a rule
to sheer cause why a pet iviel.ehoultLngt hest on
the grounds of a misdirection of the Learned Judge
who tried the cause, and also that the verdict was
spinet evidence.
Mr. SCA auteribd Mr. TINDILa were new heard
at great length in support of the verdict. They
dwelt particullsry on the very inconsiderable quan-
tum of damage sustained. even according to the
Plaintiff's own Chewing ; end 'contended, that the
whole question had been very properly left to the
Jury, in whoseprovinee it particularly was to decide
upon the cones tradictOry evidence which had been
adduced. Had the Jury even found otherwise, and
the question of damages had arisen, they would, Ito
doubt, have been se trivial as to fall within the rule
of the Court, nut to allow a new trial where the
damages were under 40,1.
Mr. M•artarr, for the Plaintiff; salt% the ob-
ject. was not the recovery of darnel" bat the
removal of the• erection which had' occesioned an
sensible a diminution of light as greatly to darken
the Plaintiff'i office; and if that nuisance were
now removed, his client, so far from being anxious
about costs or damages, would be content to let
these matters remain as at present.
The COWLr thought the proposal worthy of the
Defendant's consideration, and the matter stood
over to give Mr. Scarlett ati opportunity to mention
the proposition to Sir Thomas Plumes.
lIILNSLEY V. lIIGNOLD.
' This was an action for work and labour, brought
by the Plaintiff, a printer, against the Defendant,
late Secretary of the Norwich Union Fire-office,
mad was to recover the expense of printing a pam-
phlet. The Jury, at the trial, found a verd'et for
the Plaintiff; subsequently s rule was obtained by
Mr. Gurney, to shew cause why a non-suit should
'not be entered, on the ground that the regulation
of the Act 38 Geo. 111., which recpiires thitt the
name and address of the printer should be on the
front of the pamphlet, had not been complied with.
Mr. SCARIATT, for the Plaintiff, now contended
that the Act of Parliament had been substantially
complied with, es the manes of Pinner and Co. were
affixed to the pamphlet, us printers sod publishers.
Had the action been brought by them, then the