The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jex. 7.
(Before Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD. )
THE BANKRUPTCY OF WRIGHT AND CO., BANKERS. —IN
• RE ANTHONY GEORGE WRIGHT BIDDULPII, HENRY 10.
HINSON, JOHN WRIGHT, AND EDWARD WILLIAM JEft-
N/NOHAM.
This being the day appointed for the choice "of assig-
nees under the new fiat obtained in this case by Messrs.
Dyneley and Coverdale, the Court was crowded to ex-
cess long before the hour appointed for the commencement
of the proceedings; and as the choice was expected to
' be contested, the interest which was excited as to the
parties upon whom it should fall appeared to be intense.
The debts and liabilities were said to approach a million
sterling.
Mr. Anderdon (the barrister) attended for the proofs in
the lists of Messrs Dyneley ; and Mr. Hamilton, of the
firm of Few and Hamilton, for his list. Proofs continued
to pour in for a considerable time, when
Mr. Hamilton said he understood that all proof of debts
by affidavit from persons resident in London would be ob-
jected to by Mr. Anderdon, and he wished to know if
the fact was so, as it would be attended with great incon-
venience.
Mr. Anderdon apprehended that the rule was this, that
no person was entitled to prove by affidavit who was a re-
sident in London, but that it merely applied to persons
residing at a distance.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD did not think the rule was
exactly as stated by the Learned Counsel. It was by no
means unusual to take proofs upon the production of
powers of attorney.
Mr. Anderdon believed the rule to be as he had stated,
and therefore he would feel it his duty to object to the
reception of any proof of debts unless it was first sworn
before the Learned Commissioner.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD thought'otherwise, for, by
the 6th of George IV., as well as by the Ist of William
I V.,; sec. 34, it was made lawful for any creditor to make
affidavit of debt, and thereby prove without his personal
attendance.
Mr. Hamilton begged to ask the Learned Counsel in
whose behalf it was that he appeared ?
Mr. Anderdon—For a large body of creditors, and also
for the petitioning creditor.
Mr. Hamilton—Oh, for the petitioning creditor ?
Mr. Anderdon—Yes, as he has the greatest interest in
preventing the concealment of any examination as to the
proof of debts.
Mr. Hamilton begged to ask the Learned Commissioner
if it would be necessary, in proving debts by power of at •
torney, to affix the solicitor's signature to each power, or
to circumflex them, &a he and others held several hundred,
and it would be a great facility in making the proofs if the
latter course were permitted-
Mr. Anderton said it would be his duty to object to the
proof of debts by power of attorney, and particularly to
such holders of powers claiming any right to vote in the
choice of assignees, although he was not at present in-
structed to oppose the list intended to be offered by Mr.
Hamilton.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said the question put by
Mr. Hamilton did not apply to the, validity of the powers
of attorney, but to the mode of signing the list by the
solicitors who might hold them. s
Mr. Hamilton—l wish to avoid affixing 350 signatures,
if I could legally do so by one signature.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD said the signature must be
affixed to each individual debt by any holder of a power of
attorney.
Mr. Anderdon submitted that, although parties might
e'tillowed to prove their debts by power of attorney, yet
that they were not permitted to do so under the provisions of
die 6th Gco. IV., or, if they were, that such provisions
could not be legally iagrafted upon the 61st section of the
7th Wm. IV. ; and the more so as the voting for choice of
assignees was a species of duty the discharge of which s
man could not delegate to another. The two Acts of
Parliament to which be had referred might be construed
in pail maturia ; but the 34th section of the Ist Wm. IV.
could not be interpolated upon the 6th Geo. IV. But it'
the 61st section of that Act gave parties a power to prove
their debts by power of attorney, it did not, he submitted,
give them a right to vote in the choice of assignees, and
they must be bound by the Act of Parliament.
Mr. Commissioner HOLRO I'D concurred with the Learned
Counsel that the right of parties to vote in the choice of
assignees must be governed by the Act of Parliament. By
I the 61st section of the 6th Geo. IV creditors were not re-
stricted from proving their debts by affi lavit, and, having
once proved their debt, they were clearly entitled to vote
in the choice of assignees. It was no uncommon practice
in this Court for a creditor to prove his debt himself, and
give a power of attorney to some other person to vote in
the choice of assignees, although the Commissioner might,
if he thought it necessary, require the attendance of the
creditor himself. It, therefore, appeared to him that, utakr
the dist section of the 6th Geo. IV., any creditor might by
power of attorney vote in the choice of assignees.
Mr. Hamilton, at this stage of the proceedings, said he
wished to ask a question which, although not strictly re-
gular, might tend to the convenience of the immense num-
ber of creditors who now crowded the Court. He wished,
therefore, to ask, if any one present intended to repose a
list of assignees ? He held powers of attorney for debts to
the amount of nearly 300,0001.
On the part of Mr. Dyneley it was stated that he did
not intend zo propose any list.
The Learned COMMISSIONER suggested that Mr. Hamil-
ton should now state to the creditors the names of the per.
sons whom he meant to propose as assignees.
Mr. Hamilton said he meant to propose Thomas Berne-
well, of Copthall-eourt, Esq. ; William Blount, of Cum-
berland-street, Esq. ; Charles Welde, Esq., barrister-at-
law: Michael Ellison, Itsq., agent to his Grace the Duke
of Norfolk; and Mr. Charlwood, of Covent-garden. Those
creditors, therefore, who had already proved, and approved
of these gentlemen, might leave this crowded Court, un-
less their curiosity should induce them to bear the pressure
any longer.
Several creditors expressed their satisfaction at the
names of the proposed assignees, and considered the pro-
position a very fair one for expediting the day's business ;
bat with others the intimation had not the desired effect,
and they still bore the squeezing of the crowd who pressed
forward to offer their proofs.
Mr. Anderdon wished to knew what course the Court
would adopt in its case of persons who might seek to
prove upon overdue checks, of which he understood there
were a great many ?
Mr. Commissioner Holroyd—They cannot be proved
unless endorsed as accepted by the bankers, and with their
privity.
Mr. Hamilton—Then who is to prove ?
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD—Certainly not the holder,
who, by his own !aches, did not present the check in due
time. But if the question is to be now raised upon that
point, let a case be put before me, and then, if you please,
yon can argue it.
A creditor said that he had received a check from a
customer, but be did not present it, and the bank failed in
the interim.

Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD —Your own !aches will
prevent your proving, but perhaps the person from whom
you took it will assist you. You certainly cannot prole
upot! it.

Mr. Anderdon would admit that the mere possession of
a check did not always prove that the holder had come
rightfully by it ; but yet it was quite clear that the banker
should be reached in some way, and not put the money into
his own pocket. Would the Court, therefore, allow a
joint affidavit of the holder of the check and the party from
whom he received it, the latter adding that he had only
proved for the balance of his account, and deducting the
amount of the check in question ? The mere absence of a
legal right in a party to prove should not bar his equitable
right, for the bankrupts certainly owed the money to some
one. The joint proof, he contended, would gu ird the
estate in every possible way, and the admission of the proof
could not damage it in any possible degree.
A lengthened conversation took place upon this point ;
but we understood the Learned Commissioner to reject
the proof, as it was clear that the holder of the check
had no right of action against the bankers, who bad never
accepted the check, while it released the person who gave
it him for such an amount of debt. But the laebes of the
party was the reason why he was not entitled to prove.
The bankers, he supposed, might not take advantage of
the clairr ant.
Mr. France said he attended on behalf of clients to the
amount of between 75,000/. and 100,0001., whose stock
had been sold out cf the Three-and-a-Half per Cents, and
other funds by the bankrupts, without their knowledge, and
he, therefore, wished the Learnet; Commiesioner would
give him some advice as to the form in which the proof
should be offered to the Court. He felt the more anxious
about the case as there was only the trifling sum of 3.000/.
unappropriated, and to be drawn amongst so large a class
of creditors.
Mr. Commissioner Houtovo—The bankrupts, I sup-
pose, were trustees for various persons. Are there sepa-
rate accounts fur each ?
Mr. France answered in the affirmative, and the official
assignee ( Mr. Edwards) said the difficulty consisted in their
not being able to distinguish the different sorts of stocks.
The Learned ComutsstoNEn said it would be for Mr.
France to draw such a form of proof as he might he advised
to do, and when it was properly before the Court he would
then state his opinion respecting it.
Mr. Anderdon, having pressed for his Honout'sjudgment
respecting the admissibility of the overdue check,
The Learned COMMISEIONER said his present impression
was that the holder of such a check had no right to prove,
which he made his own by not presenting it in due time.
Mr. Anderdon again urged that the bankrupts were not
discharged from its payment, and the question then dropped.
Mr. Grady, solicitor, said that he attended on. he
part of Mr. Thomas Wright, who had formerly been a
partner in the bank, for the sum of 37,000/., but which he
gave up for an anuuity of 1,200/. a year, Mr. John Wright
being his quasi trustee. His client being now a prisoner
within the rules of the Queen's Bench could not attend
here to-day, but he (Mr. Grady) felt it his duty to attend
upon the earliest occasion, lest he might hereafter be told
he had not made his claim in due time.
The Learned COMMISSIONER informed him that it would
be quite time enough for him to make his claim at the
next meeting.
Another solicitor next addressed the Court at some
length on behalf of the clerks of the bankrupts, who had
discharged their onerous duties with great diligence and
ability, but who, unfortunately, by the failure of the bank
about this period of the year. had been deprived of the re-
muneration which they usually obtained from the numerous
customers to the bank, as well as an annual increase of
salary which they ware usually paid at this period of the
year, They were also entitled to a quarter of the broker..
age, which was never passed to the bankers' account, but
hitherto kept and paid on their account. The object of his
application, then, was that the official assignee might be
empowered by the Court to make them
,some allowance, a
course to which he did not think there would be one dis-
senting voice amongst the creditors.
The Learned CommissioNeerequested the applicant to
communicate with the trade assignees, and then apply to
the official assignee, who would inform the Court, and then
the application should be attended to.
The bankrupts had no less than 2,500 banking accounts,
and the amount of debts proved in the course of the day