The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.'

COURT OF CHANCERY, SATURDAY, Juw 8.
BANKRUPT PETITIONS.
It will be recollected that on Tuesday last his Lordship ap7
pointed this day among others, for the purpose of giving judg-
ments in various cases that had been londbefore the Court.—
When, however, his Lordship took his seat, several Bankrupt
Petitions were proposed for his consideration, as being of the
most urgent nature, and it was hoped they would not be fur-
ther delayed, as they pressed severely upon the respective
parties.
The LORD CHANCELLOR. said he was as well aware of the ne-
cessity of taking. these petitions as any other person ; indeed he
himself had received many communications from individuals, on
whom this delay bore particularly hard, stating the peculiar se-
verity of their different cases, with which he was not wholly unac-
quainted. His Lordship said he was convinced that unless the
Court interposed, and some fresh regulations were made with
respect ,to these Petitions, . adjournment after adjournment
would take place„—they would be made to give way to matters
of the " utmost importance," as Counsel termed it, till in the
end they would remain unheard. • Saturdays were set apart
for disposing of this species of business, and that must be ad-
hered to. On Saturday next, therefore, the whole day would
be devoted to the hearing. of Petitions. - The judgment in the
case of Chappell and Cadell, which had been appointed for this
day, was then further ordered for Tuesday next.
The remainder of the day was consumed in disposing of Pe-
titions, and the Court rose at two o'clock.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Jume 8.
• KILSBY V. WILLIAMS AND OTHERS.
Mr. CAMPBELL moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict obtained by the plaintiff in thii case should not be set
aside, and a new trial granted. It was an action to recover the
sum of 2501, received by the defendants, who are eminent bank-
ers in the city of London, to the use of the plaintiff, who.was
one of their customers. It appeared in evidence that Mr. Robert-
son, also a consumer of the defendants, in Novetnber last,
gave the plaintiff a check for the 250 L in question 'upon his
bankers, to whom he was himself indebted at the time in several
thousand pounds. This check was sent in by Mr. Kilsby. on
the morning of the 13th, at which time nothing 'was said as to
whether it would or would not be placed •to- his credit •as
cash. In the course of that day, Mr. Robertson prevailed on the
defendants to discount for him bills to the amount of 1,5791.,
and directed them to apply the proceeds to the charges of the
-day, giving the preference to certain bills from Manchester to
the amount of 1,3431., respecting which he was particularly
anxious. After the payment of these bills, there remained,
therefore, 1361. in the hands of the defendants, applicable to
the charges of the day ; but instead of appropriating this to-
wards the payment of the check in question, they paid, either
on that day or early on the 14th, two drafts for 501. each, and
some other orders for money. On the following day, Mr.
Robertson discounted more bills, the proceeds of which
amounted to 6941., and specially directed the application
of 5931., which, after deducting the discount, left a ba-
lance of 931. for general purposes. On the morning of
the 14th, Messrs. Williams and. Co. wrote to Mr. Kilsby,
stating that they had not at that time effects to pay the check,
but that they would retain it in the hope that Mr. Robert.
son might be able to discharge it. Upon this evidence, the
Lord Chief Justice thought that the defendants were bound to
apply the first surplus of 2361. to the payment of the draft first
presented to them and received without observation • and that
they were further bound, by the terms of their letter Of the 14th,
to appropriate a sufficient portion of the 931. the excess of that
day, to the same purpose. This opinion was adopted by the
Jury, and now contested by Mr. Campbell.
The COURT were unanimously of opinion, that the direction
and the verdict were right. When bankers received a check
from a customer, drawn in his favour by another customer,
they became the agents of the payee, and their duty was to, ap-
ply the first monies which they received applicable to the pur-
pose in its discharge, and not to give a preference to the claims
of strangers.' They therefore refused the rule.

THE ICISG V. HECTOR.

In last .liilary Term Mr. Harrison obtained a rule, callin
an the defendant, who is steward of the Manor Court of the
Manor and Borough of Petersfield, to shew cause why a cri-
minal information _should mot issue against him for using his
official powers improperly, with a corrupt design to favour the
electioneering views of the family of Jolliffe, for one of whom
he is agent and attorney.
Mr. SCARLETT now showed cause against the rule. The
imputations against Mr. Hector were scattered through forty
folio sheets of affidavits, from which the Court were desired
painfully to extract something amounting to a midemeanour..
The accusation originated with Mr. Atcheson, a respectable
solicitor, who might have condescended to be a little more
explicit in the charges which he called o,lllllr. Hector to answer.
The. truth was„ that Mr.. Atcheson had accidentally visited
Petersfield, and having taken an interest in the place, thought
that he could Successfully oppose the influence of Mr. Jolliffe s:
-family, of whom the majority of the respectable inhabitants
held their lands; and that 'he found an opponent in Mr.
Hector, who, having been seventeen years steward to Mr.
Jolliffe, preferred the cause of his old patron to that of the re-
cent visitant. The charges—as well as he (Mr. Scarlett) could
extract them, from the mighty mass of affidavits, which had
Produced a most soporific effect on himself, and would, he fear-
ed, have the same effect on the Court if discussed in detail—
were ,that Mr. Hector had not summoned a jury of Mr. Atche-
Son's'friends, to present a Mayor, and that he had been present
during the deliberations of the Jury. It was Mr. Atcheson's
theory, that none of Mr. Jolliffe's tenants ought to be summon.;
ed ; but he ilia not pretend to say that those who attended were not
respectable in station and in character, and as fit as those who
had been &chided. • What was Mr. Hector to do ? Was he to
summon an entire jury of Mr. Atcheson's supporters ? Then
he would be equally chargeable with "apolitical design. Was
he to summon an equal number of the supporters of' each ?
Then the jury would never agree, and there would be no Mayor
at all. Ile .positively disclaimed all corrupt motives in the
course he had taken : he had followed the practice as he had
found it; and surely the feelings of ancient alliance and attach-
ment were not motives so very censurable, if, where a preference
must be given to oneparty, he leant rather to the cause of those
who had befriended him through life. As to his presence during
the deliberations, it was sworn that in .this'respect he had only
acted as his predecessors had done ; that he had not attempted
to bias the jury, and had only given his opinion on one point of
eligibility on which he was questioned. Mr. Atcheson had
promoted three quo warrantos against successive mayors, two
of which were yet pending, for the purpose of deciding the le-
gality of the mode by which the elections were conducted.
And was he now, in addition to these, to ask the Court to im-
pute flagitious motives to Mr. Hector, who had introduced no
innovations, and who, if he was misled, followed the example
of those who had gone before hith ? It might be well for re-
formers to destroy the old'and accustomed modes of proceed-
ing, where they fancied they could introduce beneficial changes ;
but they ought to be cautious how they appealed to the crimi-
nal justice of the Court, to strike those individuals who pur-
sued the course which had been unquestioned for a, long suc-
cession of years.
Mr. ADAX, on the same side, was proceeding to argue that
no corrupt. motive could be inferred from Mr. Hector's con-
duct, when
The LQRD CHIEF JUSTICE interposed, and said that the
Court would hear what could be urged- in support of the rule..
Messrs. HARRISON, GAsELEE, and COLT.MAN,'6IIS cal-
led upon, argued that the. criminal information Ciught to be
granted. The charges were in substance, that Mr. Hector,
for the last four years—ever since, indeed, the choice of Mayor,
had been important to Mr. Jolliffe's family—had not given 4
'general direction to summon the jury, but had endorsed the
names of those who were to be summoned on his precept; that
this he had notdone indifferently, choosingmen of all parties, but
'selecting only those who were under the influence of his patron ;
that he had taken the jury out of 31 persons, though the names of
42 others had been tendered to him equally competent to serve ;
and that all this proved, beyond a doubt, that his object was
to secure to Mr. Jolliffe the nomination of a Mayor on all oc-
•casions, who,,at the election for Members to serve in Parlia.,
mentovas the returning officer. It was also charged that Mr.
Hector was present while the
_Jury were deliberating on their
choice, in breach of the terms and spirit of the oath by which
they swore to keep secret the Counsel of the Klng and of their
fellows. So far from denying the ,whole, Mr. Hector denied
only a small part of the charges distinctly made against him.
It was sworn, that for four years he had selected the Jury
with a corrupt view, to favour the electioneering interests of his
patron ; and to this ,he replied, that in the last year he acted
with no such view, nor sought to favour the election of a par-
ticular individual. He was charged with acting as he had
done, on the contemplation of an immediate vacancy by the re-
signation of one of the present Members for Petersfield ; and a
particular conversation was stated as evidence of -this expec-
tation ; he had denied in terms that the conversation was
holden ; but he had not deified that there was any conversa-
.tion on the subject at all. Thus, swearing by the ckrd,
he had answered only a part of the accusation ; the restremain
ed silently confessed—" habes confitcutem rcum." The Ties-
tions arising on the quo warranto informations were quite
distinct from that now in issue ; they were intended to try the
abstract legality of certain modes. of election ; this proceeding
Was-to inquire whether a public officer had not employed those
modes of election with a corrupt design,. and 'abused them to
the purposes of a. party. The. Court. were not, called on to de-
cide any political question, to favour any individual views; but