The Sun.
London, England, 1823-01-16 00:00:00

LAMENTABLE FIRE.

On Saturday night, at about nine o'clock, a
fire broke out at the farm called Blackthorn, the
property of gENJAMIN FINCHAM, Esq. in the
occupation' of Mr. JOHN ELSEY,. about a mile
from Diss (Norfolk). The "fathily had. retired
to rest, with the exception of a servant, whoper.
ceived a light in the yard, and alarmed her master.
At this time the neat.house was nearly consumed ;
in which were four heifers and three calves,
none of which could be`extricated, from their
being tied up, and they all perished in the flames,
The first object of Mr. Elsey was to save hii
farn4,end the children were carried in blankets
to a neighbouring house, but not before the fire
had reached the thatch of the dwellinehouse.
Many hundreds of people arrived at the dreadful
scene from the neighbouring parts of the country,
and the fire engines were dispatched from Diss ;
but the ponds being frozen it ivas very difficult
to obtain water, and the house %%,ith otlu build.
logs were soon consumed : a barn standing near,
however, was uninjured. Every e Win t was made,
and the greater` part of the furuiture preserved ;
but, most unhappily, these exertions were at.
tended by a dreadful catistrophe: in the midst
of the confusion a chininPy fell with a horrid crash,
killed two men, upon the spot, and broke the
limbs of several others. So diQtr,.ssing a scene
has not been witnessed in that part of the
country for many years. The "men who lost their
lives were—John Gardner, a carpenter, who
leaves a, disconsolate wife near her confinement,
and four small children ; and William Tippell, a
single man,' by trade a brush.,thaker, %,,ho died
instantly, his head being completety smashed
and his limbs broken. John Browning, a car.
pester, had his leffarm and right thigh dreads
fully fractured ; Robert Parr, the sexton of the
parish, who has the charge and management ofl
the engines, bad 'one leg broken, and the other
frozen ; and g young man named Slack, was ter»
ribly injured. Many others were severely bruised,
and from there being several hats left near the
ruins, it was feared that the owners were buried
beneath, but 'we believe they have since been
found, having escaped at the moment of the
citinnters falling. What adds to the horror of
this dreadful calamity is, that doubts are enter.
gained whether it was not occasioned by the
devilish act of an incendiary; although, as Mr.
Eisey had been in the neat-house with a light, it
is possible a spark might have. failen,.,notwith.
standing the circumstance of his not having open
ea the lanthorn-door, of which he appears con.
fident, Mr,
,Lisey is a ye ry industrious farmer
and a man very highly respected. None of the
property was insured.---(Norfolk Telegraph.)

LAW INTELLIG&CE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, 155.16.
EICICE lICRE IiARPUR, A ItANKRUPT.

The petitioner was a solicitor, in partnership with a Mr.
Evans. They had the estate of the bankrupt to manage—had
declared a dividehd, and proceeded in the payment of it with
some of the creditors. The assignees found occasion to take
the business out of their hand?, and gave it to a Mr. Rice,
who called upon the former solicitors for the payment of the
kalance in their hands. Eicke and Evans produced an account
showing themselves debtors on the money received, to the
estate.. By this time they had disablved partnership, and some
difficulties occurred as to the payment. An application to the
Court of Chancery, induced them to consent to abide any order
made by the Court for payment, supposing their convenience
would be consulted. Mr. Evans died, which again frustrated
the payment. A warrant issued to attach Mr. Eicke fot
obeying the order of the Court, made agreeably to his consent.
The petitioner now pleaded, that the money belonging to the
estate was received by Mr. Evans ; thit the latter was so much
in his (Mr. Eicke's) debt, that he had him under execution at
the time of his death, for the balance of the partnership ac.
counts, and that the disobedience, as well as the resposibslity,
were chargeable, in fact, to Mr. Evans only. There were other
allegatidns, affecting the obtaining preparation of the brief of
consent, by which the parties were bound.
The LORD CHANCELLOR'couId not understand what good
reasons could be alleged to prove that' Mr. Eicke was not bound
to pay the money, being, equally with Mr. Evans, bound by
the order drawn up, under his written consent. As the peti-
tioner was out under licence' he would do well to enlarge the
undertaking to return to commitment till Monday. in the
mean time they had better try if it could not be arranged few
Mr. Eicke to give security for paying the money by instal-
ments to Mr. Rice. Failing in that, which his Lordship
could not anticipate, they were at liberty to mention it again
on Monday.
Some other causes were opened and partly advanced, the
hearinEs of which were adjourned to differant days of the com-
ing week.

COURT OF KING'S 'RENCEt, Jess. 15.
RHODES V. PROCTO4..
This was an issue directed by -the Vice-Chancellor, to try
whether certain bills of exchange, to the amount of 4,450/. were
proveable on, the 10th of May,-182t, by the Assignees of Messrs.
Sawyer, Tobler, and Companyi,under the Commission ofJohn
Soey Raine, a biscuit baker, residing in Napping, who became
a bankruPt in that year..
Mr. STARK= having opened the cue,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated that the bills in question
had been drawn and indorsed by Keine, and accepted by Jo-
seph Lockland, and were then, handed by Raine to Messrs.
-Sawyer, Tobler, and Co. in satisfaction. of claims which that
firm had upon him. The bah were made payable at Messrs.
Esdaile's, but before they became due, both Raine and Lock-
land had become bankrupts. .
Witnesses were called to prpve presentation of the bills,
and their dishonour. 'The' bankruptcies of- the' parties were
admitted.
Mr. SCARLETT, on the part of the defendants, said, the
first question was, whether notice of the dishonour of the bills
was not necessary to have been given to entitle the holder
Of the bills to prove them under, tue estate e and that the So-
licitor-General ought to have proved Raine was not to be
Ibund. A second objection was, though Raine was a bank-
rupt,`yet his assignees bed - the management of his affairs
at the -time the bills became due, and though the.bankrupt
could not have been found,, yet that the holden; of the bills
could have found, and-have given notice to the assignees. Ile
tcontendedhought theythalti aidt wasan y
tleieledhnuteyoonf
thethe hesotaldteersef Raine,efthebills,
to given notice to his assignee. It was, he knew, a great point
if
fhtheyeav
agitated in the Court of Chancery, whether notice was neces-
wy to assignees ? Ile was not aware that point had ever
been decided ; it was a point on which both the Lord Chancel-
for and' the Vice-Chancellor had, up to the present'period, de-
clined to give an opinion. ItAnight turn out that the pupae's
were not bound to give• notice to assignees, if they did not
know there were assignees. Another thing to be proved to the
satisfaction of the Jury before the plaintiff could recover was,
that they must give some explanation how the bills came from
the hands of Messrs. Ilodges. The last objection, however,
was the most important ; it was that these bills were given to
• secure money lent upon an usurious consideration. The man-
ner in which these bills came into the hands of Messrs. Sawyer.
'Tobler, and Company, was this :._Raine, the bankrupt, was
a baker he (the Learned Counsel) had heard it said, indeed
it had afrnost become a proverb, that a baker never made a
fortune ; he believed it was toe with the exception of one,
whom he had in his mind, web was exceedingly rich. The
• transaction between Sawyer, Tobler, and Company, and Raine,
was thie—Raine being pressed for money, had made appliha,
tion to Sawyer and Co. for the loan of 1,0001. for which Raine
was to pay 1,5061.; to olstain' this enorrhous interest allure con-
trivance was necessary what would the Jury consider of the
. expedient of gettinßaine to enter into an arrangement to al.
low Sawyer and Company to ship goode to the amount of
1,6001. to Italy, selecting what goo& they pleased, selling them
-for what they pleased, and taking a commission of 5 per cent.
upon this operation, which was to be repeated four times before
bills, which were to begiven by Raine fur this loan, should
become due ? By this method they had an interest of 301. per
cent, for the 1,0001, It was stipulated if Raine should repay
the 1,41001. at any time within the 15 months, he might put an
end to any further shipthent ; that was the first transaction._,.
Raine did not find it coneenientao repay that 1,0001. f he soon
wanted more ; lie resorted to the same parties a second time,
when they advanced him 2,0001: he gave them a bill for 3,0001.
at 15 months, and they were to ship goods to the amount of
3,0001. -in the same way as before. Upon the termination of
the transaction the bills, in question. were given ; there was
the 30001. for which he had given bills when he received the
2.0001. which, with the interest, insurance, commission. and
other charges, made, up the 4,4501. The question then Was, if
this was not usurious transaction ? lie contended it was a
mere shift and contrivance to get more-than the legal interest,
and he trusted the jury would defeat it.
,
BAXENDALE, Solicitor for the Commission of Lothian%l
deposed that the bills were proved under that commission by
Messes. Hodgete
Upon an attempt to put in a letter-from Raineto.Sawyer and
Company, it became necessary to call a clerk of Messrs. Sweet
and Stokes, Solicitors, for the defendants to prove sonic notice,
when he was cross-eiramined by the Soetcyron-fittennah,
and basted that Raine absconded before the commissiou, and
had never surrendered.
Mr. Comberledge swore that he was a partner in the house
of' Sawyerand Co. in 14!ty, 1817; Mr. Sims a managing clerk i
of Kahle, applied to their house for a loan of money, or ,rather
to enter into a connection with their house, for several pur-1
poses, and no doubt the letters produced were received by
Sawyer end Co.
Upon cross-examination the witness said Sims proposed
that the house of Sawyer arid Co. should ship goods on Mr.
-Raine'a account. The proposition to ship goods came entirely
from Raine--stains was in an extreme large way of business,
hiving six South
.sea ships, and shipping goods to St. Da-
min o, Italy, and various other parts. The shipping of the
goods having gone on for some time and turning out dmadvan-
tageous, Raine was told Messrs., Sawyer and Co. wished the
business to be terminated forthwith; Raine was requestedtogfie
some security for the money Sawyer and Co. advanced, as well
as for the probable lose which Might arise on the adventure.
Raine upon this sent Sims to see how the account could be
settled, which was done ; upon their receiving these bills, all
other securities and paper were delivered up, and the goods that
remained unsold were to be Sawyer and, Company's. The
1 whole loss which had resulted' to their firm, with the interest
upon money-aUvanced; exceeded 4,000/. At the. time of the
arrangement there was no idea of Raine's being insolvent ;
so fur Croat it that Sawyer and Company had further trans-
actions with him up to the day when he absconded. They, advanced him 1,2001. 'shortly before he ran away.- the whole
of the transaction of the shipping of: bonds was away.;
fide, and
not a colour to conceal ttry, And the charges would 'have
been the same if no bills had been accepted.- Hodges and
Company held the bills as a security for money lent to Sawyer
and Company, to the amount of 1;6001. After. Hodges had
proved them under Locklatere commintion, the gave them back
at the request of the assignees, upon a security, to account to
them for the dividend. The commission was two and a half
upon the goods sent out.
The Sotactson-Gess Egan, in reply, contended, there was
no ground for the chargenf usury which had been made—the
first objection as to the notice had been dispOsed of by Mr.
eicarlett's eecond:witness, who stated, Raine had. never surren-
dered to the Commission. As to the second objection of notice
to the assignees, he was satisfied the Court would say it was
no necessary. As to the bill* being in the possession of
Messrs. Hodges, that had been most satisfactorily explained,
and there was as little in this as in the other two objections.—
The only remaining point was as to the usury. That was 4
most extraordinary charge—the papers were not at all Moons
.si.stent with the accountgiven by .51r. Comberledge ; the goods
were to be purchased on the credit of ''Snwyer and Co. The
Whole transaction was a regular commercial proceeding. Ac.
.cording to'the testimony of the witnesses,. it was clear that
Itaine was net the poor baker which his Learned Friend had
represented him to be ; there was not the least foundation for
that statement, 110 V were there any reason to think that Messrs.
Sawyer and Co. believed he was net in the most solvent cir.
cumetances. Upon these grounds he felt assured the plaintiffs

-

would not be disappointed-in their expectations of a vardict iti
their favour.
Tbe Loan CfriEr jun, wr stated the nature of the goes.
tion, and detailed the evidence. His Lordship notieed the se-
veral objections raised by the Learned Counsel for the defend.
ants, he considered the question of notice to the bankrupt as
disposed oft iu consequence of his absconding. Upon the se-
cond objection, on the point of law, as to the necessity of nodal
to the assignees, he should rule that it was not necessary ; hr
thought the possession of the bills by Messrs. Hodges hail been
fully "Planed. With respect to the remaining. and material
question as to the transaction being bottomed in usury. till.
was entirely a question for the Jury.
The Jury found for the plaintiffs. Damages, 4,4501.