The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-03-04 00:00:00

esowAnD .Vgn 1.118111 rx-rmrfr.

Mr. IV I Li), for the respondents. resumed his course of argu.
mein in this strangly contested ca-se ; the drift of the Learned
Gentleman's argument imported that there had been no rounds
shewn by the appellants sufficient to iodate his I.ordship to set
aside the veniliA given in the Court below. After the Learned
Clentleman hat concluded—

The SOLI( Fron-IiENERAT., for the alipellsnut, declared his
intention of urgaing in reply on Tuesday next.

COURT OF KIN(PS BENCH, WED!:Emmy, 3Lacit 3.

PPEEDIC JUSTICE.
scAncif D. crtr.

Mr. CHITTY stated this to be an action to recover the value of
fixtures, &c. in a house. in which the defendant succeeded the
plaintiff: The ktrecinent aprearsal to have been made on the 2.3 d
of January, in the present y ear.
Mr. CAMPIIII.I.-4.:peedy justice this, certainly. To make it
still more speedy, however. I have no objection that a gentleman
go out of Goon, and ascertain im.:antlr what is due, and we shall
pa it immediately.
Mr. CHITTY, for the sake of speedy justice, assented.
The Loan Cult: Jt• sq. C E it is certainly speedy justice.
Verdict for the plaintitr—Painages iiol. subject to a retcrcr.ce.
__ S.IDIVER r. LIVING:47O"r.

Air. A sinus:les opened the case, by stating that this was an
action for damages fur an assault by the defendant on Jane, the
plaintiff's wife.
Mt. .l su it VATT stated the circumstances. Mr. Sadler, a chair.
maker, lived in Mile-end-road, and the defendant haired in his
house. The defendant came where Mrs. Sadler was, and asked
her why she had been abusing his wife, put his linger in her face.
pushed her, and struck her on• the breast twice, when she fell
down. She was carried to her bed, where she was confined for a
fortnight.
Thomas Reynolds, apprentice to the plaintiff, stated the etteum-
stances in the very terms opened by the Counsel. The defendant
afterwards assaulted Mr. Sadler.
Mr. tic am v.—That is the ground of another action.
ll'itness—liefendant followed Sirs. Sadler to the wash-house,
struck her an the head, and pulled her liewlAress oft:
Cross-examined.—lfe did not complain of abasing his wife.
She tried to take up a rake ; she missed her blow and Ica Li-
vingston had all the house but three rooms.
Richard Rollo had heard words from the window, and saw a blow
struck, and Mr*. SadUr haling ; he struck her with his fist on
the breast ; in the wash-house lie struck her on the head and
knocked her bonnet off. Mr. Nicholls, a surgeon, was sent for.
She remained eight or ten days in her chintiber.
Another apnremice pee st•imiar evideoce.
Mr. Nicholls was called in on the 27th December. and found
Mrs. Sadler very much agitated, and considerably bruised on one
side ; there were bruises on her arm and chest; I applied
leeches; I attended a fortnight; she was confined to her chamber
for eight dose.
Mr. GUN sah! the plaintiff wanted to remove the defendant,
having conic into the three rooms with a family of fourteen. There
acre words, but no one could give them to the Jury. If they could,
they would have a pretty specimen of the vulgar tongue. De-
fenilant could bring no witnesses ; he was entirely at their mercy.
Ile did not say the plairtiff must not have their verdict, but the
lowest damages would meet the justice of the case.
The Loan ('Hilly JUSTICE—The verdict must be for the
plaintiff'. It is fur you to sae what damages.
The Foreman asked if there were any expenses to the spothe.
care ?
'the Loan Cuter JUSTICE—They have moved none.
Verdict for plaintiff—Damages fits.

COURT OF C031310N PLEAS, Wr.DIIESDAT, MAacn 3.

Adjourned Sittings at Nisi Pr ins, ofZer Hilary Trrnz, at Gaihl-
hall, in London, &fare the Lon!) l v lEr Ju aT IC r. and Special
Jarics.l

AIIDONIN WILLIAMS AND OTHER%.

Mr. Sergeant l'art:ii.SN stated that this was an action brought
by the plaintiN, as assignees of a bankrupt'* estate, to recover the
value of property to the amount of 19,0001. Notice having been
given by defendants to plaintiff to prove the act of bankruptcy, he
should do this preliminary to calling evidence to the merits of the
ease. The bankrupt. 31r. G. Paton, was a gereral merchant and
carried on mercantile dealings to a very large amount. The de.
fendatita were partners in a MIA at Chester, with whom the bark-
rupt was in the habit of borrowing sum* of money. and it was out
of those loans that the present action arose. The petitioning cre-
ditor'si debt was upon a bill of eschew, which became due on the
jth of July, lan year. ‘Pith respect to proving the act of bank-
ruptcy. there would be no difficulty, though there might be sonic as
to the exact point of time. The bankrupt anspended his pay-
ments on the t.l3th of June, but the act of bankruptcy might be
s:titl Dot to have actually taken place until the 4th of July ; and on
the lU:h the Commission was issued. The mode of dealing be.
tween the bankrupt and the defendants. oith regard to the loan,
was this: the London correspondents of the Cliesmr Dank were
Esdaile and I'o. \Chen this gentleman wanted a loan of the
Chester Bank, lie wrote to them to say that lie had deposited at the
house of Esdaile a sealed packet containing an order for the deli-
very of goods to them; he also gave a prominwty not., for the
amount of a loan, the sealed packet being a collateral security. 31r.
Paton being connected with the house of Esdaile and Co, lie did
not wish to have it known that he was in the habit of borrowing
from the Chester Bank. lie thert:' we got a friend of the name of
White to go to Esdaile's on these occasions, and credit was given
to White there by the Chester Bank for the loans, which White re-
ceived and handed over to Paton. \l-hire was used as the instru-
ment, the machine, the conduit-pipe, for conveying the money into
the pockets of the bankrupt, who was thus kept out of sight in these
transactions This went on for a great length of time, and an un-
limited confidence subsisted between the parties; so much so, and
so perfect a reliance was placed in the honour of the bankrupt, that
the bank at Chester permitted the bankrupt to withdraw any of
these sealed packets, on a verbal security to replace them. These
sealed orders were never opened, but left in perfect confidence, and
the dealings between the panics were thus carried on to an mato-
nishing amount. At the time of the bankruptcy, sealed orders
were lying at Eadaile's for property to the amount of 19,01101.,
though completely under the control of the bankrupt. In 1822,
Mr. Paton, finding he could go on no longer, wrote to one of the
partners in the Cheater bank, stating his circumstances, and that he
had desired a friend to call at Esdaile's to take care of the interest
of the Cheater bank. Esdaile and Co. not waiting fur letters from
Chester, on being apprized of the bankrupt's situation twitieh has
since caused the unfortunate gentleman to be de deranged), without
I any authority from Williams and Co., opene.l the sealed packet
then in their possession, and, by means of the inclowd order, ob-
tained a considerable part of the property. The great question to
be tried, therefore, was, whether there was not a contrivance to
elude the bankrupt laws, anti whether the creditors of the bank-
rupt's estate were not entitled to recover under these circumstances.
John Stanley, clerk to Mr. Pawn, was called, and gave evidence
to the effect stated by Mr. Sergeant Vaughan. lle underwent
cross.exasnination by Mr. Sergeant Boronquet.
Several witnesses from the East India and London hocks proved
the transfer of Various quantities of gouda trout the nanie of Pawn
to the defendants, in and after the month of July, 1821
A great deal of oral and documentary evidence having been gone
tnrough, in auprrt of the opening statement,
Mr. Sergeant llosaxsivEr addressed the Jury for the defend-
ants. It beeline his duty to state the nature of the case. The very
respectable gentlemen whom be represented had advanced consider-
able loans to the gentleman who had become bankrupt, upon the
faith of what they believed to be good securities, and it was for the
Jury to say whether those securities were available to them or not.
There are two grounds on which assignees claim property that has
passed into the hands of other persons from the bankrupt. The
first where the bankrupt had given an undue prefereree to any cre-
ditor ; the second was founded upon the statute of James 1., by
which Act it was provided, that if a creditor suffered a bankrupt to
enjoy the reputed ownership, and to have the disposition of pro-
perty that ought to be invested in the hands of assignees, the assig-
nee.' were entitled to claim from persons to whom that property
might have passed. Ile argued that neither of the principles here
recognized applied in this case. In this case the deposits were made
long betore the act of bankruptcy, and were negociable securities
that might have beets at any time passed from hand to hand. Ile
then eonterded that the order for else delivery deposited at the bank,
even if there had been no actuai transfer of the property, was as
complete a change of ownership as the execution of a mortgage,
unless it should be shown that there was wale fraud. There was
no evidence to show that :um advances were made to the bankrupt,
hut at a t riod when the defendants had every reason to believe hot
in good circumstances.
After stare discussion between the Court and Counsel.
The Jury found a verdict merely on a point subniitre 1 to them,
declaring it to be their unanittiourt opinion that the bankrupt was
nut at the time of the bankruptcy the reputed owner of h.: goods,
standing in the name of his agents; the other questions being left
Or the opinion of the Court on a special case.