The Sun.
London, England, 1825-08-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

, COURT OF CHANCERY AUG. 16.
SMITH V. SHARPE.
This was an application on behalf of the defendant to be dis-
charged From prison, having ken committed to the Fleet for
contempt in disobeying an order of the Vice-Chancellor, which
directed him to ISay into Court the purchme-money of an estate
which he had contracted to take, and of which he had received
possession since 1815 ; but he disputed the validity of the title,
and now sought to be relieved from the performance of his con-
tract.

The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that whatever grounds
the defendant might have to apply for a discharge hereafter,
he' had clearly none now. Ile could not suffer a person to enter
into a contract in 1815, and retain possession of the estate, re.
ceiving rents and profits, without quarrelling with the title till
1822. The defendant had been for ten years in the full enjoy_
ment of the-estate, and gave no information as to what he had
derived from it.- If Mr. Hart (the defendant's Counsel) would
procure an affidavit, stating the amount of the profits obtained
from the estate since it came into the defendant's possession, and
after handing it to the other party, would deliver it to his Lard.
ship any day, he would re-consider the application.

IN RE WOOLER, A LUNATIC.
Mr. NlrutTEmansu applied to the Court for leave to have
a Commission of Lunacy issued by his Lordship in this case
executed at Newcastle.
The COURT granted the order.
EX PARTE GLOSSOP, IN RE KEMP, A BANKRUPT.
Mr. HART stated, that this was an, application to restrain the
bankrupt from proceeding to try by action at law the validity of
the commission. The docket had been strtick, and the com-
mission issued in 1814 • the bankrupt had aequiesced in it for
ten years, and now endeavoured to set up a pretext that the
commission had been improperly obtained.
Mr. Taw-tor followed on the same side.

The SotiolTon-GEtigust. alleged, on behalf oldie bank-
rupt, that the commission had been obtained in the most im-
proper manner, by what he must term a conspiracy. The very
debt of the petitioning creditor, Mr. Peter Clissold, was founded
upon s bill of exchange for 2501., which, after being paid, was
re-issued from the hands of Messrs. Tiffin and Pugh, bankers.
The debt was thus concocted by Mr. Clissold and. Mr. Pugh,
who had made false entries ire his books to favour the design.
Kemp's estate was able to disch ..tie every claim in full,
and allow a very large surplus—about 30,000/. Whenever he
endeaVoured to meet his creditors in order' to supersede the
commission, Mr. Bachelor, the solicitor under the commission,
arrested him, repeatedly, to prevent the meetings. The inter-
mediate time had passed in fruitless endeavours to get the
commission superseded ; but it was not until February last that
Mr. Kemp discovered evidence which enabled him to proceed
to try the validity of the commission at law. The bankrupt
had always protested against the commission • and the assig-
nees seemed aware of its invalidity, and offered to compro-
mise with him, which offer he had refused. After years of
effort, he had, preVailed upon nearly 200 creditors to consent to
stmersede the commission. Now that he had obtained evidence
to contest its validity, he hoped the Court would• not prevent
him.
Mr. Ho ANC, on the,same side, maintained that, this appli-
cation could not be made to the -Cotirthy petition; it should
be brought before it by bill. The case of the bankrupt, how.:
ever, did nut rest, upon this technical objection; it disclosed an
act of great oppression.
Mr. WHIT MARSTI and Mr. MONTAGU followed-on the same
side. The latter remarked that the assignees.had evinced their
sense of the validity of the commission by insisting upon an
indemnity when they paid the dividenda.-
Mr. HART, in reply, stated, that the bonds of indemnity on
payment of the dividends were in compliance with an arrange-
ment with the bankrupt himself.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—YOU admit that you dc'.bt the
validity of_the commission?
Mr. HART assented to this. Mr. Clissold, it must be ac-
knowledged, had acted unduly. As 'to the bill in question,
Tiffin and' Pugh were Clissold's bankers, and the bill was
returned by them to Clissold dishononred, though it was after-
wards paid. The bankruPt had no right to go now to a trial,
after the delay of ten years, and after making use of the com-
mission, 'by acquiescence, to induce his creditors to assign their
debts to him for Is. I Id. in the pound.
The'SOLICITOR-GENERAL here pnt.inan-affidavit of the
credittirs'of.Mr. Keinp, rebutting this assertion, and testifying
to the 'correct and just conduct of the bankrupt.
The. LORD CHANCELi.ort was.not able to ascertain, from
the Statements at the bar; what was the precise ground'for this
application; His Lordship could not prevent the trial from going
on, betaitse ache expence. In regard to the form of application,
If ardwicke, that an injunction. against
ai.-bankrupt, must be prayed by' bill. On the best considera-
tion of'thiS ease,, and wider the authcirities of Lord ilardwieke,
and. Lord Thurlow, his, Lordship thoUght he, could not re-
strain ti bankrupt not brought before. the -Court by hill, from
trying the validity tif. hbi cornmission. His LOrdship observed,
that'the'aSsignees were. in a hard situation ; and he was sur-
prised that peysons should, for some reason' or other best
known to therriselVes,coyet the office of assignees, without any
alarm at. the situation they -were placed in-.' Delay and acquies-
cence,, in cases like the preeerit,' might work an effect So as to
plOprit'a bank:tine's oversetting his' commission. What had
been• their extent,' here ? -Theft' hid been `an acquiescence of
tors years ; a surrender and pas Sing of the last examination ;
but'these ingredient might:be insufficient to defeat the bank-
riapes'right to try. the validity of his commission.' A 'Court of
Lew' would, however; regard these circumstance's, and might
grOt no remedy.' Whatever relief might be given to theassrg-
nees.ih Itii'case by bill; his' Liardship could 'grant 'none on a,
e'i`tion regard' being hatli6 What the Cduit did and did not
kpo-Ve ot thetacts.f •
Mr: fUit'r • applied for costs. The other side had, filed
affidavits' Which filled '6oo'ibliOs, moat 'Of *hid' Were 'iinFll4'
trial
The LORD CHastc,ELLoit must give costs..to the other side.
lie cotil4.f not decide'* hether the affidivits.tiere-material or .not
without reading iherte
.. • • ; • •• •
• " " IN RE WARD.
a ffiNdl
ars..
i2tl
.mmeens.s.tiKoln., eß,d4ft tt,.anti e ',l4which
wshowing t for
he pur-
;st9nd anoverchase*
,which *hall-been' completed under the deed of trust:
Mr. Mayhely,' had rims put in -affidavits 'containing the re-
gut ieti, !le( Al re Agar) maintaineet were at•
variance
iti
nce"rtt
with aiinns•wer whielehad formerly been,madein the
suit in the CiatutEXebequer, in t regard to thq valuation' of
'
the property.
Air. Ha fly. ,merely remark, that the sums in the two
accdunts' had been caret ifily vorripared.eand they corresponded
to fi penny. '
The eftiefavits were hando '3?-to 11# Lordship, w--ho .promised
•
to give an early deeisibr.