The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-08 00:00:00

1:---.1:VENING SUN

-LA NNT
_
CR.. -------...—____
--'4kNi CER Y CO URT.--(TIIIS DAY).
The 1-,_ TRASMER, of CAUSES;
• eLo cillAlitviLLoit on taking his seat thin Morn-
/ill g stated that it might be for the 6anVenenco of the bar
fLkeow that he had directed certain causes to be trans-
t:u from the paper of the Vice-Chancellor of Eng-
'4l to that of Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce ; and the
ill_,l4es which his Lordship had selected were those which
21 been set down for hearing in Hilary Term last. The
;411 sfor of those causes would, however, be subject to
c o'' 3 arrangear y.ment as to any particular cause that mightibe-
Itle access

OF THE COU.
LonnsuieSITTINGS said that he had madeßTa mistake when
stakli to the bar yesterday that he should not be
11,,,allied to sit on 'Thursday. He found that he should be
17e to sit on that day, but not on Friday. His Lordship
0 stated that he should-take motions on Thursday.
.1:11E MATTER OF PLUMMER, A BAN:—".,g
the Lox') CHANCELLOZ . give judgment to-day
at this bankrupt's petition. His Lordship said
ar thi.B wak 11. special. case, stated under the Act
tin,athartient, by the Court of Review, for the
it y.1'41 of this Court. The facts of the case, as far as
Iterjs tleeeenry to state them for the present purpose,
tar, skt)rtly these :—Messrs. Plummer and Wilson
Ve.t.*. on business as, Wrest India merchants ; they
4 `c indebted in a sum of' 2,0001. for money lent to a Mr.
jurge 'lead, and they. ere desirous of obtaining further
ea,„"ees, and for the purpose of securing Mr, Joad
iva_ss,igned.to him a mortgage security which they had
3,i„, e,t India property, :and they also entered into a
tit"' and several covenant for the payment of the sums to
ttal a'hanced, including the 2,0001. ; but the whole
11
r •4°unt, to be advanced was not to exceed 1,0001. There
to
transaction with respect to money due for
tins Messrs. Plummt,r and Wilson became bank-
A commission was sued out against them, and
Leh,' 'e'3l"ge Joad did that which he was entitled to do,
I,i a joint and several creditor ;he offered to provejt .
Lest the separate estates of each of the bankrupts.
lqt,s‘‘'.', objected that he was not entitled to do that tin-
e, "e sold or gave up his joint security ; that was
toatB. Point for the consideration of the Court, and the
14 °ell Was what were the principles applicable
trbestions of this description ? If a party, a creditor
t‘.t)ankrupt, has a security upon the bankrupt's estates,
net allowed to prove without selling or giving up
seeurity, and for this reason, that the principle )fthe
Itt4,krePt Laws was that all the creditors of a particular
tho''' should be put upon an equal footing. If a party
st„st, to prove he must sell- or surrender the particular
Per;aY, but if lie hid a security on the estate of a third
tlea°4 that principle did- not apply, because he was
1,441( Plaided to prove for' the whole debt against the
;Iv r.uPts estate, and for
,any deficiency he might
thk3tlto the security,, provided he was not paid more
litliil) kkrvcinotY shillings in the pound. It was unnecessary
any authority on the subject, but his Lord.
(l,A;;!ight media the cases of ex parte Bennett in
Int% r'us, ex parte Bar in Ist Rose, and ex parte Good-
the 3,1 Maddox. The-next point was this : In
"'ministration of property, and other bankrupt laws,
;0;
'oteil 'tit estate and the separate estate were
0/11.,,,red distinct., and accordingly when a party
to prove under the joint estate, having
titletreeme under tl:e separate estate, he is en-
t,c) Prove against-• the separate estate, with
ea I.,°`eg up his security. That was laid downin
rLe Peacock, which was first decided by Sir John
It 11t1 afterwards upon appeal by Lord Eldon, an.d
tk sinee been followed by the Court uf Review in
qarte Bodman. Now what was-,the present case ?
s.a). it was the converse of that ; and looking at all the
d was the
his Lordship was of opinion that the party
Aivir,p.tight to prove against the separate estate, without
t uP his security.. against the joint estate.
a"" been considered that the present was
Lothse. °f principal and surety ; it appeared to his
viCIP that it could not be, looked at in that
'Ekes ais Lordship was therefore of opinion that the
ttrtln4entativt:s of Mr, George Joad were not obliged to
!tr4, the divide:ads Which they had received under the
441 ißete ientent pending the present question. The. case
ae;" long under .litigation. The Commissioners
‘‘eats*Lded in opinion upon it ; the Judges of the
'IE4 t Review, when there were fours and afterwards
th, there were only two, were divided in opinion upon
Ikri,4,4eLstion, and under those circumstances it came
‘,lll4,'lttrie-,ltniiellgrtl:t for its opinion. His Lordship on the
looking at the principles to which he had
atkd, that the representatives of Mr. George Joad
tkttli right to prove against the separate estate, without
a`'itertT the security they held on the general estate.
ktth4Peet to the question of costs, his Lordship would
°PiniOn to-nziorrOw.
&11% tiliT BOOTH V. CRESWICK.
`'Rhi:then proceeded with the arguments in this
-"gril ease.
p/..
COU.II.II.—(THIS DAY.)
COCKERELL V. BRIDGEMAN.
i 3• 811it,,was instituted by the plaintiff against Mr.
criugeman M.P., the defendant, to recover the
j▪
jt )y1,(4, a bill of exchange, accepted by the defendant,
ief" had been subsequently lost. In February,
R 10;4% 1). F. Ryan .drew a bill of exchange for
‘tts itee" 4t three months, which, for his accommodation,
Itttkl twaret '4 by the defendant. This bill was shortly
• 4
att ' and before it became payable, indorsed by
staid over to Messrs. Hodgson
and Burton, by
IZtagtie% e 18th May, 1838, it was presented at the
host' but °ltkr, of the defendant, who was then in Ire-
the accid, Its not paid. The bill was subsequently
the draw€l.'Lltally destroyed, not having been paid by
gat keepta or acceptor. The defendant admitted ete
al
ke and a 'lces of a bill of exchange of the m
tmg'ea th„notint for the accommodation of Ryan, and
Ct it up 'le had supplied Ryan with the money to
'
1,1114,„7, and that this would have been done if proper
4111""(nt had been made for payment, and the bill had
kNe,,,ortheoming, but th at the. plaintiff
.had given him
Uplon the 21st May, 'he being then in Ireland, that
V,,'";43 it was immediately paid a bill would be filed
11-" st him ; and on the 28th of the same month filed
tie,Ptesent bill. He therefore contended that under these
evipastances he was not liable, and that there was no
tivZee that the bill was lost, nor the the plaintiff had
alti valuable consideration for it.
P14,i4, 1 emberton and Mr. Elderton appeared for the
T:lt and Mr. James Russell for the defendant.
It4sktis'j\falcAtsoTrEyit of the Ruus said the evidence was not
as it craght to be, since neither Ryan nor
44 tr" who presented tbe bill had been examined,
41%1, Would look it over, and give judgment on Monday
VICD
-4-CHANCERY.--(THIS DAY.)
\B--ere the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
FLETCHER V. NORTHCOTE.
;‘)t' thsettse, which occupied his honour during the whole
th,lux,°rninm, came before the Court upon exceptions
kkts-414, te,es &pert. The discussions on the several
e rise to no question of general interest.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
1'°34,1%-"):IxoUn. dispoSed of several short causes and unop-
'Lions, containing no feature .of general interest.
k thisin WALKER .V. JEFFREYS.
It)4 of Cause the bill was filed for the specific perform-
ilksquracovenant in a lease of mines, to grant a new
I Years at the expiration of a lease which had
th'ies for 42 years. The defence was that the
lad not been worked for more than 20 years; that
therefore, for which the lease was granted
t'fe I :" "en fulfilled, and that no rent had been paid to
,41 who y ntitled to a rent for every ton of
an _ sere e
ht'ltiff d ironstone raised. It was admitted for the
Llit‘nat his object was not to work the mines hi.
%%Itith „,t) Prevent any working of them by other parties,
„`4lis
r~aeel7,l,lot injure some very large'and valuable iron-
"eh had been erecte,d b% the plaintiffs on the
cl 1,1'"
14-,14:1,S- Was pail heard yesterday, and was not con-
en ".'e went to press.

-"'ei OF' PR BErbIC
OM H
ISE O-(F
MT H
ARRIAIS DAY.)
GE.
), 'rho DAIMON V. ROSSER.
4 th„vt°ecedings in this case were resumed this morning,
;11
tre~eVilonient the doors were thrown open, there was a
de C ourt4B rush, which, by in a few minutes, every part
r(ki
waserOwe to, several hutt-
14issi.u' 4"0 filled the aged uens, were suffocation
unableand te obtain ad-
111 IL
first witness called on behalf of the plaintiff this
Ors ng
Was..
h,. -"Jle Birch—l am the wife of Mr. Edward
;
43 an irn orter, of Irish linens in Great Rtts-
-I.44;trheet, liloornsbiPiry I have known the defendantnast
':4')Wig.ll,l3°lll. and a cnStomer for many years.
f;ll,Plyi-,7Q alembers of the family. I recollect Mr.,Ros,soer_
-"g for a, list of prices about, the 20th, 215t,.0r d_
Prii
'41% 1840. They 'were ladies' under-clothing. I
r. lii the list since. It was since shown me by
Trota laas, the plaintiff's solicitor. A letter was
list.t
I)°lir house to Mr. Rosser, enclosing
111011,..-I,`)sser is a very fine gentlemanly man. I
1 • the
f4Y urn about sixty •-five.- His. manners were
ftieudc,"rtl.Y. He told. the he wanted the list for a
'er
the 411.
:4 acquaintance. That she wanted a few things
Present and might want more at a future tim
thol,:bwedding'. He seemed in excellent healthl
tlttitt I saw him yesterday in Court, but I tun not
11„s1-1\l'et•
4\lr .Lary Clarke was called but did not answer.
; ureorge 13-irr tt-L-a a foreman and. general ma-
Sterr's,ctliecjewellenir, in Regent-street.. ieco.ln-
tiu,. ng. a
wedding-ring on the 20th of April last, i
siluilar to this now • banded me.
iciktw 'ilrB.„AAt„ll"./ Cozier—l knew the defendant, Mr. Rosser,
;J1%17,1- '" and 50 years. He has to the best of my
14t ti :4 carried on the business of a solicitor during
-ae in Red l
ion-square.lie has act&l as a soh-
prc' kr the. his house is a very good one for any
"°w• I have only been in his office. I have
Money in the way of lusiness, but repaid it
4lr
itun jti
UStICO WIGIVIMAN did not so 3 e object of the
a
Airs M "' •
41)161 ary Clarke-I am manager of Mrs. Day's es-
ee -.llneut, 316, Regent-street. I have been there for
ar Betwevn the 97th and 30th of April last
11s a': gentleman came to speak to me about a bonnet.
(Lau. about was about -sixty—a very fine old gentleman.—
day "ter.) He -looked at a great many. Ile came a
ltri,„°,l' two afterwards with a young lady, whom I now
torilti° be Miss Sophia Darbon. She appeared to be a
k()o-d—c° Young lady, about 25. She seemed in very
si,ce health and spirits. I have seen her on.ce
two or three days ago. She came with
gentlenian.
•t, „ Her appearance was net at all
ker '''aB on the former occasion. She was altoge-
bLiatiged, and decidedly for the worse. When Miss
elareOn first came, she chose a bonnet, which was sent to
Ivrot_ne•terrace, Hampton common. The gentleman
4 few' tne address, but I have mislaid the memorandum.
ealletl daYs afterwards, about the 3d May, the gentleman
aad p4i4 for the bonnet, which he said was very