The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-12-10 00:00:00

HABEAS CORPUS.

EMILY, A DANERCIPT.
petition war presented to the Court en the part
inton, who had been committed to Newgate by
. of Bankrupt", for refusing to give them antis-
appeared chit when the petitioner was qua's-
to the amount of certain sums of money paid
ankrupt, he replied that the amount was lutween
COOL

vu heard yesterday for the petitioner. The
tan said that Committaldriers of Bankrupts were
ping witnessaa as to the extent of a bankrupt's
act of bankruptcy via first clearly established.
A, is the first instance, to an examination

a); of the bankrupt, with' a view to ascertain
committed an set of bankruptcy. In the present
sissicmers had gone beyond the limits prescribed
gialatuie, at d therefore submitted to the Court,
could' not stand, u the only complaint egoist
that be did not satisfactorily answer questions
•r: Commissioners were not vmpowered to ask.
entitled to his diacharFe on other grounds,
ter examination was dist.nctly referred to in
intittal. though cot one word of that examina.
it. This, the Learned Oentleman submitted,
I arniirsion, as, for aught the Court could judge,
red to explain the petitioner's answers. The
Itrthey tonteidect that, it, point of substance,

witJle nP thestoctectings we.Te irreular.

)unet follnwedon the einie Bide thi•motaing.
the peiitionisig credi:or, ert;ued in support ot.

CNAICELLOa said that he had read sttentlsely
s, end End no heitatinn in declaring his (Tinton
the petitioner were not satisfactory ; if that
legation before the Court he clearly would not be
liseharge. AS the law once stocd, s haters!. a sit.
stsere.-was taken as satisfactory. The Court of
since altered that iererpretstion of the law, and
ni a great deal of inconv.n!ence. Acenrding to
Parliament the Cornmiraioners were not jurvikd
'tomes ss to she dealings of estate of the bank.
f bankruptcy was proved to hare been coin.
' it Was difficult to draw the line beyond which
They might, for instance, inquire whether
made any delivery or transfer of his property
` delaying his creditors; and who could-pre_
in order to ascertain that fact it might be
discover what the amount of the property trans.
It wan not necessary that previous to suing out a
r petitioning creditor have positive proof that an act
was committed ; It was quite enough for the party
to state his belief that such an act had taken plecr.
dd, that however trnsatistaetory the petitioner's an.
Court was bound to order his discharge, on the
warrant of committal was defective—it was deice.
did not set forth a previous exemination alluded.
e unsatisfactory nnswers were said to havers:S.
ination. His Lordship dismissed the petition of
rch was before the Court yesterday. Whether
ought to be done respecting it, he would take

4ILLIAINS rt. GOODCEILD.
Spreal from an order of his Efor.cur the Vice•Chan-
`at a new trial at law be had in the cults. The
a is the rizht to the vicarial ti•hes of the parish of
(moor the Vice-Chancellor granted an order for a
• a•tplicatirta of the present appellant, who also
icr he accompanied with directions that certain
• tile oppoiute party previous to going to trial.
rrfuseil the latter part of the application, sod
le the ground of apnea).
heard in part for the appellant.

:ELLOR'S COURT, FRIDAY, Dec. &

oR SERVIC&SIONEY IN INDIA.

101 v. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY,
ANM ASTELL.
, Mr domovery tiled by the plaintiff; Sir John
(.4m.lew ard representative of Sir John M Gregor
apiirta the llonourable East Indio Company,
one of their Directors.

bill was to compel the defenear,ts to produce
in their mansion, substamisting the claim of
ntmesentative of the late Sir J. M'Oreeor Murray to
tor &eyelets performed by. the deceased in behalf of the
-nment and interests in India. It slimmed from
rifled in the bill that, in the year Ins. etii;ng
Sir J. bl`Pherson, services °flan irnponent sod
were rendered the British Governtnent in India by
;rester Murray. By his activity and intelligence, a
rid* the native princes, fur the overthrow of all
c in that part of the soft& was discovered and
the round of these very Important services Sir
claims for compensation at the hands of the
,ty, and the reasonableness of his application
Ororernor.Geneml concurred in the propriety
Am Murray. and on his arrival in lingland im-
am of the advantages derived to the Company
he had rendered. and vouched for the justice of
mensation. Things remained in this state, when,
.;.‘stment of hie claim. Sir John Murray died.
1y him had never since been conferred on his
Jitegoefice of which' the present plaintiff. as
deceavel, commenced an action at common law
lama for the recovery of compensation foe the
eanserated. However. the ptsintiff speedily dis..
y to proceed. without the enlivens., of numerous
• Sir John Murruy's eladuis Theo document.
the Company. and the bill bad been filed to
:don. In the Conrt below. the defendants se.
general issue and the Statute ct Limitations;
r confined themselves to the averment that they
teral issue in the Court t.f Lou.
vs 1-Loa—That is (await tent ; the defendants
muted they Intl availed dirt:selves of the Sta.
in the Court below. It is not enough to say
•eral issue, although that cotirt!tutrd a Part of
whole pin *1 nu Id have appeared.
laved that the i leas be taken off the tile and

z-Cketectiame ;ranted the moti.r.
CONTE)IPT.
LORD a. Lolly.
trmeave moved the Ceutt that the Jitentlait, lithe