The Sun.
London, England, 1839-09-28 00:00:00

(Hear, hear.) He would therefore move " that it
is expedient the vacancies occasioned by the death of
three of the assignees, of the Estate of Chambers and
Son be filled up, and that application be forthwith made
to the Court of Review, to appoint a meeting for the
choice of such assignees."—(Hear, hear.)

Mr. LEIGH seconded the'resolution.
Mr. LESLIE begged to ask Sir F. Pollock, wh ther
he assented to the statement of Mr. Mayhew, that the
assignees had not the power to sell the estate of the
Messrs. Chambers? Mr. Mayhew stated that there
was no titre whatever to the estate of the Opera House.
—(" No." Several voices, "He did.")
Sir F. PoLLocK said in one sense there was no title,
namely, there was no title which a seller could compel
a purchaser to take, but there was, however, such a
title as probably a purchaser would be induced to take,
in refi•rence to the large profit he might be able to make
by obtaining the property at a low price. An abso-
lutely clear title, they were aware, was a very rare
thing, but there might be a sale by such stipulations
being made as would satisfy a purchaser, otherwise
the remainder of the purchase money might be locked
up in the Court of Chancery.
Mr. LESLIE said it appeared, then, that there was a
title for a willing purchaser, but not for an unwilling one.
—( Hear, hear.) The next point was whether the legal
estate in that property was in the present assignees, Mr.
Richardson and Mr. Groom, and the official assignee ?
Sir F. POLLOCK said the assignees bad merely an
equitable title, by which they might compel parties to do
certain acts and give them the benefit of a lease.
Mr. LESLIE—But suppose there was a willing pur-
chaser, these are the only three parties who can give
possession. That clears another difficulty. Now I
wish to know whether two of these parties have not
already received a sum of 237,000/. in hard cash out of
this estate ?—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. GROOM—No such thing.
Mr. LESLIE—Well, how much ?
Mr. GROOM—About 200,000/.—(Great laughter.)
Mr. LESLIE—And of that large sum not one six-
pence had been appropriated to the creditors.—(Hear,
and cries of " Shame.") Now I would ask Sir F.
Pollock, who recommended the compromise in 1833,
whether that was not intended immediately to give an
advantage to the whole body of the creditors ?—( Hear.
Sir F. PoLLocit—Most decidedly. It was expected
that the acquiescence of Messrs. Chambers in the com-
mission, by permitting the verdict to pass, would have
the effect of placing at Mr. Charnbers's disposal a sum
of money to enable him to compromise with the persons
who had claims on the estate arising after the bankruptcy.
He believed great advantage had arisen from that ar-
rangement.
Mr. LESLIE—And Mr. Chambers has not received
his portion of this compromise.

The OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE.--He has received
15,0001.

Mr. LESLIE—Four years have elapsed since that
proposition was made, and the same parties who ma-
naged the affairs at that time are still in the management.
Now, I have another question to ask arising out of this
paper in my hand. I find one of the assignees is a cre-
ditor of the estate to the amount of 441. 7s. 9d., and I
find the other, Mr. Groom, is in his own person no
creditor at all.—(Hear, and cries of " Shame.")
Mr. RIcHARDsoN (one of the assignees)—That's not
a correct statement.

Mr. LESLIE—WiII Mr. Richardson have the good-
ness to state what his interest is ?—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. Ricnaapsos—About 180/.—(Great laughter
and hisses.)
Mr. LESLIE—May I ask what is Mr. Groom's claim
personally ?
Mr. GROOM—Nothing whatever.
Mr. LESLIE said the assignees had received property
to the amount of 200,0001., belonging to the creditors,
while one of them had an interest of 180/., and the
other nothing at all in the estate.—(Cheers, and cries
of " Oh," " Shame.") They had all heard to-day a state-
ment of the mismanagement of the Chettle and Enfield
estates, and they were such as should induce the cre-
ditors immediately to go to the Court of Review, and
call for an examination of the accounts, and to inquire
if the party appointing the official assignee had done his
duty. He did not mean to insinuate that these gentle-
men had not done their duty, but from the statements
made, it was for their honour and character that they
should be contradicted. If there was any truth in
these statements, these gentlemen were unfit to be
assignees, and if they were untrue, they would have an
opportunity of contradicting them. He asked why the
property could not be sold. Had any difficulty arisen
since the compromise recommended by Sir F. Pollock 1)
It was clear that if an act of bankruptcy had been
committed by Mr. Chambers in 1824, a subsequent
claim by Mr. Wilton in 1826 or 1827, could not take
precedence of the other creditors.
Sir F. PoLLocx—No.

Mr. LESLlE—That's the point I wanted to have
answered.—( Hear.) Besides it is unnecessary to
dwell upon this point, because Sir F. Pollock bas stated
that Mr. Wilton's claim is of no value.
Sir F. POLLOCK—I consider it of no value, because,
in my opinion, as against Mr. Wilton, the bankruptcy
of Mr. Chambers can be as well established as against
any of the other creditors. It might happen that either
the present or other assignees would have,o try the
question, but as it would involve great expense it was
a step to be avoided if possible. If they proposed to
I sell the estate a creditor might start up and say he had
a judgment against the estate.

Mr. LESLIE said he hoped every creditor had paid
attention to what Sir Frederick Pollock had stated, that
the bankruptcy of Mr. Chambers was a question still to
be litigated. They had paid 1,5,0001. to Mr. Cham-
bers, and they owed 8,0001. more, to admit the validity
of the commission, and he would be glad to know, under
such circumstances, what prospect had they of obtaining
any dividend when they could not sell the Opera House ?
He understood that a sum of 120,000/. had been offered
for the Opera House, which was at least some proof
that a purchaser could be found. Now he would wish
to ask Mr. Mayhew if the Chettle estate was still un-
disposed of ?
Mr. MantEvr said the incumbranees on that estate
had been estimated at 28,0001. Mr. Wilton was in the
room at the time that estate was put up to sale, and he
threatened that if any one attempted to bid for it he
should file a bill against them the following day.
Mr. LESLIE wished to know whether it was correctly
described as being 700 acres of freehold land.

Mr. MAYHEW said it was.
Mr. LESLIE wished to know what was the nature of
the incumbrances upon it.
Mr. MAYHEW—They are all judgments. The first
was a Crown debt for 9,0001. due from Mr. Chambers,
which the assignees were in hopes of reducing to 7,0001.
Mr. LESLIE wished to know what the whole extent of
the Manor of Chettle was.
Mr. MAYHEW-1,100 acres.
Mr. LESLIE—And the incumbrances upon it amount
to 28,0001. ?
Mr. MAYIIEW-le.l ; and perhaps more, if all the
judgments were brought in.
Mr. LESLIE believed that the estate was valued in
1824 at 50,0001.
Mr. MAYHEW—Oh, no. It was put down at that
only upon representation.
Mr. LESLIE—Was not any valuation made of it ?
Mr. MAYHEW believed that a valuation was made
by Mr. Robins, but he was afraid it would be impru-
dent for him to name what that valuation was.
Mr. LESLIE--.-Then, with respect to the Entiebl. farm,
that was stated to be 700 acres.
Mr. MAYHEW said it was between 6 and 700 acres.
He had a mortgage of half that estate, which he would
be happy to make any gentleman a present of, as he
had lost several thousand pounds by it. He had ad-
vanced money very foolishly upon what he considered
to be the title-deeds of the whole estate, whereas they
turned out to be only the half. An attempt had been
made to let that estate, but the offer that was made for
it was barely the Crown rent, and the assignees, under
good advice, had turned the whole of it into grazing
land. Executions had been repeatedly put upo❑ the
property by the Sheriff, and it was but right to state,
upon his (Mr. Mayhew) stating to the Sheriff that he
might pursue his remedy, and take the land, he refused
to do so.

Mr. LESLIE wished to know what was the amount
of Mr. Mayhew's interest upon the mortgage when he
took possession of the estate?
Mr. MAYnEw thought about a year's interest.
Mr. LESLIE—You got possession of half the estate,
and 2,700/. interest ?
Mr. M AYIIEW—Yes. With respect to the Chettle estate
he believed the Sheriff lad been in possession 10 years.
Mr. LESLIE—And the Bond-street property has been
sold ?
Mr. MAYHEW—Yes. It was valued by the Bank at
40,0001., but was not worth near that sum ; it was then
valued at 26,0001,, but no person could be got to give
that for it ; but it had since been sold at what was con-
sidered a fair price.
Mr. LESLIE--Then with respect to the Northaugh
estate, what had been done with that ?
Mr. MAY HEW—That has been let for 50/. a year.
Mr. LESLIE-501. a year! Why I believed it was
valued at 6,5001. ?
Mr. MAvriEw—lt was originally let for 301. a year,
but had since been increased to 501. The property
consisted of sundry cottages, which were chiefly let to
labourers making bricks. It was his wish to give
every explanation he could, and keep back nothing.
Mr. LESLIE—Then am I to understand that it let
1 for 301. a-year, and that it is a freehold without incum-
branees ?

Mr. MAYHEW—Yes.
Mr. LESLIE—Then as to the Windsor estate ?
Mr. MAYISEW said that that was an estate which w.is
mortgaged. Nothing had been done with it for some
time, but it was hoped it would shortly become pro-
fitable.
Mr. LESLIE—The Lea estate ?
Mr. MAYaEw—That was sold by the Committee,
and duty accounted for.
LESLIE—The lease of Mr. Hall's farm ?
Mr. MAYHEvt —That, was good for nothing, and was
abandovd.