The Sun.
London, England, 1825-01-22 00:00:00

HOGG AND ANOTHER v. TREAK.

This was an action of trover by the assignees of Mr. Kelly, a
bankrupt, to recover the value of certain silks, and warrants
for the delivery of silk at the India House, alleged to have been
placed in the defendant's hands, in immediate contemplation of
bankruptcy.
The plaintiffs alleged three distinct causes of action—the con-
version of 13 bales of silk ; of warrants for the delivery of 14
bales ; and of warrants for the delivery of sixteen bales of the
same article. They failed, however, as to the two last; for one
parcel of warrants was not traced to the defendant's hands, and
the other parcel was of no value, being forfeited by reason of
the neglect to make good the deposits in time : their case,
therefore, was ultimately confined to the thirteen bales actually
traced to the defendant's possession. It appeared that Mr.
Kelly was nephew tce the defendant, who had been a ship-
broker, and lived in retirement at Blackheath. In August
last Mr. Kelly absconded, considerably in debt, and, not re-
turning, was in his absence declared a bankrupt. About a
week before his departure, he rose at six o'clock, and, having
sent his servant out of the way, dispatched a cart with thirteen
packages of silk to the defendant's house. After he was gone,
Mr. `freak observed to one of Kelly's men, named Gadsby,
" that his master must be mad, for he had sent him silk in the
cart ;"' and, on its being proposed to place it in a dry room, said
he would take care of it. The plaintiffs therefore contended,
that the silk was delivered to the defendant in contemplation of
bankruptcy, and consequently belonged to his assignees.
On the part of defendant, it was contended that the silk
was bona fide sold and paid for ; and to support this case, bills
of parcels and a receipt were produced, importing that silks had
been sold and paid for at the latter end of May. The daughter
of 31r. Kelly also proved that her uncle made repeated ad-
vances to her father, and that silks were delivered to him on'the
tith of June.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in reply, urged that it was
clear these bills of parcels referred to other transactions, as the
dates did not correspond, and the quantities were not nearly
equal to the contents of 13 bales of silk.
Mr. Justice LIT TI.EnALE left the jury to decide whether
the 13 bales of silk in question were really sold and paid for,
or were delivered in contemplation of an act of bankruptcy, in
order to secure the defendant, to the injury of other creditors.
The jury, after a short consultation, said, they found for the
plaintiffs, but had no evidence before them to enable them to
ascertain the value of the silk.

A witness was called hack cor the purpose of fixing the
quantity; when it appeared that though the term " bales" had
been used by the witnesses, they did not mean to employ it
technically as denoting a certain quantity, but merely as signi-
fying packages.
Mr. MARRYATT and Mr. CAMPBELL, for the defendant,
then urged that the case had not been rightly understood, and
that the discovery now made went not only to the amount, but
to the verdict; because the observation that the bills of parcels
were insufficient to cover 13 bales, would not apply if bales
only meant packages. -
A long and desultory argument ensued, in which the merits
of the c.tse were fully discussed again, and in which Mr. Scar-
lett, who was with the Attorney-General, took a prominent
part. After nearly an hour spent in the argument, amidst great
noise and confusion, the Learned Judge, by consent of the
plaintiffs, submitted the case again to the Jury. The .Jury
again found for the plaintiffs, and the amount of damages was
referred to Mr. Child, one of the special jurors.