The Sun.
London, England, 1825-01-28 00:00:00

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.

Yesterday a case of considerable interest came on before the
Court, and occupied it upwards of five hours.
In the year 1815 an Antwerp merchant, named Joseph Ho-
zai, became a bankrupt there. A short time ago Messrs. Scott,
Garnet, and Palmer were parties to an attachment of consider-
able property in the hands of Messrs. Bowker, of Alderman-
bury, in the name of the bankrupt, and Mr. Benhayen claimed
that property now as approver or assignee to the bankrupt's
estate, for the benefit of the creditors. There were, therefore,
four parties in the case, and the approver stood in the condition
of plaintiff; and Mr. Hozai that of defendant.
Alr. BOLLAND for the approver stated, that he had simply to
prove the bankruptcy of Mr. Hozai at Antwerp, and the pos-
session by the tarnisher of the property of the bankrupt,to chew
that his client was entitled to a verdict.

Blr.iCannan, clerk of Messsrs.Decfcins arid Co. of Fenchurch-
street, stated, that he went to Antwerp last month, in order
to get documents from the Chamber of Conimerce there, to
prove that Mr. Benhayen was appointed syndic to the bank-
ruptcy of Joseph Hozi.i. Witness went to Mr. Herryns,
a Judge of the Chamber of Commerce, stated the object of his
visit, and was by him introduced to Mr. Schram, the President.
Mr. Govertz, another Judge of the Chamber of Commerce, was
also present, as well as the Registrar, who produced a book,
from which witness made extracts, which he compared with
the contents of the book in the presence of the President,
Judges, and Registrar, who afterwards authenticated and set
the seal to the documents.

These documents were understood to be confirmatory of the
act of bankruptcy.
Mr. LAW, for the defendant, observed that he considered the
Chamber of Commerce of Antwerp as no more than a chamber
of moonshine.

Mr. Joseph Schram, who has a house in business at Antwerp
as well as in London, said his brother, Emanuel Schram, was
President of the Tribunal or Chamber of Commerce at An-
twerp, and that gentleman's signature was attached to the do-
cuments alluded to.

By the COURT—Do you know that questions of bankruptcy
are discussed in the place called the Tribunal of Commerce.
The witness answered in the affirmative. Mr. Hozai was a
merchant at Antwerp in 1815, and witness believed his affairs
were at that time deranged. had not, however, seen Mr.Hozai
since the year 1815.
Mr. BOLLAND then put in the documents.
Mr. LAW objected to the reading of the documents. It had
not, he said, been proved that Mr. Hozai whose property was
attached was the Antwerp bankrupt.
Mr. BOLLAND, in reply, referred to the pleadings in which
it was stated that Mr.Hozai became a bankrupt in 1815, at Ant-
werp, and that the usual proceedings were resorted to, by which
an approver was appointed, and that such approver was the only
person entitled to bring an action on the case. To this the
Learned Counsel said, a replication was made that the approver
had no right or title to claim the property of Mr. Hozai, and
thereupon issue was joined. He considered the evidence that
Mr. Hozai was a merchant residing at Antwerp in 1815 suffi-
cient for the Jury, and he looked upon the application as recog-
nising and admitting that Mr. Hozai was the person alluded to.
Mr. BARNARD, on the same side, argued that not only a
prima jiicie case for a Jury was made out, but that there was
very strong evidence.
Mr. Law insisted that there was no proof of the hankraptcy,
and that there might be in so large a place as Antwerp several
Mr. Hozias as well as there were several Mr. Smiths in London.
A London Jury were not to be prevailed to look upon as con-
clusive what was said or done by a comfortable set of men who
took it into their heads to make bankrupts of persons they knew
nothing at all about. It was a story savouring too much of the
Arabian Nights Entertainments to carry weight with it. There
was here no evidence of personal identity—a thing indispen-
sable in such a case.

Mr. BOLLAND said the defendants were called upon to prove
that Mr. Hozai was not the Antwerp bankrupt. A case had
the other day occurred in the Court of King's Bench, that of
Duncan v. the Proprietor of The Morning Advertiser, in
which Mr. Brougham had taken an objection that the Mr.
Duncan alluded to might be the father of the person meant, and
when it was answered that the father was bail for the son, Mr.
Brougham argued that it might be the grandfather, upon which
the Lord Chief Justice observed that the defendants had not
proved that there was a grandfather.
Mr. LAW said that was no reason that Mr. Hazai, who was
the defendant in this case, should be the bankrupt of Antwerp.
The RECORDER said the defendant had it in his power, if
he was not the bankrupt, to prove that fact. There could
surely be no difficulty in saying he was hot a bankrupt, if he
could say so.
Mr. LAW contended that at all events there was no evidenee
to prove the right and authority of the Antwerp Chamber of
Commerce to vest the property of a bankrupt in an assignee.—
There was no proof of the law of that place as to bankrupts.
Mr. BOLLAND said he had documents, signed by the Au-
thorities in proof of his case. If such proof were not admis-
sible, how could commercial affairs be carried on with foreign
countries ?—lt was perfectly well known that in all foreign
countries Tribunals of Commerce decided in cases of bank-
ruptcy. Did his Learned Friend mean to say, that if docu-
ments, signed by him as Commissioner of Bankrupts, to no
more than the extent of his authority were produced in a fo-
reign country, they would not be conclusive ?
Mr. 13ARNARD said, that as it was impossible to compel the
President or the Judges to come over here to give evidence, all
that could be done was to give the best evidence that could be
had, and such evidence was admissible upon the principle with
respect to all known and unknown Courts, that " Oninia presu.
niuntur fuisse rite (zeta." Now it happened that the plaintiff
was actually encumbered with the load of proof.
Mr. LAW contended that the principle uninia presunnintur
fuisse rite aeta, was too dangerous to be extended to all known
and unknown Courts. lie would instance a case in which it
was far from being admitted. Indeed the presumption was
(and so was the fact), that there was gross misconduct upon
the part of the person in question. It was stated before a re-
lation of his (Mr. Law), that the Governor of an island had
imprisoned a British subject in a very confined place, and the
principle just quoted was stated in support of the act, upon
which the Judge said, that he would look to the authority of'
the person, whether he was a Governor or not who presumed to
imprison an English subject in a room of such limited dimen-
sions, and lie would look most narrowly too. He (Mr. Law)
trusted that the Jury would look with as much caution upon
the conduct of the Authorities of Antwerp, who he contended
were not able to clothe any man with such a right as the plain-
tiff claimed in this case.
_ .

The REconnEit—said, there was no Judge whose deci-
sions were deserving of more respect than Lord Ellenborough,
but the instance just cited had no reference to the question be-
fore the Jury.
The documents were then admitted in evidence. They stated
that in May 1815, Joseph Hozai having stopped payment was
adjudged to be a bankrupt, and that Mr. Benhayen was ap-
pointed approver for the benefit of the creditors.
This was the case for the plaintiff:
Mr. LAW then rose for the defendant. He observed, that
what was called a bankruptcy was a failure quite distinct from
a bankruptcy, that there was no identity proved as to the person
who was charged with having been declared by the Authorities
of Antwerp a bankrupt, and he contended that his client must
receive a verdict, as upon these grounds, as well as upon the
fact of the want of proof, that the bankrupt laws of Antwerp
divested bankrupts of property which might have been obtain-
ed after bankruptcy.
The RECORDER, in addressing the Jury, said, that except
they could say upon their oaths that they believed the defen-
dant was not the person who became the bankruin at Antwerp,
they were bound to find lb:- the plaintiff'. The defendant, if he
was not the bankrupt, was bound to prove it.
The Jury consulted for some time, and
The RECORDER again addressed them. He told them that
if they found for the approver, the effect would be in—
Mr. LAW begged to inform the Court, that the Jury ought
not to be informed of the effect of their verdict.
The RECORDER said it was his duty to inform them. If
they found for the approver he would not immediately come
upon the property, he must bring his action against the gua-
rantees.
The Jury, after some deliberation, returned a verdict for the
defendant.

FATAL PUGILISM.-Saturday evening two
young men, named Ezra Cozier, blacksmith, and Miller, a
carter, quarrelled, and determined to meet on Monday morn..
1
g' to decide their dispute. At eight o'clock they met, and
repaired to a field on the New Painswick-road, each attended
by his backer. After fighting for nearly half an hour, Cozier,
on being brought up to time, staggered, and appeared so in-
capable of further exertion, that the spectators separated the
combatants, and it was discovered that he had received serious
injury, as he complained of dreadful pain about his head. He
was carried to the Norwood Arms Inn, near the turnpike, but
before he reached the house he was a corpse. In the course of
the day his opponent, and the backers of the parties, left the
neighbourhood, until the verdict of the Coroner's Inquest was
known. On the arrival of the Coroner, on Tuesday, the Jury
assembled at the Norwood Arms, and viewed the body, which
was subsequently opened, and it was clearly ascertained that
his death was occasioned by a blow on the jugularti'ein, on
which a severe contusion appeared, and a quantity of extra-
vasated blood was found on the brain. The Jury were occu-
pied from one o'clock in the afternoon till nine in the evening,
when they returned a verdict of " Manslaughter" against J.
Miller, as principal, and E. Mansel and W. Hadlam, as se-
conds.—( Cheltenham Chronicle. )

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Jaw. 27.
DORTON SEN. AND JUN.-CONTEMPT.

This is the case in which the parties were warned to answer
for contempt in cutting down timber, contrary to the injunc-
tion of the Court, or they were to be committed forthwith.
Mr. HART now moved, the parties being in Court, that they
should be committed.

Mr. ROUPELL, for the parties, pleaded that they were far-
mers, and persons of that quality of understanding which made
it impossible fir them to understand that they were committing
any offence. A decree had been obtained against them in 1816,
and they had heard no more of it. When they received the
order of the Court, enjoining them to desist from cutting the
timber in autumn last, they took it for a trick of their anta-
gonists to frighten them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR expounded the law of contempt,
which was not, as was vulgarly supposed, to justify the dignity
of the Court, or the personal consequence of the Judge, but for
the security of the subject, and the protection of his rights and
property. No Judge could forego the exercise of the power
which that law gave him, without. endangering the sanctity nf
the laws in general. But why was there nothing done upon the
decree obtained so long ago as 1816 ? Must this Court be sub-
jected, as it was, to libels of every kind, poured forth day after
day, for delays created by the parties themselves ? The delin-
quents must be committed, with leave to present a petition
praying for inquiry into the causes which have delayed further
proceedings upon the decree of 1816.

ROBERTS V. BOZON.

The argument was then resumed upon this laborious case,
which respects a considerable portion of the property of the cc'
lebratedCrennis tin mines in Cornwall.

Mr. HORN and Mr. KNIGHT stoutly supported the right
of the Solicitor (the defendant) to include the clause in the
deed upon which he had proceeded to effect the sale, which
clause had for its object the assuring to the Solicitor the amount
of the debt claimed by him upon Mr. Joseph Rowe for an in-
finite series of expellee and services which the defendant had
contributed to Mr. Rowe in the course of that litigation which
the latter had enjoyed with Mr. Alderman Wood.
The LORD CirANCELLOR, in a variety of incidental obser-
vations, seemed to be of opinion that the clause implied rather
too strict a security to be taken by one who was engaged in con-
fidential agency. His Lordship hinted that they (the Court)
were " too far north" to entertain the obligations of deeds so
framed.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAN. 27.
lIANDFORD V. STOREY.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment in thi, cause,
which has occupied in argument a large portion of the time of
the Court. The bill was filed by the plaintiff on behalf of him-
self and others, the creditors of tile Marquis of Headfort and of
Lord Bective, against the defendant, who is also a creditor, to
obtain the refunding of a suns of money received by him, and
to a proportion only of which he was entitled. It appeared that
Lord Bective being entitled to the remainder in tail of certain
estates, of which his father the Marquis of H. was tenant.in-tail,
joined with the latter in conveying those estates to trustees, for the
purpose of applying the rents and profits from time to time in li-
quidation of their joint debts, so as that the creditors should re-
ceive rateable shares in proportion to their several claims. A Air.
Ball was appointed receiver and agent under this deed to carry
its provisions into effect. The present defendant, the Rev.
Mr. Storey, who had been a party to that deed afterwards, in
the year 1811, commenced a suit against Lord Bective for the
recovery of his own debt and those of the other creditors. Lord
Bective was desirous to put a stop to this proceeding, and All.
Storey was afterwards induced to compromise it on payment of
certain sums. These sums were handed to him by Mr. Ball, and
were, as WAS alleged by the present bill, the proceeds of the
trust estates. It was therefore charged that the defendant had
received money to which he was not entitled, and that Ball, the
agent, had paid it wrongfully. His HONOUR, after having reca-
pitulated the facts of the case, said that the bill before him could
not he sustained. The evidence failed to prove that the money had
come immediat4 from the hands of Ball to those of Storey. Ball
was perhaps justified in paying money to Lord Bective, and the
latter had a right, if he tlaought.fit, to apply that money for the
purpose of staying the suit which had been commenced against
him. But how could Mr. Storey, who was not shown to have
been a party to the transaction, whatever it was, between Lord
Bective and Ball, be chargeable for the amount he had so re-
ceived ? The.bill must therefore be dismissed with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 27.
DARTNALL v. HOWARD AND GIBBS.

This was an action against Messrs, Howard and Gibbs, for
negligently laying out the money of the plaintiff on mere per-
sonal security, which proved insufficient. The case has • been
twice tried : at the first trial, the plaintiff was nonsuited on A
point of pleading ; at the second, lie obtained a verdict.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now moved for a rule to show
cause why the judgment should not be arrested or a nonsuit en-
tered. He grounded the frst part of his application on the form
of the declaration, which did not allege that the defendant.
were attornies, or that they received any reward for their trou-
ble, without which they would not be responsible ; and the se-
cond, on a ~ariance between the allegations, and the evidence,
inasmuch as the declaration alleged the duty to arise from the
mere confidence reposed in the defendants; whereas it appeared
they were to receive commission.
The COURT granted the rule in the alternative.