The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-08-09 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PRESS.

August, 1823. a bill of the brewers, for a large sum,
had been lodged with them by the brewers. In the month of
having been
aisimnoured, one of the partners in the bank spoke to the brewers
respecting it, and subsequently refused to discount for them certain
bilk pees' nted for that.purpme. This was relied on by the re-
spondents (the assignees of the bankrupts) as a knowledge of the
insolvent situation of the brewers. On one occasion, when dis-
counts were refused them by Farquhar and Co., the brewers re-
monstrated with the bankers, and said it the bills in question were
not discounted for them, the consequences might he ruinous to
them (Starkies). Upon this representation, Farquhar and Co.
discounted the bills. In the month of February loet, the balance
due by the brewers in the bankers amounted nearly to 18,101h1(., to
secure which, and any future advances and accommodation that
the hankers might afford them,
they executed, at four o'clock on
the 18th day of February, the mortgage in question to the bankers.
Farqultur and Co. On the 18th of April following the brewers
were declared bankrupts.
Mr. HEALD (with whom were life. ROSE and 111 r. KNIGHT)
appeared for the assignees, contending. from the circumstances of
the ease, that the mortgage hail been executed with the intention
of giving w the bankers an undue preference over their other CM-
&AM
The VICE-Cmatroarson said, the question in this case was.
whe.her the circumstances of it were such as to render it the duty
of that Court to direct other proceedings respecting it. The case
for the respondents presented this singularity, that two of the Coun-
sel (Mr. Heald and Mr. Knight) contended that the bankers were
aware of the insolvency of the brewers long before they took the
mortgage, and that they hail supported the brewers during the two
nio,dlis that intervened beween the date of the mortgage and the
1 issuing of the conimbision of bankruptcy. solely with a view to give
to the mortgage the necessary degree of validity ; after which they
would, and did, suffer the brewers to fall into insolvency—thus ab-
sniffle!y ruining them. Such a ease would clearly be it Wand. The
third Counsel (Mr. Rose) had argued the me as if the brewers
had intended to give the bankers an undue and fraudulent prefer-
ence over their other everlitnrs. These arguments being inconsistent
with each other, the eiramistances must be very singular that
would justify the attaching of any weight to them. From his pe-
rural of the case, he (the VW-Chancellor) was of opinion that
Messrs. Faroubier'and Co., the barkers, had fairly and honestly
made the advances which eonetituted the debt to the brewers, in
order to enable than to continue their business. He should. how-
ever, look into the whole of the papers, niter which he might pro-
bably call upon Mr. Sugden for the benefit of his nremnent in
favour of the petitioner, prtviotts to the delivery of his judgment.
I M PORTANT DECISION.
ENPANTE GOULDIN, Ilf Till MATTED OF O'NEIL AND

AVOTHER.
The VICE-CUANC}7.r•OR now delivered his judgment, and
ssid..that in thin case the bankrupt. O'Neil, had entered into
partnership with the other bankrupt (Martin), he (O'Neil) being
previou.ly indebted to another person in a certain stun, and gave
in satisfaction of that debt, the acceptance of the firm of O'Neil
and Martin, without the knowledge and cone arrenrc of his part-
ner, and the question was, whether the petitioner should be
allowed to prove that bill against the estate of O'Neil and Mar-
tin. Ile (the Vice•CUaneeilor) was of opinion, that where one
partner gives the acceptance of the partnership firm in satis-
faction of his own particular debt. without the knowledge and
concurrence of his co-partner, he does not thereby bind thejoint
firm.

.......
r.XPATITE GOWER, IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAMSON.
In this case, the qilestion was, how tar the assignees were bound
to fulfil a contract at the bankrupt.
It appeared that the bankrupt. Williamson, had purchased a
quantity of wool, on which he paid down a deposit of 6 per cent.
undertaking to pay the balance on taking away the wool. He did
take a portion of it, paying up the frill price of such portion.
He subsequently became bankrupt, and the price t,f wool having
fallen, the assignees refused to take it off the hands of the seller,
contending that the contract had been put an end to by the for-
feiture of the deposit, made by the bankrupt.
For the petitioners. It was now contended that the contract had
been regularly made and forfeited by the bankrupt, and that lila
assignees were clearly bound by it.
The Vtee•Citaweet.r.nn coheurred in this view of the subject,
and ordered the wool to be sold, and that the petitioners should be
at liberty to prove against the bankrupt's estate for the difference
between the price at which it had been bought and that Which ft
might now produce.