The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-10 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.-(T tilS DAY.)

BOUCHER AND ANOTHER V. DOUGLASS.
This was an action tried before Lord Abinger iu Lon
don, when a verdict was found for the plaintiffs for 360/,
Mr. JAMES now moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had.
It was an action by the assignees of a bankrupt named
Maitland, to recover the value of several bills,
alleged to have been given to the defendant by
way of fraudulent preference, while the bankrupt
contemplated bankruptcy. Maitland was a leather
factor who had borrowed the above of the de-
fendant for which he had given his bill, which
would fall due on the 29th of October. On the 22d, the
bankrupt went to the defendant at Winchester, and gave
him a variety of acceptances, in substitution of the
other. It was proved at the trial that, previous to the
22d Oct., Maitland was in insolvent circumstances ; that
he had overdrawn his account at. the bank, and that one
of his creditors had given him notice to give bail for his
debt within twenty. one days, Otherwise he Would become
bankrupt. The fiat was' dated the 10th November; he
(Mr. James) contended that there was not evidence
enough to show that, on the 22d October, the bankrupt
contemplated bankruptcy.
•
The Cotner considered the Jury had come to a right
conclusion—the notice for bail was a strong fact in the
case.—Rule refused.
FAULRENER V. M'CABE.
Mr. S. Wowrt.mc moved to set aside the verdict, which
was for the defendant. The action Was brought to re-
cover the valtfe of certain Certificates of shares from the
,public officer of a bank.' , It was tried at the late Liver-
pool Aksizes, before Justice, Wightman. It appeared
that the plaintiff, in March, IhB3B,
se for employed hertas ini brother,
whnwas a share-broker, tci purca him c shares
in the London an d llirMingltatanitilway,qmpai,y, the pay
moat for Which was to be made out of a sum of 9001. in the
hands of John Faulkener, the property
aofno the
er plaintiff:
John Faulkener made a bargain with th broker,
thed owner
of July
named Hampsen, for twenty ci.
on
rAailewonaytr,acftorno7tellv‘l,.a,stma
onbde e opued an fo
dr e d
of the shares, and it was Clearly
and distinctly in the
h be y 3
name of the plaintiff. On the 3d of Julyilla inp f andpof
plied to John Faulkener for payment but ie,
He asked Hampson for and obtfiinedthe certificates, which
his brother, had dealt with tne 9001., and could not pay:
he took to a joint-stock hank in which lie was
a shareholder, and although It was then after bank
hours, he immediately obtained an advance of 7001. upon
the certificates. After that John Faulkener became
bankrupt; he was
,considerably indebted to the Bank,
which held many shares as security, the whole of which
were sold, and amongst them those belonging to the
plaintiff. To prove that fact, he `(Mr. W.) called both
Hampson and the broker who sold them on the part of
the Bank ; and, in order to identify them, he asked.the
witnesses what were the number (If the shares. The
,question was objected to. It was said he was
inquiring into the contents of ie written docu-
pent, • and his Lordship held th'e objection to
be good. On that part of the case* the Learned
Gentleman contended that he did not want', to know any
thing of the contents of the certificate—al he wanted