The Sun.
London, England, 1855-10-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)
IN RE STRAHAN, PAUL, AND BATES,
BANKERS, STRAND.

This was a dividend meeting.
Mr. Lawrence, for the assignees, stated to his Honour
that Sir. Bates had informed him that a partnership
deed was executed by him when he joined the other
bankrupts. It was thought it was in the assignees'
office with the papers of the bankrupts, but on searching
it could not be found. It was now supposed it must be
with Mr. Cookney, who formerly represented the bank.
Search should be made for it, and as soon as it was
found it should be produced.
Mr. Bell, official assignee, said he had never seen the
deed of partnership.
His Honour said it must be found. He must see it
before he could decide many of the points raised.

Mr. Lawrence said that with reference to the point
raised by Mr. Bagley at the last sitting, for keeping the
estates of the bankrupt* separate, each estate to answer
its claims, it was proposed to have a private sitting,
and examine the parties as to the course of dealing,
agree on the facts, and present them to his Honour,
who would then be asked to adjudicate on them. It
was a point of considerable importance to all interested,
and it was proposed to enquire into the mode by which
the bankrupts, as Halford and Co., as army and navy
agents, received the half-pay and pensions of the claim-
ants. His Honour was probably aware that the prac-
tice was for officers not only residing in this
country, but when on foreign service, to give their
agents a power of attorney to receive their pay or
pensions, and, consequently, a great deal would depend
on the question of whose names were inserted in the
power of attorney.
His Honour said he must see the partnership deed
before he decided anything.
Mr. Lawrence said it was impossible to get the deed
to-day. The point raised was not to be decided to-day.
All he asked for was the appointment of a private sit-
ting to examine Mr. Bates and Mr. Torey, the principal
clerks who had succeeded the bankrupts as army and
navy agents. He proposed the examination to take
place on Wednesday next.

His Honour granted the application, and again im-
pressed on Mr. Lawrence that he must have the
partnership deed produced.
Mr. Prior, whose claim for 1,0001. at the last sitting
stood over for him to show the consideration he gave
for the bill, appeared and produced the cheques he gave
when he discounted it at 5 per cent. discount.
Mr. Lawrence having examined them, and asked Mr.
Prior a few questions, said he wished all the trans-
actions had been of so straightforward a character as
that of Mr. Prior's.

Proof was accordingly allowed.
Mr. Linklater, on the part of Mr. Walkinshaw, con-
nected with the City of Glasgow Insurance Company,
who claimed for 13,3501. at the former sitting, said he
had since then had an opportunity of examining
the covenant in the deed on which the claim
had been made, and he proposed now to withdraw it,
because that gentleman was not named in the deed on
which the claim was made, and to ask it should be
made in the names of the five gentlemen named in the
deed, and in favour of whom the covenant in the deed
was given by the bankrupts. The deed was dated the
2d June, 1854, and the facts were beyond dispute, but
on looking at the deed the question arose whether at the
present time these gentlemen had any right to prove,
seeing that by the deed the bankrupts were stated to be
the sureties for Gandall Brothers for the payment of
20,0001. in three instalments. One instalment only had
become due, and therefore be applied to prove for
the two remaining instalments not due, under the
177th and 178th sections of the Bankruptcy Con-
solidated Act, which had relation to a contingency
similar to the liability of the bankrupts under the deed
in question, and gave the Commissioner po aver to ascer-
tain the value of the contingency, and allow the persons
to prove for it.
Mr. Lawrence said the facts were not disputed.
There could be no doubt Strahan and Co. were bank-
rupts, and he believed it might be taken that Gandall
Brothers had since become bankrnpts in France.
Mr. Linklater said he believed tho argument to be
adopted on the other aide was, that this was not a debt
on a contingency, or to pay money on a contingency,
under the sections of the act he had named. The learned
counsel quoted a number of cases in support of his ap-
plication. The Court would have to determine the value
on which his clients should prove.

Mr. Lawrence said that the covenant in question was
not one in which the bankrupts were to pay, but some
other person. The case adverted to by Mr. Linklater did
not apply in this case. The claimants here had no right
to prove under this covenant, which was not a security,
nor bad any default taken place under it. The remedy
against the bankrupts was by an action at law for the
breach of the covenant by the principal debtor, the value
to be assessed by damages, and which remedy existed
notwithstanding the bankrupts obtained their certificates.
He contended there was no contingency here as contem-
plated by the 177th and 178th sec. of the Bankrupts
Consolidated Act, and quoted a number of cases to show
that a breach of this covenant did not-live the claimants
a right to prove under the bankruptcy.
Mr. Linklater having been heard in reply,
His Honour reserved the point.

Mr. Hacon applied to prove on the separate estates
of the bankrupts on the part of the Edinburgh Life
Assurance Company, in the name of Mr. Finlay, the
manager. The claim was for 10,0001., the balance of a
larger sum with interest up to the date of the petition.
The covenant in the deed was to pay a large sum of
money by eight instalments, seven of 3,0001. each, and
the eighth of 4,009/. Of these instalments all but
three were due prior to the bankruptcy, one had since
become due, and the remaining two were not yet pay-
able. In this case, the bankrupts jointly and separately
covenanted that, should Gandall Brothers not pay, they
would pay the debt and interest by quarterly instal-
ments. There lwas 'default in' one instalment, and he
proposed to prove for the value of the whole debt, but
if his Honour thought that inexpedient he would
prove for 3,0001. due July last, and enter a claim for
the remaining 7,0001.
The question was accordingly reserved.
Mr. Bell (solicitor) asked to prove for a debt on the
part of the only son of Sir J. Paul against that bank-
rupt's private estate. On the marriage of the son with
Miss T. Kay in 1851, the father granted him an an-
nuity of 9101. payable by quarterly instalments during
lifetime. The father was 54 years of age, and the son 28,
and the annuity had been valued by Mr. Morgan at 7,5781
Mr. Lawrence had no objection to the proof but
suggested, as the son was indebted to the estate, it
should be named on the margin of the proof. The
assignees were entitled to a set off.
The proof was admitted accordingly.
Mr. Bell then claimed to prove for 2981., on the part
of the daughter-in-law, who the father-in-law covenanted
to pay an annuity of 3001. per annum on his and her
surviving the husband, and so lung as she remained a
widow.

Mr. Lawrence said this was a contingency which he
wag at a loss to know how the actuary valued it.

His Honour ordered this claim to stand over.

Mr. Bell then claimed to prove for 9,0001. consols for
the son, against the separate estate of Sir J. D. Paul.
On the son becoming of age his father induced him to
surrender 9,0001. Consols, on his giving him a covenant
that on his death his executors should• pay him the
amount. This amount was a part of the wedding por-
tion of the bankrupt's wife, who was dead, and in which
he had only a life interest. The son was the only issue
of that marriage.
Mr. Lawrence had no objection to the admission of
the proof. The son appeared to have given ample conf
sideration. _

Mr. Bell—He give up the reality for worse than the
shadow.

Some other proofs having been admitted, the dividend
was adjourned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

SOUTHWARK.

ASSAULT UPON A WIFE BY HER HUSBAND.— William
Hands, a middle-aged man, described on the charge
sheet as a watchmaker, was brought up on a warrant by
Fenton), 227 M, one of the officers of the court, charged
with committing a brutal assault on Emma Hands, his
wife. The complainant, a decent-looking female, said
she had been married to the prisoner six weeks, and a
few days afterwards he commenced ill-using her. At
times his conduct was so violent that she believed he
would murder her, and then he broke every piece of
china and glass ware in his reach. Wednesday night
she was sitting up for him with her child upon her lap
when he came home, pulled her off the chair, and struck
her with his clenched fists on several parts of the body,
besides kicking her in the faca in a violent manner until
she was insensible. He then left her, and now she be-
lieved her jaw was broken. The magistrate asked her
whether she bad been to a doctor ? She replied that
she had, and he advised her to go to the hospital, but
she had not done so at present. The magistrate asked
her whose child it was she was nursing ? She said it
was hers by a firmer husband, an she had two oldei
than that, which the prisoner was quite well aware
of before he married her, The magistrate asked her

what was the cause of his beating her on Wednesday.
night f She answered, that when he came in he asked
her for a silver gilt ring she had on her finger, saying
that it would hang him. She was about to take it off
when he seized her by the hand, and nearly bit her
finger off. They then struggled, and he knocked her
down, and afterwards kicked her.
The Magistrate asked her what business her husband
was ? She replied, that she did not know exactly. He
sometimes bought watches and jewellery, and after doing
something to them sent her out to pawn them all over
London. She generally earned him as much as 30s.
before breakfast by going to the pawnbrokers. If she
happened not to be successful, on her return he beat
her. She was, in fact, all over bruises ; but all she
wanted was protection and a separate maintenance.
Mr. Solomon, for the defendant, said that it was all
through his wife's family that these quarrels took place,
and his client was willing to allow her 14s. a week for
her maintenance. The female was quite as violent as
her husband, and assaulted him quite as much. She
had a watch and ring of his on Wednesday, and because
she would not return them they had a wrangle, and
both fell on the ground.

The Magistrate said that the female had been grossly
assaulted by her husband, and as he had promised her a
separate maintenance, he should adjourn the case for
further inquiries.