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

t. vie residence In the country, the gentleman thought it would
be peed int to be again married at the pariah chovli, and cc.
eordingly had the banns published. However, the trustees bee
ing informed of this circumstance, wit n *e bans.* were in the act
of being published, went into the parish church, and °Deily pro.
tested aga!nst the marriage, to the great consternatich at all those
persons who were religiously and deveutiv disposed, and to the
utter astonishment at the Reverend Gentleman who was then offi-
ciating. The trustees then applied to the Lord (;haneellor by pe.
ti ioo praying that some measures tifght be adoptcd for the protee.
tion Of the young lady's preperty, and that the truste,* Might be
secured against the husband. The Lord Chancellor referred it to
the Blast, r. directing an account to be taken of the property, and
ordering a proper settlement to be made. The 3fastir had male
his report lest March, and this petition was presented against that re.
port. Mr. Heald said on a former occasion it was und r.tood that
the gentleman had no objection to a proper settlement being made
on the lady. Since that time the gentleman hail been advised ter
alter his mind, and would not no* amount to Buell a proceeding ;
but he thought the bett,r way would be for this petition to stand
over, in order taste whether sowe arrangement could net be made.
The Loan Cnaxnei.t.oa inquired if the gentleman had any
thing to settle en the lady.
Mr. HEALD said he had no property to settle on the lady.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Nothiog but himself, I suppose.
His Lordship said, if the property could be settled fairly and Justly,
it would, no doubt, make the parties happy , but if there was an
unjust satlement, it would make them miserable. He thought it
better not to allow this petition to stand over till efts the long 'sea..
don ; but if the patties were inclined to agree now, be would tied
a way of making it Impossible for them to disagree afterwards.
It was then arranged between the dilfereot Counsel that the pe.
.•

tition should stand. over ti 1 Saturday, in ;jer that the paruer
might I,,tve an opportunity of coming to an arrangtniont in thu
mean time.

ETRE V. EVERETT AND OTHERS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR dig:looted of tide ease. In it Mr.
Eyre, who was surety for a gentlemen of the name of Mainwering
to the banking•houae of the defendants, upon his bond to pay
d his bill, insisting upon the grounds stated in the bill,
that as a surety he was d'adiargrd. The case was an extremely
hard one upon the plaintiff; and one in which there had already
been a great deal of litigitio i. The question was. whether Mr.
Eyre was to be considered as having placed his confidence in Mr
Mainwatiog. who had I.ft the country, or in others, who had
abused it. The bill stated, that the defendants, subsequent to the
plaintiff's becoming surety, had taken a bond from Mr. Main war-
ing for 10,11001., to which the plaintiff was no party, but by which
he submitted he was to be considered as discharged. Another cir-
cumstance was, that there had been a dispute between th- plaintiff
and defendants In 1819 (the bond having been given in 1814),
about the bond, and yet they had taken no proceedings against idol
upon it for five years at erwards, and that, therefore, on the ground
of delay (Mr. Main waring having slipped out of the country in the
meantime), the plaintiff ought to be e..msidered released from If.
liability. The Catlin had given the subject the greatest considers.
tion, but could find no ground on which the plaintiff could be held
as released from his liability, and, therefore, the injunction that hail
been granted, restraining the defendants from recovering upon their
judgment, would now hereto be dissolved. The mere circumstance
of a creditor contracting an additional debt with a debtor cooed
never rause a surety for a prior debt.
The Soticiron-Gentaat. appeared for Mr. Eyre. He said.
though the case had been tried both in the Courts of King's Bench
and Common Pleas, his client never had had a fair trial. Those
Courts had got, as they genet ally dld, hold of a scrap of the case.
and upon that scrap decided the whole.
Mr. HART, contra, hoped his Learned Friend would now think
he had had a fair trial in this Court.
The SOLICITOR-OENERAL was bound to confess that he had.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MONDAY, Arc. 7.
BANKRUPT PETITIONS.
EX-rAIITE BOLDEN, 1* THE MATTER OF BM WM. ELFOED
AND CO. BANNEOPTS.
This was an application on behalf of the Secretary to the CM.
mi‘sioners appointed byAet of Parliament, assisting in the execution
of pdblic works, &c., by offering Exchequer Bills on security ler
an order, to be paid 2,0001., the entire amount of their dolma, °Lc
of the effects of the defendant (a bankrupt), before any other ere•
ditin should receive a dividend, according to the tenor of the Act.
The petitioner is the Secretary of the Commissioners appalnted ur.
der the 57th Geo. 111., to advance money fir the purpose of ra•c .
ing on public works. A clause In the Act provided that in the event
of the bankruptcy of any of the persons to whom loans under it
should be made, the Commissioners should be entitled to prove un.
der the commission of bankrupt, for the amount so advanced, cad
that such sum should he liquidated in full, before any dividend
should be paid to the other creditors. By an Act 3 Geo. IV., the
provisions of '57 Geo. 111. were continued in full force. The dr.
readmit Sir William Elroy& with four others, applied in 1821, to
the Commissioners, on behalf cf ihe Plymouth Rail-road Company,
for a loan of IthOUtlf. to carry on that work, which sum they Tenets-
ed ; the repayment of which was secured by a mortgage on the tolls
of the Company, and collaterally by the jotat bond of five individu-
als, two of whom were Sir Wm. :Mord and Sir Manasseh Loret. In
a short time after they applied for 10,00tti. which sum mita also ad.
vanced on their personal' security; in 1325 four of them became
bankrupts, and application having been then made to the Lord
Chancellor by the Commissioners, fbr priority of payment, his Lord-
ship ordered that the 23,11001., being the amount fen which the Corn.
missioners were security, should be paid before any sum sheu!d
advanced in discharge of any other debt. This was accordingly done.
and a mortgage on the tolls of the rail roa I was given for 10,001.11 ,
being what remained unpaid, including principle and interest. The
defendant having lately become a bankrupt, this petition was pre-
ferred to enable the Commissioners to dispose of the mortgage on
the tolls for his share of the 10.0001., being one-filth, unless they
were paid the entire of their claim on the estate.
In support of the petition, 31r. SHAMVELL cited a former case
of the same plaintiffs, ex-parte Holden (and which was the first
that hail occurred) where the Lord Chancellor had ordered the pay.
ment of 25,0001. out of the funds of the bankrupt, in preference ta
the claims of the other creditors. Ills Lordship had said that ice
had no hesitation with respect to the main feature of the applica.
tion, and only doubted whether he should aliow interest up to the
day on which the commission of bankrupt had named. The prin-
ciple having been thus settled, he (Mr. Sitadwell) did rot antici-
pate any opposition to his motion.
Mr. OARUATT did not mean to contend against the principle
thus laid down ; but. to the present motion, he bad three objec
tions to offer. The first related to the made in which the proof of
the claim was to be made. (This was immediately over-riled by
the Court.) The second was, that the Commissioners had already
in their hands, by the mortgage of the tolls, full security for the
whole sum, which security, he contended, ought to be sold,
and the proceeds applied in discharge of the debt due to the
eknlm VircCrev-rs•
The
shur ct o a.—l do not see how that can be re-
fused.

Mr. OARRATT said, his third objection to the prayer of the pe-
tition was founded on a clause in the Act of .37 Gen. 111., which
declared that none of the parties who should borrow money of the
Commissioners should be held responsible for more than the amount
of his " subscriptions," meaning clearly, as he would contend, the
party's" subscription," or" shares," in the public work for whicit
the money was required. He admitted, at the name time, that dna
clause was not specifically continued in the 3d George IV. ; but it
was virtually preserved by the words of that Act, which stated, the(
" all" the enactments of the 57tit George 111. should continue in •
full force, except where the contrary was expressly declared. Now,
the clause upon which he relied had not been altered by the new
Act, but the limiting portion of it was omitted. It would be, there-
fore, for the Court to decide, did the omission referred to amount to
a repeal ? If his Honour should be of opinion that the omission'
was not a repeal, it would follow of course that the party was bound
only to the amount of his subscription.
The Vlc E-Cti ANC eetma said, he was clearly of opinion that it
was intended by the Legislature that the limiting clause should be
repealed. The omission of it in the second Act was a proof that i.s
inconvenience, or (if he might so express himself) its folly, fiat
I been perceived. Ile should therefore order, that the claim of the
petitioner should be allowed, hut that the mortme should be sold,
and that one.fifth of the produce should be paid over to the Com-
missioners, and deducted from the sum of 2,0661., with interest,
claimed by them of the bankrupt.
EXPARTE XOLDER, 1N THE AIATTEi OF O'NEILL.
This petition involved the question of how far the acceptance :.f
a bill of exchange, by one partner in a trading firm, bound the
other partners.
A sum of between 2001. and 300/. having accrued, date foe
freight by Francis O'Neill and Co., of Linsenek, they Iteesidated
the debt by their draft, at tour months, upon the firm of O'Netit
and Co., of Liverpool. The bill was accepted in the name of the-
latter firm by O'Neill, one of the partners, without the know-
ledge of his copartners; there had been, moreover, no deulin
between the two firms. Previous to the maturity of the bill the
Liverpool house became bankrupt, and the bill was returned tivet
the drawers, who now ssught to be allowed to prove it under the •
commission against the bankrupts.
MI. HORNE approved for the petition.
Mr. LOWNDES, for the assignees' contended, that the act cf •
O'Neill, the bankrupt, could not bind his partners, as far et
respected the drawer of the bill, and cited a number of ticebsions iu
the Courts of Law, in which it has been held, that under circum-
stances like those of the present case, the drawer was hound to
show that the other partners had concurred in the affixing of the
signature of their firm to a bill of exchange drawn for an accou it
is which they had no concern.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR seemed favourable to this peincip'e.
but the question being one of extreme importance to the comma- •
cial world, his Honour said he would take time to consider of it, •
and should not, therefore, now deliver his opinion. •
Judgment postponed.
PRACTICE OF THE COURT. •
At about two o'clock this day, the Vicie-Citawetaao* an.,
dressed Mr. Hart, and said, that seeing a very full bar, he* ehotild
take occasion to refer to a circumstance of no trifling impoitaro
respecting the practice of the Court. lle had
,yeaterday, whet
great surprise, and ;;rent pain, been made aware that a dalaratiul
he had lately made in Court, had been inaccurately reptiiscided -
„
because, perhaps, it had been ininunderstnotl. Applications !eel
been made to him, in the course of the preceding week, to. en;
tertnin motions to dissolve injunctions, and he had in ,
stated that he would hear them after the bankrupt petitions lea
been d' posed of. This had been represented as an expreWik.),;
detennieation to retard business of a pressing nature, by .e
refusal to hear motions for injunctions ; and it had Le •.3
raid that the Court of Chancery should be always open to :0,
plicants for injunctions. In this dortriee he tally eoncutted,