The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-22 00:00:00

No case of any public importance occurred to-day.

V

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAx. 21.

Sittings at Gaild/wll, London, before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE,
and Special Juries.
11000 AND ♦NOTIIIR, •SSIONEEB Or KENNING V. TREAKE.
This was an action of trover, to recover certain bales of silk, and
sane East India warrants, entitling the bankrupt to claim other
bales from the warehouse of the East India Company, formerly the
property of the bankrupt, and which had since come into the pos-
session of the defendant.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case to the Jury. Ile
Add the bankrupt was a young man who, some little time ago,
commenced business in the silk trade, with a small capital.
The defendant was the uncle of the bankrupt, and a man of
considerable property, living at Ratcliffe, and was a ship-breaker.
The bankrupt discovering that his circumstancts were become
embarrassed, availed himself of the credit which the occasional
loans made to him by his uncle (the defendant) had assisted him
to obtain, and got goods from various persons to a very consider-
able amount—got bills discounted, and then went to Bordeaux,
and afterwards sailed from thence to New York, from whence he
had never returned. shortly previous, however, to his leaving this
-intry, and when in contemplation of taking that step, he
bat received from the East India warehouse several bales
of silk, all of which he, about a week before his departure,
delivered over to the defendant. This was of itself suf.

ticient to constitute an act of bankruptcy, and being done on the
eve of his abs:onding from his creditors, the laws of England ad-
kaiged it to be an act of preference to one creditor, and fraudulent
towards all the rest, and therefore void, and not capable of truce.
ferring the legal possession out of the bankrupt, which now, by
virtue of the commission, and the assignment, became vested in
his assignees, *ho were the plaintiffs in this cause. Ile should be
able to prove that those goods were seen in the parlour of the
bankrupt on the evening of the 6th August 1823 ; that they were
then removed into the passage • that the porter was sent out of the
way, and on his coming on the premises the following morning,
the bales of silks were all removed and gone. He should then
trace these goods into the possession of tire defendant ; and having
proved these tacts, he should, on the grounds he had before
assigned—namely, an undue preference given to a creditor In the
contemplation of an act of bankruptcy, be entitled to recover back
Oche bales of silk, and the warrants, or their amount in damages.
Vi'm. Gsdshy was in the bankrupt's employ, who carried on bu.
nness in Spitaffields ; the last time hr saw him was last Midsum-
rrer.day twelvemonths, when he told witness he should return in a
week, but he had never yet returned. If persons came to inquire
about money, witness was to tell them that the banktupt would be
home in a few days. Knows the defendant, who is a ship-bresker,
and resides at Blackheath. Some days before the bankruptcy,
Witness saw a great tunny hales of silk in the bankrupt's dining_
room • he afterwards missed many of them, and in a few days the
defendant, who is the bankrupt's uncle, ca/led at the house, and
asked for the bankrupt ; witness told him he would not be home
for a few days ; defendant said, why the man must be marl, for his
cart came to my house in the morning, and brought thirteen bales
of ailk, asking leave to let it remain in my back house until the
next Friday. Witness afterwards went to deferdant's house with
the officers, and there saw thirteen bales, which he had previously
seen in the bankrupt's dining-room.
Cross-examined.—Other things were found on the defendant's
premises, when witness went with the officers. They did not at.
tempt to take the things away. No papers or vouchers were pro-
duced by the defendant. Witness did not overhear the conver-
sation. About the time this took place, there had been coma.
derable disturbances between the journeymen weavers and the
masters.
A Mr. Godfrey proved his going to the defendant to demand the
bales of goods, who admitted having had them, but said that he
had paid for them to the bankrupt, through whom he had lost a
deal of mosey ; the defendant had since proved a debt of 1,6001.
under the commission against the bankrupt. A dividend of 7s. 6d.
in the pound had been paid ; the money to pay which was raised
by the bankrupt being compeled to give up about 14,0001. after his
shiest at New York, in consequence of certain criminal proceed-
fake taken against him there.
A clerk in the bankrupt's employ was called—He stated that a
dew days before the bankrupr absconded he desired witness to go
down to Stamford, in Lincolnshire, and see his friends ; previous
to witness going he had handed over sundry East India warrants
far the delivery of silk ; upon these warrants one hundred and forty
pounds had been paid.
Cron.examined—There was a considerable balance to be paid at
these India House on the warrants, and it was the custom of the
trade that if the balances on the warrants were not paid on the very
44y they became due, never to allow a person making default to
dial at the Company's sales again.
•Re-examined—Witness fully expected the bankrupt to return,
Sail be heard that he was in return-.
A witness named Codd proved the value of the silk to be at the
time about 2201. per bide.
A clerk in the India House was called to identify the warrants,
and to prove the amount paid on them by the defendant.
It was suggested for the defendant, that if he advanced the ba-
lance on the warrants, for the purpose of preventing the silks being
lost, he had in law a lien of them for the amount he had so
advanced.

Mr. Justice LiTTLEDALE was inclined to that opinion.
Nr. NAAR YRT T, on behalf of the defendant, contended that the
telnsactien between him and the bankrupt was not an act of pre.
ference, nor any fraud on the other creditors. but a bona fide deal.
irg : that the defendant had been in the habit of making advanm
to the bankrupt of large sums of money, from time to time ;
and that the thirteen bales in question had been deposited with him
as a security. He had offered to give them up to the assignee,
mixing paid his claim. The defendant had already been fully
rwemined before the Commissioners, upon the circumstances now
being inquired into, end there was not the least fraud in the whole
mosaction. He then commented OR the evidence bf the plaintiffs'
witnesses, and insisted that they had altogether failed to make out
the right of the assignees to the thirteen bales, which it was now
admitted were all they sought to recover.
- Witnesses were then called, who proved that the defendant had
Seatuently assisted the bankrupt with loans of money; that they
he/Learn the bankrupt on one occasion repay the defendant I,OOOL,
said had often observed dealings for silk take place between them,
and an arrangement of accounts made on those occasions. It was
elan shown that the defendant bad proved a very large debt against
the bankrupt's estate.
The defendant's daughter, Miss Freake, was called, and said,
that she had oftentimes known silk brought to her father's house
by the bankrupt, anti had seen her father lend him at two several
MICR the sum of 1,0061. She thought the last goods were brought
abdut the 6th of June, and after her father had lent the bankrupt
the last sum of 1,0001.
An objection was taken to the receipt of this evidence.
Justice LITTLEDALE was of opinion that the evidence
meet to be received ; for at the time of the bales in question being
sent to the defendant, the bankrupt had not committed any act of
bankruptcy; it was theretbre competent to him to dispose of his
property even by gift if he thought proper. The plaintiff's could
not be placed in a better situation than the defendant would have
been in, supposing no commission had issued against hint, and
basing once deposited these bales with the defendant as security for
advances made, he could not reclaim them without paying the
AVM they were deposited to secure, and it was very clear that the
defendant was a large creditor of the bankrupt's estate.
Slr. IlasayATT then put in two bills of parcels, purporting to
he the accounts of sale of about six bales of two or three packages
in the month of June, but which he contended were the same goods
al the plaintiffs now sought to recover.
Mr. 111•Itacarx then put in two bills of parcels, purporting to
hethe accounts of sale of about six bales, and two or three packages,
in the month. of June, but which he contended were the sante
wtods as the plaintiffs now sought to recover.
The ATTORNEY-GESERAL replied, and contended that the
Gonda now sought to be recovered were thirteen bales, and not six,
add which were delivered iu August and not June. The bills of
parcels could not, therefore, be for the same bales as his clients
were now entitled to receive back from the defendant, and that
whntever might be said as to the fourteen bales mentioned in the
ledia warrants, he thought nothing could be urged against the
plea:tuft's right to the 13 bales brought to him by the bankrupt so
early in the looming.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE summed up the evidence at cond_
ilerehle length.
The Jury having consulted together a few minutes, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff fur the thirteen hales, but they could DOI
assertam the value as they had no evidence what were the prices of
the silk in the defendant's possession.
tiadsby was thin recalled, and asked whether the silk
had been opened before it had been taken to the defendant's ?—1 ' es,
k had. He did hot know whether they were bales or pick veg.

MiNiWkaza&llll;

A diseassios here ensued between the Judge, the Counsel, and
the Jury, for upwards of an hour, during which time various pro-
positions were made for arranging the question, but as many were
rejected. His Lordship also again addressed the Jury at great
length on the point of difficulty, when it was finally agreed to take
a verdict for the plaintiff, and that a gentleman on the Jury, by
the name of Smith, who was in the silk trade, to inspect the silk,
and decide the quantity to he returned, or what was the value of it,
on the 7th of August, 1823, when taken from the bankrupt.
NEAT. AND ANOTHER v. ISAACS.
This was an action to recover lift!. 14s. being the amount of
goods sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant. The
defendant pleaded his bankruptcy and certificate, subsequently to
the debt being contracted, upon which issue was joined.
Mr. COMMON SERGEANT rose to address the Jury for the
plaintiffs, and observed that the plaintiffs were respectable clothiers,
in Basinghall-street, and had sold goods to the amount stated in
the declaration to the defendant, who was a slop-seller living at
Chatham. The defendant had pleaded his bankruptcy subsequent
to the debt being contracted, but he should be able to show that he
had been previously discharged under the Insolvent Act, and had
not paid Iss. in the pound on the debts written on his schedule,
and that therefore firi certificate under the commission would not
protect him.
Mr. Gt• a NEY here interrupted the Common Sergeant, and said
he thought it was irregular for him to begin the czar, as the affinna•
tier of the issue laid with the defendant.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE said, it would be better to avoid ir-
regularity, and that as the issue was with the defendant, Mr. Gur-
ney, he thought, should proceed.
Mr. GYRNEY then stated, that all he had to do was to prove the
commission of bankruptcy and the certificate, since the sale of the
goods
The commission and the certificate were then put in and read.
The COMMON SERGEANT—I have only to put in the defend-
I ant's runner discharge under the Insolvent Act, in the year 1815.
James Treasure, a sergeant in the Marines, examined—lle knew
the defendant ; first knew him in 1808. In 1815 he was living at
Woolwich, and defendant lodged with him ; in the course of that
year defendant borrowed of the witness !IL, and on the following
day absconded. Ile understood the defendant to have been at that
time arrested by sergeant Brooks of the Royal Marines. Did not see
the defendant after till the year 1820. He then saw him at Chat-
ham, and was certain he was the sante person who carried on busi-
ness at Woolwich.
Mr. Higgins, the keeper of the Castle at Lancaster, was called
to prove the discharge of the defendant out of his custody in 1815.
The witness put in the original order from the Insolvent Court in
London.
Cross-examined by Mr. Guast Y—That was the original order
sent to me, but I do not know how and from whom it came, be-
yond what the document itself purports to convey.
Mr. GURNEY objected to the reading of the paper. He said it
purported to be an order from a Court at London, and if it was so,
It could be easily proved by the proper officers or books ; but at
present it did not appear that the order had issued from the Insol-
vent Debtors' Court, and for ought he knew it might nut be a ge-
nuine document.

Mr. PoLLocx, who was on the same side, said, the last Insol-
vent Act made all the proceedings of that Court evidence, but the
Act under which Mr. Sergeant Runnington sat so many years, had
no clause to that effect. .

Mr. Co st mos SEROEA NT called a Mr. Coote to prove the hand-
writing of the officer of the former Insolvent Court, to the order
now produced. lie also proved the head-writing of Mr. Massey,
the present officer, to the certificate of the proceedings under the
former Act, which was also produced,
Mr. Gumwey submitted that that evidence would not do. The
Act of the s:ld Geo. 111. had expired, and the Court which it es-
tablished expired with it ; a new Court had been created by the
Ist of Geo. IV., tinder which Mr. Massey acted, and he submitted
that Mr. Massey had no more right to certify the proceedings of the
former Court than he himself had.

The Acts of Parliament were then consulted, and much discus-
sion arose as to the construction of the different clauses contained in
them.

Mr. Cosmos( SELIGEANT at length admitted that he could not
see any clause io the present Act to keep alive the proceedings in
the former Court, and he must therefore rely upon the evidence ad-
duced by hint as to the identity of the defendant showing him to be
the same person that was discharged in 1815.
111 r. GURNEY said, he should not dispute the identity, but de-
pend upon his legal objection,
Ilia LoanaHle said, as it appeared to him. the discharge had not
been sufficiently proved, and that the plaintiff must be nonsuited ;
but he thought Mr. Common Sergeant should have leave to move
that a verdict might be entered for the plaintiff.
Plaintiff' nonsuited.