The National Register.
London, England, 1821-01-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII.
MONDAY, JAN. 13.
IDLE AND ANOTHER N. LOLLIS

This was an Tit 110; of hover by the assignees of
a hunk' up., manta Finch, to recover from the defendant,
the hviikrupt's her-in-tau, the value of reitaiii Uuruilwr
which she claimed as her prove..), hut uhi. h the plaintiffs
sai I Iselonvm to the bankrupt at the lilac alas hanks uptcy.
Tar furnitute in question oar to .1 house at Nlarylantl-p • i,
o .ensued by the bankrupt's family and the pleseill defen-
d int conjointly, and the di ft•od.lut contracted I :lal the pro-
p •rly wa.tssicned to her presto au act of bankruptcy
bin euuntutied. 11 appeared ho A eser that tip to the
time of Ins hookrupley Ruch was alto% (41 to use the plo-
tters, as Ili:, urn ; slr. scatlett now (untended that the
circumstance, ender the:it:date of James, aas sufficient to
entitle till' pla.ulid. 10 a %rril ict. The Statute a /13111(4
Iran) one allotted iitimber to use his prime. ty m sticli a catty
as to induce the amid tit believe that person the owner, and
thereby give him a false credit with the mold, and lite its.
ty become a bankrupt,
Iht• properly immediately vest in the assil;act•.s of
such bankrupt. •fhe Learned Counsel called Witnesses to
lOW these facts, and the Jut y hound a vrt,het fur the
plaintith fur 31S1.

110\b0 V. CURTIS AND •lIIERS
Mr. Scarlett stated at tiro was ;111 action by the plain-
till a ri specs:lldr sit .'r, to recover l'i um the defendants
4.1601. fur paper sold (loin. Two of the defendants, Mr.
st,itt
Lulus lord Ali, Nit hardson, had denied their liability.—The
other defendant, Fenner, a bunks. Ile r, pleaded that he had
bet is n bankrupt •ince the debt nee, ued, and had obtained
his i ert diva te. The ilefendanti load emered into an agree-
ment, founded on a literary speculation, namely, she pub-
lication cif a work in be call( it the " Encyclopedia Metro.
politatii, ' by ii Web agreement it oars settled 'Oat the
defendant Cui tis, a clergyman, residing at Canibei %I CH , it :IS
to Colioltit t iititi ,IlpCf.ntrittl, or edit the work, for whit li he
was to rcci eve LOOl. a year as a remuneration.—Mr. Fenner
was to publish it in numbers or parts, and to have 10 per
cent above the allowance of the trade as publisher; taut as
nit undertaking like this could not he chi-lied on ii illaout
en nsidera tile funds, Miss 1i1111.1r11,1111, II relation of Mr. Fernier
Ivies invited if/ het 1111 l r a partner, alai she agreed to advance
2,4001. as occasion required, fur which, she was to receive
interest nt the late of five per cent.; and ate. all thi se
Allowances and di duciiiiii,, the parties wi re to divide the
profits of the is cit k. The agreement being entered min, the
I.l,ii.iiir wits applieut to, and requested to furnish paper for
the work, vs hich liedid to the Jamming of rite sum which lie
bow sought to recover from the Jury.
'flue Learned CIIIIIIKA then cubed witnesses to prove this
C. se.

For Ciao dcfcndanis Mr. Gaselee put in the commission and
ceri ilictite of F. newt* ;lb it defence in the action.

The Solicitor-tient:Jai, foe the uther two defendants, con-
tended they Isere not 1141de, they having nothing to do wit 4
the order given to the plaintiff; Mr. ',dicier being the pub-
lisher of the ts 01 k and one pa ty dealing n ill) 11,. Bowor.
A fit. r gning through the ease on both sides, the Jury found
a retitle' for the defendant Fenner, and for the plaudit'', by
consent, for 1,4001. against the oilier In 0 defendants.
The Chief Justiceultserved, the defendants bud made a
prudent adopt in

PLOMn v. I.OUSHN•N.
This was an action upon the case: the facts lay in a
♦ery narrow. compass. Mr. Longinotti, as owner of a ship
called George the laird, by charter-party dated Oct. 30,
!till, grained that vessel fur a term to Mr. Fisher: the
voyage was Isom London to 31aili as, and Lack, the con-
sideration paid was I,o'ol. Mr. Fisher, who commanded
the George iii pilaw', shipped the plaiiiiiti •s his surgeon
and purser; and 5.1 r. Plomb, in the latter capacity, issued
stores, and made pecuniary advances hi) the crew dulling
the voyage. The question now was, Mr. Fisher having
heroine hanks Nit, whether Mr. Longlinan, as owner of
the vessel, was not liable to indemnify the plaintiffs
A commission having issued to examine witnesses in
the depOrilioll of Captain Fisher was put in and
read. Captain Fisher declared that lie had engaged the
plaintiff, Mr. P1=1.1,111)011 his own personal account ; and
also that he had shown I lie chatter party. 'llie char-
ter party was next produced it emitained • covenant
that Capt. Fisher should be liable fur all wages, charges,
expenses, during the period for which the vessel was
'bartered to him.

Mr. Scarlen, for the defendant, submitted that the
plaintiff was out of Court.
Mr. 31arlyat contended, that there was no evidence of
the time at which Captain Fisher had shown his chatter
party to the plaintiff'. It 1146 for the defendant to show
that the information had been given before the expenses
were incur, ed.

Thr Loud Chief Justice, in the absence of proof to the
contrary, would presume ihe information in (pie:diner to
have been given at the eionnienecn.ent of the plaintiff's
engagement. Hi• Lordship was not clear, however, Ibal
any such information WOIIIII lie necessary. Mr. Fisher
wa., dulling the ti run cf the charter patty, virtual owner
of the vessel, and there could or no doubt that the con-
tract of the plaintiff mould be binding upon Mr. Fisher,
and nut upon Mr. Longlinam—Plaintiff numnited.