The National Register.
London, England, 1821-01-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
MONDAY. JAN. IS.
IDLE AND A NoTHER V. SOLLIS
This WAS nn action of (rover by the plaiutitls, assignees of
a bankrupt, named Finch, to rn over from the defendant,
the Itiotkrupt's mother-in-law, the value of cell:tin furniture
which she claimed as her propel , but v. hie the plaint ill's
said belonged to the bankrupt at the• time of his bankruptcy.
The furniture in qmistion oas in rt home at Nita) land.point,
occupied by the bank tapes family and the pit:sent defen-
dant conjointly, and the th fend:int contended that the pro-
perty WU§ kl%,14:111,i1 to her previous to au act of bankruptcy
being committed. It nitprattil 1111.% ever that up to the
time of his bankruptcy Finch suns a!inwrd to use the pro-
perty its his mill ; and \I r. Scarleit non tit:intended Ihat the
circumstance, wider tbe Statute of James, aas sufficient to
entitle toe plaintitlS to a verdict. The Statute of J attics said,
if any site allotted another to use his property in stich a oay
its to in•lncc the mold to believe that person the owner, and
th •i eby give him a false credit o Olt the world, and t
thVillll.ll so using ibc property Wahl become a bankrupt,
the pioperiy wouk immediately vest in the assignees of
such li.rnkropt. The Learned Counsel called witnt7sn to
prove these tarts, and the Jury found•* vehlict fur the
pluititith for SISI.

BON•ollt V. CUNTIII AND OTNERS
Mr. Scarlett stated, t I his was aii act ion by the pin in.
tlff, a respectable stationer, to recover from the defendants
23801. for paper sold to them. Two of the di fendatits, 31r.
Curtis and Aliss Richardson, bad denied their liability.—The
other definelaiit, Coiner, a hooka 11. r, pleaded that he had
been a bankrupt 'Mee the d..ht aryl ued, and had obtained
his certificate. The defendants had entered into MI agree•
meat, founded on a literary speculation, namely, the pub-
lication of rr work in be runt d the Encyclopedia Metro-
politaid„" by which agreement it was settled OA the
defendant Curtis, a CiCr2) titan, r. siding at Caiiiherw ell , wits
to cooduet and qiyer tariff', or edit the work, for which he
ut.s to ri.e. is e a 3 ear to a rein.iner:.; Mr. Fenner
was to publish it in numbers or parts, and to lase 10 per
cent above the allowance of the trade to puldisher ; but
.as
an undertaking hise this entail not be carried 00 without
considerable funds, hi is:. if icliardsonoi • elation of 311.. Fenner
Was invited to become a ;rimir, a,d she agreed to advance
.2,4001. as occasion required, fur a Inch she si as to receive
interest at the tale of five percent.; and sifter ill tht se
allowances and thouctions, the parties were to divide the
pr slits of the trot k. agreement being entered into, the
pl was applied In, requested to runtish paper, for
the work, which he did to the aintaint of the sum which he
stow sought to recover from the Jorv.
The Learned CUIIIIISCI !hell Called w itnesses to prove this
ease.

For the tlefmdants Mr. Gwelee put in the commission and
certificate of Penner, us a defence in the action.
The Solieitar4ieneral, foe the oilier two dekndants, Con-
tended they a err not liable, they having nothing to do pith
the order given to the plaintiff, Mr. Fenner bting the pub-
labor of the work and the path• dealing tt kb Mr. lion-on.
Alter going thrntizh the ease on both sides, the Jury found
a erdiet for the defendant Fenner, and for the plaintiff, by
eonseol, for f ,4001. a.liinst the at her two defendants.

The Chief Justtce uhserst d, the defendants had made a
prudent adoptia

'Lubin u. LOVGIIN•N.

This was an action upon the case: the facts lay in a
•ery narrow compass. Mr. Loughnan, as on lour ota ship
called George the third, by charter-party dated Oct.:JO,
1817, granted that vessel for a term to Mr. Fisher: the
voyage was from London to 31ault as, and Lark, the con-
sideration paid was 1,0,'01. Mr. Fisher, who comminuted
the George in pet son, shipped the plaintiff a. his surgeon
and purser; and Mr. Plumb, in the latter capacity, issued
stores, and made pecuniary advances to the clew during
the voyage. The rptestion now was, Mr. Fisher having
become bunktupt, whether Mr. Loughman, as owner ell
the vessel, was not liable to indemnify the plaintiff.
A commis%iuun having issued to examine witnesses in
India, the deposition of Captain Fisher was put in and
read. Captain Fisher declared that he had engaged the
plaintiff, Mr. Plomb, upon his own personal account ; and
also that he haul shun n hint the chin ter party. The char-
ter patty was next produced: it contained a covenant
that Capt. Fisher should be liable for all wages, charges,
and expenses, during the period for %bleb the sessel was
chartered to Win.

Mr. Searlett, for the defendant, submitted that the
plaintiti was out of Court.
Mr. Alan yat contended, that there was no evidence of
the time at which C ptain Fisher had slaws ii his dialler
pity to the plahnitt. It via* for the ile:endant to show
'Unit the information had been given before the expenses
w,re incurred.

'l•he Lord Chief:Justice, in the absence of proof to the
•outrary, would pit smite the hamlll4lo, ill question to
11 .ve liven givrit at the Ili of the pi:Windt 's
engagenteot. lii• Lqrti,ltid was out elrr, lc's% es er, that
any such ittfurniation would he necessdt y. 2tll. Fisher
wa., dun ing the It int of the chattel pmts, sit toal owner
of the vesst I, and there cook' iir Ho 1101141 that :he coo.
tract of the plaint ff would be ul Mr. Fisher,
and nut upon Mr. Lougllnan.—YLtintitf• summated.