The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-24 00:00:00

fall upon tlWclient. With' such an intimation of the
opinion of the Court, you may take a rule.—(A laugh.)
FYSOS V. CHAMBERS.
This was an action of trover against an auctioneer, to
recover certain goods, the plaintiff suing as the adminis-
Vator of a person deceased. It was tried in LondonbefOre
Lord Abinger, when a verdict pas;sod for. the plaintiff.
Mr. Erie early in the term-obwitied a rule nisi to set
aside the verdict, cause against which was now shown by
Mr. KELLY, who said the defence set up to the action
was that the goods belonged to a person who had been a
bankrupt, and although he had obtained his certificate,
still, not having paid 15s. In the pound, all his subsequent
property vested in his assignee§. I( appeared that the
bankruptcy was in 1832, but he contended that the fiat
was invalid, inasmuch as it was riot shown. that there
was any petitioning creditor's debt„at.the time of the act
of bankruptcy ; it was then snathe plaintiff could not
take.such an _objection,. because he.-had .taken his certi-
ficate under it. He contended, on the other hand, that
Ithe onus of proof respecting the validity of the Com-
! mission was on the defendant But his main objection
was that the defendant had net-been put in'motion, nor
did 'he represent the assignees. Now, although the
assignees might have claitned the property, they laying
by and taking no steps to disturb his possession, the
bankrupt had a right to keep his property against the
whole world. Here the assignees were quiescent, and
surely the law would not allow any other person to
rob or spoil him of property long enjoyed by
him with impunity. He could not find any case where
any person other than the assignees had been able suc-
cessfully to disturb even an uncertificated bankrupt in
property enjoyed by him after his bankruptay, On these
cases had the defendant taken the propery. without the
deceased's leave, he might have maint., , ed. his action,
consequently, it could be maintained ;by his adminis-
trator.
_ _

Mr. BUTT followed on the same side.
Mr. ERLE, in support of the rule, cited the case of
" Isaacs and Belcher," 2d Meeson and Walesby; But-
ler and Hobson," 4 Bosanqnet, 246 ; and several cases,
and contended that the plea of " not possessed " opened
up the whole question of ownership of the property.
Mr. BARSTOW followed, and
The COURT took time to consider its judgment.
(Sittings at Guildhall before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
HINTON V. wEEKEs.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of 1681.,
being the amount of a bill of costs.
Mr. Sergeant Bompas with Mr. Ball appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Knowles for the defendant.
The plaintiff was a solicitor in Bristol, and the de-
fendant a widow lady, residing in Bath. It appeared in
evidence that" the defendant was possessed of certain
freeheld property at a place culled in Gloucester-
.sbire, which became the subject of, itlaW. suit, and she
employed twofsOlicitors. gamed Buslie-and Prideaux, to
conduct it. ';NOtbeing.satislied with them, and being re-
duced to great poverty, byithe law expenses, a friend
named Mrs. Maria Ip,sleye recommended her to the
plaintiff—she (Ipsley),,telling: WAR at :the same time of
the defendant's poverty, and thatle:was to depend alone
on the success of the cause for his costs, to sue Messrs.
Prideaux and Bushe, in order that they might render an
account to the defendant: While the suit was pending,
Prideaux and Fushe became bankrupts; and the plaintiff
then told the defendant unless she paid the costs, or
made him an assignthent of her property as a security
for them, he would commence proceedings against her.
This being, refused the present action was instituted.
The Learned Judge having briefly summed up, the
Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the full
amount claimed.