The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-06-03 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT-FRIDAY, JUNE 2.

In the coarse of the day Mr. ROUPEL moved that an order
might be discharged, which had been obtained by a party to dis-
miss a bill filed against him, on the ground of the plaintiff not
proceeding in due time ; stating that the cause of the delay arose
from a cpiesticm of reference being pending.
Mr. SUDDEN, in support of the order, said that the offer of re-
ference was made by his client so long ago as the 30th of April,'
1825; that the plaintiff had then refused to accede to such offer,
and that no proceedings had since been taken.
The Vice-Crtaxcetron said, that the practice of the Court at
present allowed a great deal more time to Solicitors to conduct their
causes, than in the opinion of • late public Commission was in
any degree necessary. It was most essential that Solicitors of the
Court were to be taught that it was their duty to proceed in the
management of causes with diligence and activity. His Honour
was of opinion that the Solicitor in this cause had vsed no such
diligence and activity; and that the order for the dismissal of the
Bill could not be discharged. The Court would be considered a
party to the delay, if it were to grant these applications, on the
part of Solicitors. He would not consent to be a party to any such
delay.
Motion refused, with costs.

JOHXSTONS. BAIT. V. MASTERTON traz,
Mr. HORNY moved, oa behalf of the defendant, Mr. Ure; to
discharge en order, made by his Honour on the 26th of April last,
whereby it was ordered to refer back the interrogatories and ex.
aminations of tbe defendant Ure. On the of April, a motion
was made by the petitioner to obtain an order for the defendant, to
pay in several sums of money into Court. This was a mere specu.
sure attempt, in which the plaintiff failed, for the Court refused
the motion, with costs. After that another motion was made, for
referring back to the Master the interrogatories and the examina-
tion of Mr. Um. Now, he conceived that this order was obtained
improperly, inasmuch as the motion was without any notice to the
demean', of the motion being about .to be made. Heappre.
headed, and he was fortified in that opinion by the beater evidence.
namely. the Register of this Court, that no such proceeding as this
could be supported upon an examination that was earned into the
Master's cdfice twelve months ago. Although in special eases the
Court might send back the interrogatories and examination to the
Master, yet he thought that it could not be done as a 'nattier of
course. The Learned Colour' then read the affidavit of the clerk
of the late solicitors of the plaintiff in support of the motion.
The VICE-t;itaxcitta.o a—Do you say that the order was ob.
tamped without notice P

your Honour.
Mr. HEALD entirely digitred la "Mice with Ale. ILam, that
the Register had given any such opinion as had been staled. Bat
first of all he must observe, that he could not see why this motion
should ha spoken of with reference to any other motion that might
hue been made, and of which he knew nothing. He thought his
Learned Friend, in making allusion to any other ease, mum be in-
dulging in something altogether imaginary. HO( Mr. Heald) con-
ceived this to be as much an order of course samtny other motion
that was made in this Court.

The VicE-CunsicELLoll.—Have you the order of reference ?
Mr. HEALD—Yea, Sir--[the order was then handed up to his
Henottri—and it is a motion of course. When he. heard it stated
that the plaintiff' should have given a special notice 6f tits motion,
he certainly felt some surprise ; fur if such' ntodonsns these were
special motions, it was a practice fraught whir so many inconve-
tiiences, that is ought immediately to be putan enti to. It was
really ridiculous to say that the Master was not to be at liberty to
examine into the interrogatories and examiaation, to ascertain their
aufEcieoey. Why should not the Master be at liberty to do so ?
The VICE-Cuancxxxott —How is this, Mr. Walker (the Re-
gister of the Court —the practice must be very clearly known ?
The Register then conferred with his Honour, after which,
The VICE-CUANCELLOII, addressing himself to Mr. Heald,
said, the Register is of opinion with me. hlr. Heald, against you
oo this motion.

Mr. lliatD-1 know very well the opinion of the Regiuer, but
must beg la bare your Honour's opinion also upon it. I know
that Mr. Walker, jun., who is now in Court, is opposed to roe, and
I dare say there hes been a consultation upon this subject between
Mr. Walker, jun. and Mr. {Volker, sea. (A laugh.)
Mr. Wat.aaa, jun—Mr. Jackson is our Clerk in Court, and
he Is aho of opinion that a notice is necessary,
Mr. HEALD—The question s
and—
The V'
morning,

•
were assignees under the commission of bankrupt, awarded and
issued against Marsh, Stracey, Fountleroy, and Co.. to recover the
sum of 1.1.701. raid into the bankrupts' hands, when bankers to
the Commissioner., tinder an appointmers of theist of July, 181f1.
The action was brought upon a local Act of the 12M (leo. 111.. for
watching. paving, and lighting the parish of St. Pancras, which
authoriaed the Commissioner's-to sue and be sued in the name of
their clerk, rod also upon the 57th Geo.lll. which is a general Act
for the paving, lighting, and watching the metropolis; and these
Act, enact that the several collectors shall pay the amount of
their collectiOns to a treasurer, and that if such collector, trea-
surer, or other persons, appointed for the eolitetion and receipt of
the moneys to be collected, die defaulters fOr the amount of their
collections, or become bankrupts, then their executors or assignees,
respectively, shall pay to the Commissioners the fell amount of
their claims before all other creditors, if their be sufficient assets,
and in case there are not sufficient assets, then the whole amount
of the 113SOPP, as far as they will go, in covering the amount of the
default. The case was tried at the Middlesex Sittings in
this place, after Trinity Term, 1825, before the Lord Chief
Justice and a Special Jury, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiff, subject to the opinion of this Court, upon a special case.
It was in proof at the trial, that when Marah,Stracey. and Co. were
appointed bankets to the Commissioners, Sir James Sibbald was a
partner, and after be died, in 1819, previous to the bankruptcy, no
new appointment of the surviving house as bankers to the flomtnis-
sioners was made. Further, it appeared that there was no trea-
surer to the Commissioners when the money in question was paid
to the house of Marsh and CO. The question for the opinion of
the Court was, whether the bankrupts, as debtors or defaulters to
the Commissioners, came within the meaning of the local and gene-
neral Acts above stated.
Mr. CHITTY now, in support of the verdict, contended that it
was perfectly right. Ist. The words in both Acts were as specific
and clear as possible, that the plaintiff's should be entitled before
all other creditors, in cases where persons who held their moneys
died, or became bankrupts. h was not necessary that the bankers
should be strictly officers to the Commissioners, because they came
within the scope and meaning of the words, " or other persons."
2d. As to Sir James Sinbald having died, that made no difference
wha'reer, as his surviving partners went on receiving the moneys of
the Commissioners from the different collectors ; told therefore, if
they did not come within the meaning of the general words; " or
other persons," they were virtually the treasurers of the Com-
missioners, and so fell under the operation of the Acts.
Mr. BOLLAND, on the other side, contended that in point of
fact these Acts, being in contravention of the common-law rights
which all other creditors of a bankrupt would have, they must be
construed strictly according to the letter; and then he sub-
mitted that the words " other persons" must be taken in
purl malaria with " collector and Unnerve," and "other persona"
would then mean " other officers" of the Commissioners. lf, how-
ever, this point failed, in truth the bankrupts under their firm had
never been the bankers of the Commissioners • because the firm
appointed as bankers was the firm of Marsh Sunny, Sibbald,
Fauntleroy, and Graham ; and when Sir James Sibbald died, there
ought to have been a re-appointment of the surviving partners in
order to make them strictly the bankers of the Commissioners.SirJ.
Sibbald might have been the moneyed man in the concern; and after
lie died, a new undertaking of the survivors ought to have been
made. and the public ought to have been acquainted with It.
The Corer stopped Mr. Chitty In reply, and said they had no
doubt in this case. By the provisions of the late King, it was
ettacted, that in case any treasurer or treasurers, collector or col-
lectors, officer or other persons appointed for the collection or re-
ceipt of the moneys to be collected and received, shall happan to
die or become bankrupt, before he or they shall have fully satisfied
and paid all the moneys received by him or them, for or on account
of the Commissioners or Trustees, then his or their executors or
assigner, shell oat of his or their assets pay the amount of the de.
fault to the Commissioners or Trustees before all other creditors.
The word " bankers" is not used in the Acts; yet it must be taken
to be efrodeen generis with persona appointed for the collection or
receipt of moneys. The house of Marsh, Stracey, and Co. were so
appointed for the receipt of money, for and on account of the Com-
missioners, and therefore they are within the meaning of these Acts.
A re-appointment of the surviving partners, after the death of Sir
James Sibbald, was unnecessary; because the surviving partners
continued in the receipt of the money, and therefore they became
virtually, though not nominally, the Treasurers of the Commis-
sioners.

- -
Judgment for plaintiff'.
At one o'clock the Lord Chief Justice went to Guildhall, to try
London Common Jury causes.

IN THE 'MATTER OF tavorcliE.
Mr. Him. renewed his application, made last Term, for a rule
calling upon the Marshal of the King's Bench prison to re admit
the defendant to the rules of that place of confinement. When
the Learned Counsel made this application before, the Court said
that they had no power to compel the Marshal to allow the rules of
the prison to any person within his custody ; but they desired that
their recommendation in favour of the defendant might be corn.
municated to the Marshal, and they expressed a confidence that he
would comply with Mr. Latouchea request. The communication
of the opinion of the Court had been made to the Marshal, but he
still refused to allow Mr. lAtouche the rules. The Learned
Counsel, therefore, now renewed his application, and said that
the interference on the part of the Court now asked was not to
compel the Marshal for the first time to admit a prisoner to the
rules; but the Marshal having arbitrarily deprived a person of the
rules, who ha paid a very large ;um of money for them, this ap-
plication was to call upon him, as an officer of the Court, to show
cause why he did not re-admit that person to the rules. The
Learned Counsel urged the hardship of his client's case In very
rt ong language.
Mr. Justice BAY LEY-All that would have done very well, a
week ago, in the House of Commons, Mr. Hill, but It will not do
here. You ask us to do Impossibilities. We never have compelled
the Marshal to grant the rules to any prisoner, because, if there be
an escape, our conduct towards him would be no answer to an ac-
tion against him for the escape.
Mr. HILL remarked. that there was now no Houseof Commons.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY-11ave you any case to shot, that this
Court has ever interfered in the manner you ask ?
Mr. HILL said that a case of such hardship as the present had
never before °enured that he was aware of; or, if it had, he was
sore, for the honour of the Court, that he should find a decision in
favour of his client in the books.

The COURT were unanimously of opinion that the utmost they
could do was, to grant a rule, calling upon the Marshal to show
cause why he should not refund a part of the money paid to him for
granting to Mr. Latouche the privilege of the rules.
Mr. HILL took this rule by his motion.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRIDAY, JUNE 2.

The Court was occupied the whole of the day in hearing motions
of course.

CONSISTORY COURT, FRIDAY, JUNE 2.

[Before Sir C. Rontxsox.]
BLIGH V. BLIGIC.
In this case, which is • suit for a divorce, brought by the hus-
band against the wife, by reason of adultery, Ur. Fox, the
Proctor for Mrs. Bligh, appeared, and prayed the Court to dismiss
the suit, as Mr. Bligh's Proctor had not brought in the libel.
Mr. SLADE, who appeared for Mr. Bllgh, eithibited his proxy,
and said that there was no wish on the part of his client to delay
the suit.
Mr. Fox—Then why has not the libel been brought in ?
Mr, SLADE replied that the libel bad been prepared several
months ago, and was now in the hands of Dr. Lushington ; and
that any delay which had takes place was attributable to Mr.Fox'a
party, who had for nearly two years frustrated all attempts to serge
a citation.
The Courr —Let the libel be !fought in on the next Court day.