The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-04-12 00:00:00

LA IV INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, MONDAY, APRIL 11.
EX-PIATE rroare IN THE HATTER or MARSH, BTRACIT,

AND CO. 114);16111.1"TS.

The Court sat at half-past ten, to hear this case. There was a
great number of persons in Court interested in the discussion,
amongst whom were the (ioternor, the Deputy Governor of the
Bank of England, le.
The Solicitor.Genetal, Mr. Home, Mr. Sergeant Ilosanquet,
and Messrs. llictersteth and PMMone, appeared for the peti-
tioners ; and 3lesars. Heald, 31onta„m, and Pollock, were Counsel
on the other side. • •

Mr. SOLICITOR-GE:4EIAL oppm el the petition. He said, the
Court had in.t to.day tor the purpese of hearing this important
case, and however impeirtsot it might be. as limning a pree 4-nt,
as well as in other respebte, Tel it was not his intention to go muc't
into the case, because he hardly knew the course the other aide
meant to take; and therefore it would be better fur him to reserve
himself for replying to the objections that were to be made, aft t
having heard them. If the nature of the difficulty was. 1110
the constitution of thin property having been tram.ferred by forget
instruments, a debt could not arise, then he could underhand it;
but as to the nature of nn7 other objection, he was quite's: a loss.
even to guess at it. I'hta was the petition of a Mr. St me, and
another Gentleman, .of the name of Gating:in, who prayed
that they might be at liberty to prove tinder the joint coat.
mission issued against Messrs. Marsh, Stracey, and Company, a
debt to the amotint cf sixteen thousand poulals and a fraction.
The cirettn:stances of the case were but short, and should' be stated
as briefly • —At the time the transaction in question toak place,
Mes.rse Marsh, Stracey, Fauntleroy, and (.rsham, who were
bankers in Bernern-streel, carried on business with Sir James Sib.
bald, and in May, 1919, there was standing in the joint names of
S one, Fatintleroy, and Galtagan, a sum ofrather morethan 17.0001.
stock. On 3lny 2A:h, 18 19, Mr. Btracey went to the Bank of
England with a power or attorney. purporting to be that of the
three trustees in whotic namcn :he 17,0140 L was s:anding. but which
afterward. turned out to be forged, and by that power'of attorney
obtained the sale of a portion of the stock to the amount of 16.000/.
the cash for which was paid into the house of Martin and CO. Lnro-
bard-street, with whom the Berates-street house kept an account
for their own convenience, and was, as it were, the Boners-street
house's till. On the 28th of the same month, in the same year, Mr.
Graham went to the Bank of England with a similar power of at-
torney, which also tutmed oe., to have been fens,ed, and ty which
the remainder of the stock was sold ont, and the money likewise
paid into the banking-house of Martin and Co. These were the
two simple branches of the cane, and the present petitionei had
applied to prove under the commission, lilt the Commissioners re-
fused to admit the proof, upon the ground of it haring been laid
down by the Court of Common Pleas, in the case of " Davis r.
Bank or England," that where no legal transfer had been made, no
debt had been constituted. In support of the petition several am.
davits had been filed, which, an far as the facts were concerned, he
(Mr. Solicitor-General) would also state shortly. The first affi-
davit was that of Mr. ‘l'hiteley, one of the clerks in the Bank of
England, who proved the existence of the stock. which stood in the
joint names of the trustees; the next was that of Mr. Spurling, the
broker who sold :he stock.

It was here remarked by Mr. HEALD, that the regular affidavits
in anpport of the petition had not been filed, and
The Sox'wive R-GEWERAL admitted that he had mistaken in
stating the examitlailo:l6 to be affidavits.
Ills LORDSHIP directed the case to proceed.
Mr. SOLICITOR-GFNZRAL next alluded to Mr. Cole's part
of the examination, clerk to Illessrs.lllartin and Co., who proved
that the sums were paid into their house to the account of Marsh
and Co.;and the next was, the examination of of the accountant,
who spoke to the manner in which the accounts were kept; but,
according to his (Mr. Solicitor-General's) view of the case, it was
immaterial how they were kept. The legal difficulty which it had
been whispered to him (Mr. Solicitor-General) would be raised
was, that stock-holders having, under the Acts of Parliament. such
indelible security for their property, persons whose stock had been
sold nut by false means could not but be entitled to claim from the
Bank of England ; but it seemed to be quite inconsistent to say
there could not be a demand against the wrong doer.
His LORDSHIP understood from the petition that the power of
attorney to sell this stock tvas not to the whole house of Marsh
and Co., but jointly to all the house except Fauntleroy, and to
each of the individuals composing that house, except Fauntleroy.
Mr. SOLICITOII-GENERAL said that was SO, ant that Mr.
Stracey and also 31r. Graham positively swore, that they did not
know or believe at the time that the power of attorney under which
they obtained the transfers were forged.
Ills LOIDIIIIIT wished to know how far the Learned Solicitor-
!
General meant to confirm the act. Did he mean to confirm it to
the extent of saying, that the Bank of England was not liable ?
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL wished the Court to understand
this to be the lava/tie petition of the petitioners.
His Lo anew ir took that to be so, but he desired to be informed
whether they meant to say they had no demand but against Marsh
and Co. If they meant so, thst was one way of putting it ; but if
they meant to say they hed a claim against the Bank of England,
yet that if they could be admitted to be creditors against the estate
of Marsh and Co., they ought to be allowed to make a proof, then
that would be another way of putting it. The case of Davis,. the
Bank of England, to use a vulgar expression, seemid to put the
petitioners beta ten two deft sticks; it gave them a title both
the Bank nf England and the bankrupts' estate.
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL would only further detain his Lord-
ship by saying, that notwithstanding the Bank of England were
liable to persons whose stock they had held, and which they had
suffered to be feloniously taken away, yet he was utterly at a loss to
know how it could be said such persons had no right to make a
demand against the person who had stolen the property ; anti
although, he gave credit to Messrs. Stracey and Graham for
having sworn to their ignorance of the powers of attorney hay-
ing been forged, yet, as it was indisputable that the produce of
the sales wero paid to Martin and Co. for the house of Marsh,
Stracey, Graham, and Co., and actually came into their hands,
they were liable to have a proof made against their estate for the
amount.

lIOIINE and Mr. Sergeant BOSANQI:ET next addressed
the Court. The two petitioners were the co-trustees of the late
Henry Fauntleroy, and certainly they would avow that which
appeared on the face of the petition, that the object of this yeti.
tion was, to give to the Bank of England the benefit of a proof
under the Codunission. It was a material circumstance to be,
recollected, that Mr. Fauntleroy was a Member of the Bank-
ing House, which, from time to time, received the divi-
dends payable upon the stock, as well as one of the trustees
in whose names the stock stood ; and there could be r.o doubt
that the firm of Marsh and Co., having received the produce
of the transfers, without having given any conside-atioo for it,
and by which the estate had been increased, must be liable
to a claim in respect to that produce having been received by them.
BIS LORDSHIP said, according to the case decided by the Court
of Common Pleas, the fund of the Bank of England was the pri-
ms-y fund to which the petitioners had to look. In deciding this
case it would be the di-it, of the Court to look at the application,
regard being had to claims of other persons placed in the same
situation in which the present petitioners stand, end yet to take
care, that if the proof of this one debt were 'to be admitted, more
than the proof of this one debt against the estate should be ad-
mitted by the decision admitting the proof. Considering what had
been done by the Court of Common Pleas, it would be a rather
bold step for this Court to decide in bankruptcy, that the proof of
the debt should or should not be admitted without first sending it
to a Court of Law. •
The SOLICITOI.GENERAL said, a Court of Law would not
decide how the proof could be made in bankruptcy.
His LORDSHIP—But a Court of Law could decide whether
those persons (Messrs. Marsh and Co.) were indebted to Cie peti-
tioner or cot at the time the bankruptcy happened; if they were
not, then no proof could be made against the estate, and if the
Common Pleas were right in their present decision, then the stock
had not been transferred ; at the time of the bankruptcy the stork
was there as before, and consequently how could a pivot be made ?
If the trustees were at liberty to waive their claim against the Bank
of England, and to come here for leave to prove against the estate
of the aforesaid bankrupts, so might the purchasers of the stock be
at liberty to say, no transfer ;tad been made ; and, therefore, they
desired to hare leave to prove also against the estate of the bank-
rupts, and it would be impossible for the Court to refuse that per-
mission.

His Lordship then desired this matter might be further heard on
Wednesday, and that in the mean time the examinations should be
put into form of affidavits.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Aran. 11.

Sittings after Hilary Term, at Westminster, bey( the LORD
Cm ir Jo;Tics, wird Commit Juan,.

nary? v CUAXCELLOI.

Tins was an action to recover damages for injury sustained by
the plaintiff' in consequence of a nnissince.
The plaintiff kept a school at Church-court, Kensington, and
also let lodging.. His school realised him about two pounds a
week, and he received nearly VA a year from his lodgers. The
defendant was a coach master In an extensive way, and his stables
being contiguous to the plaintiff's premises a great nuisance arose
therefrom. The way also was continually obstructed by Ins car.
tinges. In consequence of these things the scholars and lodgers
of the plaintiff deserted hint, by s Inch bis income was very con-
siderably diminished.
The defence was first, that no notice bad been given to abate the
nuisance, and it was also urged that the business carried on by the
defendant was precisely of the sante nature with what had been
done on the premises for the last forty years; and that the plain-
tiff had taken his house since that period. It was also argued that
neither the lodgers nor se whirs belonged to that class of late which
were likely to experience an annoyance from the alleged nuisance.
Verdict for the plaintin:—Damages 40s.
nouns: t: v. CVIIIIS.

This was an action for damages, in
.consequence of an assault
and false imprisonment. The plamttil kept a !souse in Blenheim.
street, Bond-street. at which the defendant, who was a nrighl•antr,
had felt greatly annoyed. On the night of the 47th Nos. lady,
the watchman observing the Ann of the plaintiff in Ble,:heini-strect,
in the company of two or three females, desired him It, " walk
oel" This being considered an infringement on the privileges of
a British subject, was indignantly resisted by the yotnig man, upno
the ground that he ass doing .• no harm." Words ensued which
called forth the young man's natural protector, the present plain.
who evinced a great desire to knbw the cause of this 'Altar,
mandate. The man in office. however, conceiving it.e rood ma.
trot's condact to bt the rrsv:it of a " f9regone coaalasata" to pr .