The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-15 00:00:00

BANKRUPTS

The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that in this matter,
which stood for judgment, Longman and Co. had proved
a debt against the estate of John Hurst and Ogle Robin-
son, to the amount of 19,0001., and that the application
to the Court was, that the proof of this debt might be or-
dered- to be transferred to the estate of Thomas Hurst,
John Hurst, and Ogle Robinson.. It appeared that Thos.
Hurst was a partner in the house of Longman and Co.,
the partners in which house dissolved partnership cn the
Ist of December, 1825. All their accounts were settled
at that time, and 37,000/. was paid over to Thee. Hurst,
as his share of interest in the concern. At this period con-
sequently there was an end to Thomas Hurst's connection
with that concern. Thomas Hurst afterwards became a
partner (on the Ist of January, 1826), in the house of
John Hurst and Ogle Robinson. It was not known im-
mediately sthat he was a partner in that house. In about
a fortnight after he became a pa:tner in that house
the firm suspended its payments. It was expected that
they would be able to resume their payments, but they
were not, and they ultimately became bankrupts. Before
the dissolution of the partnership of Longman
and Co., Thomas Hurst made use of the part-
nership name without the knowledge of his partners,
to a very considerable extent, in making promissory
notes, and also in accepting Bills of Exchange.
This was not discovered till after he had retired from the
partnership, the accounts bad been settled, and he had re-
ceived his share of interest in the concern. Those bills
never entered into the settlement of the accounts between
him and his partners. Longman and Co. were after-
wards under the necessity of discharging those liabilites.
Under such circumstances there could he no doubt that
as between Thomas Hurst and the other partners of the
house of Longman and Co., there was a claim to the ex-
tent of those bills, and payments against Thomas Hurst.
The question was, as to the manner in which the produce
of those bills had been applied ? A part of it, according to
the evidence to be collected from the affidavits (which,
however, did not satisfactorily clear up the whole trans-
action) appeared to have been applied for the accommo-
dation of Thomas Hurst himself ; another part was un-
doubtedly applied for the accommodation of John Hunt
and Ogle Robinson. But after carefully looking through the
affidavits, the Court could not find that there was
any evidence to lead it to the conclusion that any of
the produce had been applied for the joint purposes of
Thomas Hurst, John Hurst, and Ogle Robinson, which
would have rendered them jointly liable. Thomas Hurst
was liable to the full extent; John Hurst and Ogle Robin-
son might be liable to some extent, but to what extent
would be extremely difficu't to ascertain. Thus the tran-
saction stood, ind.pendently of four counter promissory
notes, each to a considerable amount. There was much
intricacy about the counter promissory notes as far as re-
garded. John Hurst, Thomas Hurst, and Ogle Robinson ;
but it did net appear that the transaction respecting them
in any way varied the liability upon the former transac-
tions. According to the present state of the evidence, the
Court could not feel justified in ordering the transfer of
I, the proof ; but as it was highly probable a very different
, l apperance might be given to the transactions Thomas
Hurst were fully examined before the Commissidners, his
I Lordship declined finally disposing of the matter until
Thomas Hurst shall have undergone a thorough examina-
tion before the Commissioners.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
TYLER V. DRAYTON.
Mr. SIDEBOTHAM this morning addressed the Court on
the part of Mr. Drayton, following Mr. HORNE and Mr.
KNIGHT. It was his duty to vindicate the character and
conduct of Mr. Drayton, if vindication it required, in the
transactions which had taken place in this cause. In those
transactions Mr. Drayton had the honour of being asso-
ciated with one of the most able, honourable, and learned,
Members of their bar. For his own part, he considered
the character of Mr. Drayton completely vindicated and free
from imputation in every point of view. The case made
on the record was composed of the most scandalous
charges, which the Counsel on the opposite side had en-
deavoured to support by evidence, but that very evidence,
and the statements of the Learned Counsel themselves, had
in his mind completely thrown that case overboard which
they attempted to make out—their evidence had been
completely falsified. The principal point laboured on the
other side was the imbecility of this young man, which the
plaintiff's own evidence had proved to be entirely without
foundation. It was his intention to take that view of the
subject which would lead to a legal and dispassionate con-
sideration of the question. The Court in the exercise of
its jurisdiction in cases of this kind, founded upon
three branches; the case of fraud, that of accident,
and mistake, and also the policy of the law as adminis-
tered in a Court of Equity. With the two latter, the
parties in the owe had nothing to do, anti the question was.
had the plaintiff made out a case of fraud ? In order to
make this out, it was not sufficient to throw a vast number
of circumstances together and say if one does not consti-
tute fraud another did, but it must be established that
every circumstance connected with the case had its birth
is fraud. Now here it was quite clear that Mr. Drayton
had no knowledge on the subject of this property with which
he was dealing, but whathad been previously communicated
to Griffiths Jenkins, nay all the material knowledge he had
was derived from and communicated through Griffiths
Jenkins, but one witness, produced, now attempted to say
that there was one material circumstance which Mr.
Drayton knew of with respect to the property that was
not communicated to him by Griffith Jenkins, except in-
deed with respect to the witness Perry, a witness' whom
the parties attacked while they were bringing forward his
evidence. This creditable witness had taken upon himself to
sly that Mr. Norwood told him that he had been into Wales
that he bad seen this property, and that he thought it was
worth 20,000/. Now it had been shewn by his Learned
Friend, Mr. Knight, that whatever information Norwood
obtained he bad obtained on the agent of Griffith Jen-
kins ; anti was it to be supposed that Perry, his greatest
friend, should conceal facts front Jenkins which he instantly
communicates to others. There was no ground whatever for
saying that the suppresslo 'seri, or the genero falsi existed
in this case, nor could it be said, as he submitted, that
undue influence had been exercised. It was to be re-
membered that no relation existed between the parties at
the time of the contract being entered into in 1807. Mr.
Drayton did not fill any of those relative characters which
prevented the parties from dealing together according to
the law of a Court of Equity. True it was that a friend-
ship existed at the time of the transaction that took place
in 1816. But then Griffith Jenkins was a free and well
informed party at the subject of that contract. Several
interviews took place before that contract was finally com-
pleted ; the contract was not made without great precau••
tion, nor without deliberation on the part of Griffith Jen-
kins. The first sum offered by Mr. Drayton (5001.) was
refused by Jenkins, Mr. Drayton at that time observing
that the title was in great. obscurity, and that he could not
afford to give that sum for the property, which would ruin
him should tke title turn out good for nothing ; afterwards a
largersum was offered, which, after consideration,was accept-
ed by Jenkins. After the contract was signed, but before
any conveyance was executed, it occurred to Mr. Drayton
that possibly Jenkins might not have truly represented the
whole to Mr. Bevan, and he said, I will therefore not
complete the contract, unless but in Mr. Bevan or Jenkins',
presence; that interview it was sworn took place,
every thing appeared satisfactary, and the Seeds were
then prepared. Now if it could be clearly proved
that Mr. Drayton had given this consideration for
this property, knowing at the time that it was

for the perprres of debauchery (which he, the Learned '
Counsel, was sorry ta say was often the case with young
men of dissipated habits), then let the contract go to the
flogs, and the character of Mr. Drayton might accompany it.
But the converse of this bad been proved to be the case.
Now, what was the object of Jenkins's selling this pro-
perty? A most laudable one. In the first place, he felt
great anxiety to repay Perry a debt of 2551. He also
wished to procure his discharge from the army, and he felt
a strong desire to go to the East Indies, for the purpose of
obtaining a livelihood there. No imputation could beattach-
able to Mr. Drayton. If he found the means of carrying such
objects into effect. The debt of Perry was paid ; it was
true that his discharge was not obtained, because it was
found to be a matter not quite so easy of accomplishment
as had been imagined. Jenkins was not discharged till
INS ; the money furnished had been spent by Jenkins,
and Mr. Drayton was actually obliged to furnish money
for the purchase of Jenkins' disc Large out of his own
pocket. The Learned Gentleman concluded by an elobo-
rate speech, contending that the bargain was honourable,
aid ought, therefore, to be confirmed.
Mr. PIPTS appeared for Mr. Serjeant Wilde, whose
name had been placed on this record as a defendant, and
on that Learned Gentleman's part he had to request the
Court would allow him personally to explain the part he
had taken in this transaction.
The VICE-CrussroELLoa could not see bow he could
consistently accede to that application. He begged it
might be understood that his refusal was founded on
grounds not at all personal to the defendant, whose cha-
racter was so high in the profession. Every disposition
had been shown by the Counsel on the other side to treat
the Learned Counsel with respect and delicacy; and when
he (the Vice-Chancellor) considered the able hands in which
the Learned Serjeant had entrusted his case, he could not
see any necessity for breaking through the rules by which
the Court was governed.
Mr. PErrs thought that the peculiarly delicate situa-
tion in which the Learned Serjeant stood, would have in-
duced the Court to have given him that indulgence.
The SOLICITOR.-GENERAL said, no one could feel more
respect than he did for the Learned Serjeant, and he should
leave the Court to decide upon the request of Mr. Pepys,
without saying one word:
The YIeErCHANCELI:OII thought it his duty to adhere
to the rule of the Court. Justice must be dealt Out with
an even hand to every one, whether great or small. As
an individual, he should be most happy to hear the
Learned Serjeant, but his duty as a Judge Obliged him, as
the Learned Serjeant had retained Counsel, to refuse the
application.
Mr. PEPYS could not see what could prevent the
Learned Serjeant from appearing as his own Counsel.
The VICE-CIfAIWELLOR, when he considered with
whom the case of the Learned Serjeant was entrusted, felt
no doubt in saying he could not consistently hear him
argue his own case. He could not see how Mr. Serjeant
Wilde could give the Court any explanations that could
not be given by his Counsel.
Mr. PEPYS proceeded to address the Court on the part
of Mr. Serjeant. Wilde, contending that by the record
the plaintiff was entitled to no relief against his client.
The Learned Counsel was proceeding when our Re-
porter left.