The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nor. 4,

IN THE MATTER OF POYNTER, A BANKRUPT.
This case came before the Court upon a special case,
in the nature of an appeal from the decision of the
Conrt of Review, refusiry: :n allow a gentleman of the
name of Terrewest, who 1,(1,l ,nocclptance of the bank-
rupt's for 1,1371., to prove it uader the Commission, on
the ground that it was only a shift and contrivance to
evade the usury laws,

.
Mr. WIGRAM and Mr. ANDERDON appeared on be-
I half of the appellant, and
fMr. SwaNisrom and Mr. JAMBS RUSIELL supported
1 the decision of the Court below.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, without hearing Mr.
SrVi,g,rem in reply, reversed the judgment of the Court
below, and gave liberty to the appellant to prove his
debt under the bankruptcy.
IN THE MASTER OF BOUSFIELD.
Mr. HORACE TWISS stated that this case came
before the Court upon the petition of Mr. Bous-
field, who sometime since was of the Deputy Registrars
of the Court of Bankruptcy, praying that a sum of
621: Bs. :3(1. might be paid to him. According to the
f i;atements of the Learned Counsel, the petition was
presented under the following circumstances :—Mr.
I Bousfield during the time he held the office of one of
the Deputy Registrars became embarrassed in his
circumstances, and was thrown into prison, and ulti-
mately applie 1 for the benefit of the Insolvent Debtor's
Act. While in prison he performed many of the duties
of his office, and was permitted to receive his salary ;
ultimately, however, he considered it his duty to resign
i his office, and the amount now asked for by the peti-
tioner was due to him for his salary, up to his resigne-
r tion. The officer whose duty it was to pay the yeti-
, tioner, had declined doing so without the sanction of his
Lardship, considering- that the money ought to be paid
to Mr. Bousfield's assignees. The present petition bad
been served upon the assign!es, and they did not
appear.

His LORDSHIP made the order according to the
prayer of the petitioner.
The Court iose shortly before five o'clock.

(. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nor. 4.
BR.OOKS V. HAIGH.
Mr. KNIGHT BRUCE, with whom was Mr. GEL-
. DART, appeared in this case to shotv cause why the
II common injunction which had been granted to stay
execution should not be dissolved. The p!aintiff was
a Mr. Thomas Brooks, and the defendants were Mr.
Thomas Haigh, Edward Franceys, and three other
gentlemen, who were the assignees of a person of the
name of Aaron Leas. The short facts of the case ap-
peared to be as fellows, from the statement of the
Learned Counsel :--Mr. Brooks, the plaintiff, unfor-
tunately for himself, was the friend of Mr. Aaron Lees,
who had carried on the business of a cotton-spinner
at Manchester, under the firm of John Lees and Sons,
but Aaron Lses was the only person constituting that
firm.
•The defendants, Messrs. Haigh and Franceys,
were cotton-brokers at Lieerpord, carryicg on basis
ness in partnership. The firm of John Lees and Sons
were, great consumers of cotton, and Lad therefore ex-
tensive dealings with Haigh and Franceys and several
very complicated transactions took place between them.
In the early part of 1837, Messrs. Haigh and Franceys
desired security from Aaron Lees to the extent of
10,000!., and he applied to his friend Mr. Brooks, wire
consented to become answerable for the amount re-
quired, and ultimately on the I.3th of March, 1837,
gsuaranteed the payment of three large bills of exchange.
In December of the same year Aaron slsees became a
bankrupt, and an action of assumpsit nas brought by
the defendants for the recovery of tile amount of the
bills. Judgment had been enterel up on that action
against the plaintiff, who upon application to the Court
obtained the common injunctie,n to stay execution. An
order nisi had been obtained for dissolving that injunc-
-41 tion, against which Mr. 1.1. Bruce now showed cause.
Mr. JACOB and Mr. AJYLNE submitted that the order
1 nisi should be made f...05.,01ute.
Mr. K. BRUCE replied ; and
His HoNouat ordered the injunction to be dissolved.
IN THE MATT ;R OP TAYLOR—FIRST APPLICATION UNDER
IHE CUSTODY OF INFANTS' BILLS.
Mr. K. :Baucc. at the rising of the Court, applied in
this matter on behalf of a married lady, under the provi-
sions of ',he Custody of Infants' Bill, that she might have
access to her children. The Learned Counsel stated that
t, the lady on whose behalf he made the application, and
f against whose character there was not the slightest imputa-
t tion, had left her husband's residence about two years ago,
under the impression of great misconduct on the part of
her husband. That misconduct had been communicated
to her by a person on whom she considered she could place
I implicit reliance, but circumstances had afterwards come to
, her knowledge, which induced her to doubt the accuracy of
the representations, and sho therefore became desirous,
f mainly on account of her children, to be reconciled and
return to her husband, and she had made repeated endea-
r years for that purpose, all of which had been ineffectual.
This being the case, proceedings were instituted in the
i Ecclesiastical Courts for the res,.itution of conjugal rights.
This tank place previous to the passing of the Custody of In-
tints' Bill. Upon those proc,edin,,s being instituted, the
husband put in an allegation of
his wife having left his
house in a most improper manner, after having made
most unfoanded charges against him of adultery. These
allegations were rejected both in the Consititory and the
Arches' Courts, but the husband, notwithstanding the
concurrent decisions of Dr, Lushington and Sir Herbert
Jenne:, 'sad thought fit to appeal to the Privy Council, and by
that means had prsver.ced for the present any further pro-
secuSion of the suit for the restitution of conjugal rights.
The lady during all this time had been separated from her
fax children, is no were all very young. She had written
repeated letters of submission to her husband, all of which
had been returned unopened, with an intimation that in
' future all communications from her must be through the
medium of the husband's solicitors. The lady bad
applied to those gentlemen for access to her children,
but she had been always met by the statement that they
had no ir.structiens on the subject. Under the circum-
stances, as the only resource left her, she had presented
the present petition under the Act passed last Session re-
lative to the custody of infants, for an order of the Court
fur ReCCSs to her children.
The VICE-CllANcEsLon—Has the- petition been served
upon th. husband ?
Mr. K. BRUCE—ND, Sir, it has not. It is not my in-
tention now to ask for an absolute order for access, but
that the service of the petition upon the solicitors of the
husband should be considered good service. The husband
of my client is a geutleman of large fortune ; he is en-
gaged in a great brewery at Limehouse ; be has anestate
at Southgate, and another at Gilsborough, in Northamp-
tonshire, at all of which places attempts have been made
to serve him with the petition, but without success, his so-
licitors have declined to accept service for him, and it is
sworn that he keeps out of the way to avoid service.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—What jurisdiction have Ito
make an •rder fur substituted service ?
Mc. K. BRUCE—Your Honour can make the order un-
der the Act, without service at all, if you please.
The Vlca-Cuascauma—Yes, but would not that be
contrary to common justice ?
Mr. K. BRUCE—The Court has power, if it thinks fit,
to make the order ex parte.
The VICE-CuaNcau.ort—lt is not known where the
husband is, but it is supposed the children are with him.
It is true that the Act authorises the access of the mother
to the children, but if they arc with the husband, and it is
net known where be is, how can it be acted on ?
Mr. K. BRUCE—We think if your Honour was to grant us
an order for access, that it would be soon found out where
the husband and children were.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—I can easily conceive that
there might be so gross a case as to render it necessary
for the immediate interference of the Court, but I cannot
say that the present is such a case, without first reading
the affidavits by which the p,,tition is supported.
The case therefore stands uV r, ! a give an opportunity
to the Court to look into the aiii :••..ts.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 4.
The Court this day took petitions. The unopposed
which were heard first, occupied the attention of the
Master of the Rolls the greater part of the morning.
Consent causes, short causes, and consent petitions
will be taken every 'Tuesday at the sitting of the Court.

NASH v. COATES.--CAUTION TO SOLICITORS.
The petition in this case was that of Mr. Smedley,
a solicitor praying for the taxation of the bills of costs
of Mr. Kensitt, another solicitor, whom he had em-
ployed as his agent. The petitioa was presented last
February, but had stood over from tim; to time, and
as Mr. PEMBERTON was. proceeding to open it this
morning,

Mr.-SPENCE, who appeared for Mr. Kensitt, ob-
jected to the petition being heard on the following
grennd ,_Since the petition was before the Court on
the 20th of August, Mr. Kensitt had searched the
041n3,!•8, and had found that in 182:3 Mr. Smedley had
itted to take out his certificate ; he went on from
that year practising
sm edl‘rh: as a solicitor, but was never re-
admitted.
.that Mr. Learned Counsel therefore contended
tor,
solici and .amongey had forfeited all the privileges of a
other things, the right of calling Mr.
Kensitt his ageoti3,htraclaiming any right as the principal
of Mr. Kensitt.
was a preliminary answer to the
petition, and therefore
missed with costs. he asked that it might be dis-
Mr. PEMBERTON contended that
. the petition hav-• 1
ing stood over from time to time since February last,
1 for the purpose of filing
a the Court would
not permit an objection of that iairt to be taken at the
lest stage.
Mr. SPENCE said
that Mr. Smedley by
presenting
the petition had led them to belie,e that when l
em-
ployed Mr. Kcnsitt he was
a solicitor. Havingie one
year omitted to take out his certificate be could not
according to the Act of Parliament, after that, act a;
a solicitor, without applying to the Court to be read-
mitted, in which case he would have to pay the duty he
had omitted to pay during the interval.
The MASTER of the ROLLS thought he must have
it looked into. There had been an accidental omission,
but his Lordship thought there were many cases which
bore on the point.
Mr. PEMBERTON suggested that the better way
would be to dismiss the petition without costs.
The MASTER of the ROLLS—I certainly cannot
give costs after all this delay.
). r. Bruce said he would rather waive his objet-' than have that done. )
After 4 Short conversati,n, however, the suggestion I