The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-08 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCII, JULY 6.

HARRIS V. HILL AND OTHERS. ...
. .
Mr. Wri.DE stated that this action was brought by the
assinee of Messrs. Langhorne and Braiisford, bankrupts, v.
Richard Hill, G. B. Mainwaring, Samuel Hill, and `'Ward,
on a bill of exchange for 1,637/. 3s. 9d., dated the 10th of Oc.
tober, 1814, drawn by the defendants on Messrs. Mainwaring,
Chatteris, and Co., payable 61 days after date, and endorsed to
the bankrupts. The defendant 11. Hill had suffered judgment
by default, and the Other defendants had pleaded the general
issue.
. Mr. MARRYAT shortly opened the me to the Jury, and
proved that the bill was drawn in the handwriting of S. Hill,
in the name of the firm of Hill and Co. ; that it had been en-
dorsed to the plaintiffs ; and. had not been paid wheil-due by
the acceptors: ....
Mr. SCARLEtT, for the defendant Ward, contended that he
was not in a situation' at the time the Bill was drawn to be
made liable by the act of the actual drawer. Samuel Hill had,
indeed, been in partnership with his brothers, .with ;the other
defendants, and with Mr. Chatteris, one 'elite aceoptors, in a
concern called the Stone Pipe Manufactory, at Fox-hill, in
Gloucestershire ; but it would be shown, that at the time when
the bili was drawn, this partnership had ceased, that Mr. Ward
knew nothing of the transaction, and that this bill was drawn
entirely for the accommodation of Mr. Chatteris ; all which
, facts were known to the bankrupts.
Mr. MAIIRYAT, for Mr. Mainwaring, said that his client
had not only the same ground of defence with Mr. Ward, but
was also exonerated by a deed of composition, whereby his cre-
ditors had released hirn front all liability on payment:ollos. in
the pound.
Witnesaet were called to prove the dissolution of the partner..
ship, the deed of release, and the knowledge with which the
bankrupts took the bill.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE obserVed, that several points of
law would arise fit for the consideration of the Court, and some
questions of fact on which he shoidd desire the opinion of the
Jury. - Ile therefore summed up , the evidence, and the Jury,
after stating their opinion on the points submitted to them,
found a verdict for the plaintiff's, subject to the opinion of the
Court on a special case. .
TITACEERAY AND OTHERS V. WOOD AND OTHERS.
This was an action of trover by the assignees of Greaves, a
hop-merelrant, to recover from Messrs. Wood, Wigan, and
Wood, certain pictures and 137 bags of hops, the property of
the bankrupt before his bankruptcy, which the defendants were
alleged to have converted to their own use..
The case for the plaintiff was in substance this :—Mr-
Greaves, the bankrupt, carried on the business of a hop-mer.
chant to a considerable extent in the Borough, and had been
largely concerned With the house of the defendants. .in Au-
gust, 1818, he purchased of the 'latter 137 pockets of British
hops, and gave bills for the same, amounting to 6,5011. 19s. 6d.
Part of the hops was in the warehouses of the defendants, and
the remainder in the warehouse of a factor, and the defendants
gave the bankrupt the usual delivery notes. At this iime the
defendants had in their possession a quantity of foreign hops,
the property of the bankrupt, part of which they had purchased,
and the rest they held on hand for sale on his account. In con-
sequence of the abundant home produce of hops in 1818, consi-
derable failures took place in the trade, and particularly
amongst those merchants who had bought largely upon specu-
lation at high price% After the transaction first above-men-
tioned took place, the house of Messrs. Felton and Co., with
whom the bankrupt had had dealings, failed largely in his debt.
In the prospect that his own credit would be affected by this
failure, he applied to the defendants, and laid before them a
statement of his affairs, by which it appeared that he would
have a surplus balance of about 5,0001. after payment of his
own debts, and it was alleged that the defendants offered to
make him advances to the amount of 10 or 12,0001., u n ade-
quate security. For this purpose he proposed to lo e with
s
them the delivery orders above-mentioned, a considerab i e num.
11' ber of valuable pictures and India Bonds of his son,in-law to
tLe amount of 6,0001. The bankrupt wanted an immediate
advance of 6,0001., which the defendants agreed to make upon
the securities thus stipulated, and the delivery orders in ques-
tion and three pictures were deposited with the defendants,
but the India Bonds were not delivered.—lt was alleged that
the defendants, in breach of this agreement, refused to ad-
vance any money; and retained in their hands not only the
delivery orders, but the bankrupt's acceptanceifor the amount
of the hops to which they related, and also the three pic-
tures. Other pictures were to have been delivered, but the
bankrupt declined sending in any more, on the ground
that he could not get the money proposed tobeadianced. Mr.
Greaves afterwards became bankrupt, and had obtained his
certificate, but his estate did not appear to have paid any divi-
dend. The acceptances he had given for the hops in question
had never been paid, and they appeared to have been cancelled
by the defendants. Tri the course of the trial, the transaction of
the foreign hops alluded to was mixed up with the transaction
in question, but it did not appear to have any connexion with
the point in question, namely, whether the assignees of Greaves
had a right to maintain this action for the hops and pictures in
question, under the circumstances above-mentioned, the de-
fendants relying upon the fact that the hops had never been
paid for but by bills which had been cancelled, and receiving no
consideration for the bargain and sale upon 'which the plaintiffs
relied. Mr. Alderman Wood did notappear to have taken any
personal part in the transaction.
The case went to the Jury under the Learned Judge's direc-
tions, and they found their verdict •for the pluinriff—Damages,
2,259/. Ils.

•~