The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-01-20 00:00:00

IA THE iIATTLE or Tommy:s, ♦ '►T.

The WOLICITOK-GENER•L applied to the Coon for the div-
*barge of the bankrupt who had been imprisoned by the Commis-
sioners for having given unsatisfactory answers at his examination.
The ground of the present application was, that the warrant of
commitment, on the authority of which the bankrupt had been
imprisoned, did not contain the subject matter, all the questions
and answer,. and the full detail of all the proceedinp from which
that_ awsimitment resulted.

Mr. :Box TAG V e followed nn the same side.
Mr. Twins opposed the discharge of the bankrupt It was not
necesdary that all the questions and answers should be set forth in
such a proceeding as the present. It might in happen that a bank-
rupt would have certain transactions with A and with B. In an
investigation into the business of A it was rot necessary that all the
'uankrupt's affairs with B should be mentioned and discussed, and
rice versa. It was sufficient that the leading points should be in-
traluced, and that the material part of the transactions between the
parties should be omitted. The Learned Counsel insisted that
everything which it was material to state had been stated on the
face of the proceedings, and it was unnecessary to go into superflu-
ous statements.

The Loan Citaxcet.t.oa did not consider himself authorised to
suppose that all the questions asked and oniittad were necessarily
unconnected wi.h the ',mini of the commitment. The late deci-
sions it the Court of King's Bench induced him to be more cau-
tious in cases of this kind. Fonnerly it was deemed sufficient for
the bankrupt togive any answer, whether it was in the affirma-
tive or negative ; and, provided it was direct, it was sufficient.
Now, however, it was necessary that he should not only give a di-
rect answer, but that it should be full, correct. and conveying every
information of his affairs which it was requisite to obtain. In the
present case he saw no rtatement setting forth that any material in-
formation had been withheld. Either the questions were relevant
or irrelevant. If they were relevant, they should be set forth ; and
it was not for him to suppose that the Commissioners had asked
questions irrelevant and foreign to the subject of inquiry before
them ; he was the less disposed to entertain this opinion on a sub-
ject so important as one *Wetting the liberty of the subject ; be
would therefore order the discharge of the bantrupt.
DELAYSIN CHANCERY.
. _ _

Mr. A oaa was desirous of CfrawiaglthestTentlein of the Court to
an order which had been made in November last, directing that
all the adjourned causes which stood in the registry book without
the cause of adjournment appearing, should be struck out. The
operation of this order would be very vexatious and unjust in many
instances, if carried into effect literally. Fur instance, a cause ad-
journed for goat reason might be struck out, al:hough no reason
would appear in the books which might be nevertheless the fault
of the register. Ile begged that to exception to the order of the
Chancellor might be made in the case of the Attorney-General
v. Holland, which had been abated in consequence of the death of
one of the parties, and which was revived by one of the living par-
ties. As no cause was stated for the adjournment, it must be
struck out accuril;ng to the order.
The LORD CIIANCELLOR said that the cider was made in con-
sequence of a complaint fur neglect coming from all branches of the
Court. It appeared that ninety-three causes had been struck out,
as no cause whatever had been assigned fur their continuance. It
therefore became necessary that such causes as stood in the registry
without the reason for adjournment being weed before a certain
time, should be struck out of the registry. There could be no
hardship in the case, as the order itself was sufficient notice to the
parties who were concerned in it.
Mr. AGAR said, that parties in the country would not be aware
of the order. _ _ _ _ .

The LORD CHANCELLOR sail that the publication of the
order took Mace in November, and copies were placed publicly in
the various public offices. It was hir the credit and chasacttr of
the Court, that such an order should be made because, strange as
it might appear, these very causes, and the time which they were
allowed to remain in the registry book, were Larded in elsewhere,
as proofs that this Court did nothins., and that it was a nuisance.
Solicitors, and persons whose duty it was to act, created this de-
lay by their negligence.
An application was afterwards made for an appeal, to be fired
for a particular day.
31r. HART objected, that it would be an undue preference, and
injustice to the suitors, who attended in consequence of their cases
tieing appointed for particular days. lie therefore opposed the
application.
The Loin CHANCELLOR said, that 31r.'Hart's objection was
perfectly justifiable, and that in future he should not listen to any
application to name a day for any specific cause, unless Counsel at
the Bar consulted, and without prejudice to cases which had been
previously appointed for hearing.
lA/RD PORTS3IOCTII.

Mr. PEPTS begged to remind his Lordship that there were two
petitions in the ease of this lunacy, which stood over from& former
day. They were of considerable importance, and it was necessary
that they should be expedited. As his Lordship would be en-
gaged in hearing petitions on Wednesday, he begged that the pe.
tinons in the ease of this lunatic might stand at the head of the
' petitions for that day.
Leave granted.
T. CLAVOIITOIT, ESQ. 11. P. V. GARRISON.
This case excited considerable public interest, and though it
came on towards the close of the day, created a very lively atten-
tion and curiosity during its hearing.
Mr. AGAR begged the attention of the Court to a motion in this
case. It was necessary that he ',lipoid make it now, for it re-
fciiired to a trial which, it' not inhibited by this Court, would take
place to-morrow, and therefore render any other application melees
or unavailing. The object of his present motion was, that pro-
ceedings at law for the recovery of the amount of certain bills of
exchange should be stayed, and that the money should be paid into
Court until an alleged fraud in the circulation of the bills
should be tried in the Courts below. An Ail had been made by
the defendant's Counsel, before, to permit the money to be paid
into Court until such action wax determined at law. Ile was now
ready to accede to that proposal : and if the defendant's Counsel
were still disposed to accede to it, it would supersede the necessity
of his entering into a detail of the circumstances of the case.
Mr. llonwe was not disposed to assent to such a proposal. His
[seamed Friend was too wise to accept the O'er when it was
formerly made, and he (Mr. II.) was too wise to accept it now.
Mr. AG•B then proceeded to the detail of the circumstances on
which the present motion was grounded. It appeared that the
plaintiff, Mr. I Illuighton, employed a Mr. Leigh, in the year 1820,
as the confidential agent of the Orrel and Pemberton C'oal Com-
pany, of which firm he ( Mr. ('laugliton) was a member. So great
was the confidence placed in this person, that he was furnished
with a set of printed bills of exchange, on which the name of the
plaintiff was indorsed, in order that Mr. Leigh might fill them up,
and discount as the exigencies of the firm might require. Mr.
Leigh ceased to be the confidential agent of the plaintiff in Febru-
ary, Ith22. But, before his connexion with the (nrel and Pember-
ton foal Company terminated, he procured two of the blank form..
of the above description, which had been previously indorsed by
the plaintiff. without the knowledge or privity of the plaintiff, and
convened them into ncgociable hills of exchange. Each of the
bills was drawn for seven hundred and fifty pounds. These
bills were drawn by a person of the moue of 'I hooks Farquhar-
son, who described himself as Sferciary of the Pape of Good
Hope Company. They were drawn On the 2-ith of June, 1321, and
were mode p tyable on the 30th of Dreenther, 11192. 1 ht the 3d of
May, 11122, Leigh was committed to the kin,2's Bench prison, for
debt, and became a bankrupt. Whilst in prison he retained these
two bills, and there he formed an acquaintance with a person of the
name of Govatt, who was also confined as an insolvent in the
King's Bench prison. liovatt and Leigh fonned a partnership, and
agreed to continence businesss as leather-tellers. f hese bills were
to constitute the principal part of the property by s hich the part-
nership was to be sustained. The Learned Comm' here entered
into a statement of the form of the bills, and of the mode in which
Mr. llittighttm usually !money upon such hills. Moreland and
Co. were the bankers who diseourted them. It was teenaged be-
tween (iovatt and Leigh that these two bills the 7301. each wee!
transferred to the present defendant, Mr. Harrison. Mr. Harrison
was introduced to Leigh in the King's Bench prison. Leigh was then
a bankrupt; and 51r. Harrison, it was contended, should not have re-
ceived the bills, as he knew that Leigh could by law have no property.
These bilk therefore belonged to his assignees and not to hint. It
did not appear that Harrison had even given any equitable consult..
ration for these bills, which gave rise to a strung suspicion that
they were transferred to him for the !unpile of aiding the designs
of Leigh and Govan, and in defrauding Mr. l'laughton of the
amount. This suspicion was strongly confirmed by the circum-
stance of two other bills having been sent to Mr. Harrison by lio-
vett and Leigh without his proving them, in order that he might
have the appointment of an assignee in the case of his bankruptcy.
l'here were a variety of other cireuntstanceainto the detail of which
the Learned Counsel entered, corroborative of an alleged collusive
siningentent between Harrison and Leigh and Govan. The great
}hardship of which the plaintiff complained in this cause was, tha
if the defendant recovered at action at law the amount el the bills'

It Wadi beef no Mail for hint afteeweede to dm femetHh the
eimuistice of the MA as the dellrodaed was he
would be spent, and he. would have no redrew, although he I
fully substantiate the Meek that had been premised ape im.
Mr. Hon itt„ on the pail if the defendant, opposed the
motion. Ile had bawd that Ha client was insolvent. and L. it
110 wonder that such a calamity should befit him if be hd t. deal
with persons who resisted the payment of bilis, m which they had
affixed their signatures. The bills came to hen is the
course of huskies., and no imputation of fraud bad hem rT4
to have been practised by him in the obtainment of them. It maw
necemary that a plaintiff should come into Court wide cies. handy
but to what point of view did Mr. I laughton stand in the psis ref
instance. On the first application that was made to hint hie die
payment of those bills, he wrote the following letter, in which he
affected a total ignorance of the existence of such a body as dio,
Cape of (lood Hope C,oitpany, although their name, and that of
the Secretary, were nientionbl on the face of the bill, ow which Mice
also to be found his own stintiiare.
"January 4, 1103.
" Sta.—l have this morning received the letter announciag obi
return of two bills of 714 L each, drawn by the Orrel and Pember-
ton Cosl Company, paid to you by M. John Leigh. He had se
authority whatever to mete such bills, his army for me Ambit
ceased before he did so, and a commission of baokntptcy tieing in
prosecution against him ; nor lur.e I, in point of fact, nee any idiot
person, unless et be Job° Leigh Wang, received a sixpence
The Cape of flood Hope Company never existed at all but its Johtr
Leigh's brain, siho issued preipectuses without authority Or PIK.
Lion. Be this as it may, however, nhatever consideration you hem
paid, I presume you will have a right to recover. If you will per-
mit me to call upon any friend of yin*. in London, Metre I am
going next week, and will authorise him to set for you, /Aid ern-
deavonr to pat the matter into a train of amicable arid semi/ se-
=gement. A line in answer will oblige
" Yours, &e.
_______._

T. CL,AUORTON."

Mr. Leigh, of whom he thus spoke, was a I;ighl;ria;;;itthitt
merchant, and had been employed by Mr. ilaufrtoll in. raisin`
money for him for furthering his mercantile transactions. Mr.
Iforatt, it was true, was imprisoned for debt, but he was not a
bankrupt. His imprisonment was occasioned by his resistance to
the payment of a debt which he bad previously arranged. He de-
nied the existence of any fraud, sod particularly vindicated Mr.
Harriett' from such an imputation.
Mr. LMreTT followed on the same aide. He procreate" to'
detail further ciratmstanees of the Casa, when
The LORD CHANCELLOR interrupted him, and said he
1;601
hear the ease argued to • conclusion to-money. It was evident
that there was no pretence fee delaying the trial on any groind that
Md been oidated. He would beer the awe: however, further dis-
cussed, in order that he might lino* what course to take in teethe*
of a verdict beim found for the defendant, and application oak to
him to stay the execution of it.