The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1805-11-29 00:00:00

CL.

I

' .1

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Nov. ;S.

lIILL O. TALL.

to keep the peact fur the term of three years, year.
sel; in X/01. and two sufkicnt auteties ia 9501. each.
in the Metter of .lorna Kirin.4 Bankrupt.

Mr. ERSKINE retbewed his application ^n behalf
of the Bankrupt, for a mandamus to he di; eAed to
certain Magibtrates. to Ir,ng the Bankrupt before
them, in order that he might take the benefit of the
late Insolvent Aft.
The Learned Counsel having gone into a con-
siderable exposition of this Aft. content:l,d, that the.,
Dankrupt came within the meaning of the Aft, and
was entitled to the benefit of it. in as much as his
deists did not amnant to 1.5001. upon the Ist of
January, 1804. An application had been made by
mine of the Bankrupt': cre•litots, to the Chancellor,
who retmitted them to claim and prove their re-
sped ive dem suds under the rommissinn, and left
them at liberty to make their elettion, whether they
would afterwards beck their remedy at law, or re-
ceive a portion of their den ands. and assent to, or
dissent from, the Bankrupt's certificate, when a di-
vidend should he eleclaml. These creditors, ac-
cordingly, claimed, proved, and signed the Bank-
rupt's certificate. thereby reduting the debts for

which he stood charge,' in execution, to about
1,2001. and therefore he insisted the Bankrupt was
entitled to his discharge. provided fne„in the 4th
se,ction of the late An of -li•onent. for the relief
of insolvent debtors, under 1,5(10. A Ju•fge's order
(Lord Ellenborough) was also obtaind for him to
be discharged nut of custody, as to that specific
sum, in due and claimed by these creditors, under
the Commission of Ilankrnptcy.
Lord Er Leiraosouou said, that the Legislature
certainly meaet to extend the henefit of this Aft
of Parliament, to persons only who came within the
spirit and meaning of it. and who were indebted
in a less sum than 1,5001. upon the Ist of Ja- nary
1804. It appeared, therefore, from all the proceed-
ings before the Court, that this person was not en-
titled to that benefit ; he was char;ed in execution
on the Ist day of Janua, y 1804, in a sum of money
4xceeding 1,5001. The Judge's order for his dis-
charge was obtained subsequent to that time, arid
his certificate had never to the present moment, been
perfeaed.
The application, therefore was refused.
t (mane v. CLAGOrt.
This case had been frequently before the Cettrt,
was twice tried at Guildhall. and several motions
Made, from time to time, during term. It was an
aetion upon a Policy nt Insurance, where the ship
insured gone an illegal voyage, and was lost;
we have •ireally given the circumstances -f this
ease, at. large, in Immo:. Papers. The question be-
fore the Court was tipon a motion to set aside the
former trial, a:ld rester a new one, with liberty to
withdraw t!- re of the Defendants, and substitute
three oti•cr, upon payment of costs. After hear-
ing all the arguments of Counsel on both sides, and
the Ce ert agie..ing to acquiesce in whatever Rule
the parties between themselee. might propose, which,
in the sequel, •.ot being accomplished, their Lord•
ships dischatged all the foresee Rules. and dire&ed
them to make a special application to the Court in
the next Tam.
The Sor.icirot.Genaaat made the usual motion
at the end of the term. that the rule fur persons un.
der recognizance to attend this Court during term,
might be continued.
I4eing the last day of Term, a number of Insol-
vent Debtors were iwnught up and dischasged ; and
a variety of motions of course. and others, %mints-
resting to the public, were disposed of.

Some days back. a rule was obtained by Serjeant
SHEFIMID. on the part of the Defendant, to set
aside the proceed;ngs had in this cause, on a promis-
sory note of 2001 for irregularity, with costs.
Serjeant V sunit v x appeared to drew cause. and
set out with ohs, :ring, that the Defendant was a
kin.: of amphibious, or rather non-descript animal.
Ise:ag at the same time an attorney, a cheesernon
ger, and a musk-seller. One of the irregularities
which he apprehended his brother intended to insist
on, was, that the Defendant was arrested. though he
was an attorney rf the Court, and, in consequence,
a privileged person. The other, as appeared from
the affidavit of the Defendant, was, that this hill,
which had been passed by him fur music to Mr.Lorenzn
de l'onte,lhad been already swisfied by the endorser;
and that, therefore, the Plaintiff bad no right to in-
stitute a suit against him. With respcet to both of
these ohjeetions, the Learned Serjeant said, he hoped
he would be able to satisfy the Court, that they
could not be for an instant supported. He then
stated a past of a very voluminous affidavit, sworn
to by Mr. Hill, from which it appeared, that this
bill bad been given to Sir. Lorenzo de Ponte, in
part payment of the sum of 8001. for music, and
other articles, being the stock in a music shop in the
Haymarket, kept by the Defendant. The affidavit
having then gone into other transaCtions, the consi-
deration of which the Court rejeeted. as foreign to
the case, stated, that the Defendant bad torrnealy
been a cheeserrionger, and that a statute of bards-
saptcy had been taken out against him, as such,
ahem, three y: ars ago, and it was not known whe-
ther he has since got his certificate. It also stated,
that, in the year 1804, the Defendant had been ar-
rested for e;,• of the notes given on the same ; to
which arrest, he put in bail, without making the
smallest complaint to the Court, for the infringe-
ment on his privilege. On these grounds, Scrjeant
VAVOH m submitted that the Court must consider
the privilege, if he had any, was waved by his not
applyivg when he was before arrested in the same
transaltion ; and, therefore, that this Rule should be
discharged with costs.
Serjeant Barr, on the Same side. produced the
Bill, which, he said, never having been paid, he did
mot know how the Defendant could reconcile it to
his conscience, to swear it had. He thea ad-
ised him to withdraw his motion, as, if the bill was
identified, and appeared not to be paid, it would
clearly prove perjury on his part. • .
After some farther argnircnts. Mr. Prothonotary
%Vatlington was called on to stare what be knew of
the busineis ; lie said, that the bill in question, when
the matter was before him. never appeared to have
been paid ; and he was sorry to state, that there
were many Others under the same circumstances.
Serjeant SUMMITS, on the part of the Defendant
mid, that his brothers, at the
.other side, had been
star`