The Sun.
London, England, 1854-01-30 00:00:00

IN RE THOMAS HUTCHINGS-JUDGMENT.

This bankrupt had also carried on an extensive busi-
ness as a contractor for public works, &c., and his case
was reported the same day as Hennett's.
His Honour said—l have also to decide to-day on the
certificate of Mr. Hutchings, another great contractor.
In his case, too, the assignees expressed their wish that
he might have a first class certificate, which I have
great pleasure in giving him, for his case also seems to
be one of pure misfortune. His trade was legitimate, and
his conduct throughout has been that of an honest and
industrious man. The only circumstance in his case
which calls for observation is, that his business was car-
ried on for some time under inspection, the result of
which was, legal and other expenses of administration,
3,2001. and upwards, against a profit of about 1,3501.,
when bankruptcy ensued. I trust that bankruptcy will
not be found quite so expensive as inspection. I hope
that Mr. Hutchings will be able to recommence business
at the earliest possible period, and that those who have
assisted him before will show their sense of his integrity
by assisting him again.
Mr. Lawrauce—l trust your Honour will allow me
to say that the bankrupts
.in both cases feel greatly in-
debted, not only to your Honour, but to Mr. Can-
nan, the official assignee, for the assistance they have
received from him.

Mr. Linklater, on behalf of the assignees of Hutchings,
said, that very enormous liabilities had been wiped off,
through the expenses that had been incurred under the
inspectorship. The claims in reference to one contract
alone were 80,000/. ; had bankruptcy taken place at the
time the deed of inspection was executed, that sum would
have been claimed against the estate, and not a farthing
would have been derived by the creditors from the con-
tract. As it was, the debts had been reduced from
150,0001. to about 70,0001., by means of those arrange-
ments. The accounts in this case were prepared by Mr.
Simmons, of Gracechurch-street.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
IN RE COLLINS.

The bankrupt was a painter and glazier, at Beccles.
This was a special sitting for the purpose of determining
a question of some importance, which has been raised
in this case—namely, whether a deed of assignment exe-
cuted by a trader, of all his estate and effects, is an act
of bankruptcy, though he is expressly permitted to miry
on his busines. On the 23d August last, the bankrupt,
having an execution on his premises, obtained an ad-
vance of 541. 19.4. from Mr. Harvey, an innkeeper of
the same place, to secure which he took an assignment
from the sheriff of part of the stock. Subseqtiently the
bankrupt giving assurance that he was perfectly solvent,
and had 5001. after paying all his debts, Mr. Harvey
took an assignment of all his estate and effects, to se-
cure the advance of 541., and also to cover a security for
1001. previously given by Harvey on the bankrupt's
account ; and this deed contained an express stipulation
that the bankrupt should be allowed the free use of the
stock.

Mr. Hoggins appeared in support of the petition of
Mr. Harvey, and relied on the following cases :—"Fenn
and another v. Bittleston and others" (7 Welsby,
H. and G., 152) ; "Hutton and another v. Crutwell "
(22 Law Journal, part 3, Q. 8., p. 78) ; " Graham v.
Chapman " (7 C. 8., Rep., 85) ; and " Gale v. Burnell"
(7 Q. 8., 850).
Mr. Harvey was examined, and deposed to the cir-
cumstances under which the advance was made, also
to his belief that the bankrupt was perfectly solvent.
He promised to pay the 54'.. at Christmas, and the bill
for 1001. (on which witness was liable) when it became
due. Collins carried on his business at Beecles as be-
fore. Witness never heard of his insolvency till
October.

Seine other evidence having been given,
Mr. Bagley, on behalf of the assignees, submitted
that the real question for the court was, whether the
deed was not a fraudulent one under the law of bank-
ruptcy. Its effect was evidently to defeat and delay
creditors ; and it was in reality an act of bankruptcy ;
for Mr. Harvey might have given notice of his intention
to take possession any Saturday night, and have walked
in .the following Monday morning. In " Graham v.
Chapman" it had been held that the deed was fraudu-
lent and an act of bankruptcy, because it was given
partly in consideration of a former advance, and this
was precisely the case here ; there was a present
payment and a by-gone liaility. Another bank-
ruptcy case, " Smith v. Cannan' (2 Ellis and Blk.,
35), heard before the Exchequer Chamber, estab-
lished the point that an assignment of the whole
property, even where there was a surplus beyond
the sum secured, necessarily delayed the creditors, and
was an act of bankruptcy. Other cases to the same
effect were "Bailey v. Barrill," (22 Law Jour., p. 45),
(bankruptcy cases), and "Exparte Sparrow (2 Re Gex,
M. and G 907)."
_ _

His. Honour now gave judgment. After recapitulat-
ing the facts of the case, he reviewed all the authorities
that had been cited, and came to the conclusion that the
deed was invalid, on the ground that it was an act of
bankruptcy. The 24 hours' notice was a mere collusion,
If Mr Harvey might take possession in 24 hours ; why
not in one ? That provision had been introduced merely
to avoid the consequence of a deed which did not give
possession-. Such a deed evidently tended to defeat and
delay the creditors ; and a party must always be held
to contemplate the necessary consequence of his own
act. He was insolvent at the time the deed was exe-
cuted ; the consideration was in great part a by-gone
liability ; and all the cases went to the extent that such a
security was bad, as it was in effect a preference of an
old creditor to all the rest. He should therefore make
the order that the property belonged to the assignees,
and had been rightly sold by them. Mr. Harvey hav-
ing failed to make out his case, the order would be with-
out costs. _

Mr. Bagley—Of course the assignees' costs will come
out of the estate ?

The Commissioner—Certainly.

MAILS FOR AUSTRALIA.

GENERAL PosT•oFFICE, January, 1854.—The next
mail for Australia will be forwarded by the steam-ship
Bosphorus, under a contract made between the Post-
master-Gener.al and the General Screw Steam Shipping
Company.

This vessel is appointed to be despatched from South-
ampton on the 4th Feb. next, after the arrival at that
port of the mail from London, despatched on the morn-
ing of that day; and all letters and newspapers for
South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, and Van
Diemen's Land, posted in London, or reaching London,
up to the morning of the 4th February, and not ad-
dressed to be sent by any other vessel, will be forwarded
by the "Bosphorus:".

The packet rates of postage, which must be paid in
advance, will be chargeable on letters transmitted by the
" Bosphorus," but no charge will be made upon news-
papers.

COAST DEFENCES.—SeveraI troops of Artillery have
just arrived at Eastbourne, and taken possession of the
Martello towers and the fort, which is being placed in a
state of defence. It has also been determined to fortify
the western side of Littlehampton, Horlbom, and the
new battery, which is to be constructed in the parish of
Climping, has been contracted for, Messrs. bock. itAd
Nesham being the contractors.