The Sun.
London, England, 1824-12-09 00:00:00

COU•JRT OF COMMON PM AS, DEC. 8

(J-kjbrc. the itqltD IJ!I*E and- Com

SINCLAIR V. WeEVENBON.

This was an action Of trover, brought by , tho plaintiffit,
Messrs. Sinclair and Routledge, to recover the value of certain
goods from.the defendants,ln which they claimed to
.be entitled
as assignees of a bankrupt, named Proctor. The defiendant
pleaded $' not Guilty,'' and upon that issue was joined:.
The circumstances out of which this case, which occupied
the attention of they. Court fur two days, arose, were simply
these. At the close of the year 1023, the defendant, Mr. Ste.,
venson, was desirous of parting with the premises and the ma-
chinery with which he had corned on the business oft
at to. 71, Wardour-street,. Soho. A
person of the name of
Ireetor entered into negociation to purchase thetn, and 1,200/.,
it was stated by
the plaintiff's counsel, was the sum at
which the defendant was ready to sell theta.' Proctor not having
capital sufficient to spare that sum at once, offered to pay 1,5001.
for them, of which 300/. should lie paid
,at the time of his
taking possession of the premises, end the remaining 1,201. by
eight different half.yearly instalnients. This offer was.accepted
by Stevenson; anti an indenture was drawn up and executed by
hum and Proctor, whereby Stevenson, in consideration of 300/.
then paid to hint by Proctor, and of certain rents and reserva.
dons therein der exPressed,
demised and leased to Proctor all
that messuttge, tenement, &c., known as No. 71, Vs ardour.
street, and all and every tamper, vat, boiler; plant, &c.
therein, far the full end and term of four years, and covenanted
that in case Proctor should truly pay. the rents as they became
due, lie would, at the expiration of. the.said terms, make over
the said premises, coppers, vats,. plant, &c., to Proctor, as
being his property, under his own absolute controul and owner-
ship. -Now, the rents and resenation alluded to in this inden.
tore amounted oath halryear to a sum of 1501. plus the interest at
10 per cent., on that part of the principal sum of 1,2001. which
then remained unpaid. On the Ist of J an. last„ Proctor took pos-
session of the premises thus demised to him; and.oo the flih May
had comniistoon oh bankruptcy opened against him. Thede-
fendan t immediately went upon the premises, anti in porsuaice Of
ai clause in the indenture, stating, that in case of Proctor's insol-
vency the whole tour punts' rent should be considered as pre-
sently due-' and giving him liberty to take poSsession of the pre.
mixes, rind sell the boilers, vats, plaatc4;Ate.: tO pay it, seized
Inothe machinery which he found there.' The assignees of the
btthitrupt elaiintsi :it, however, upon• two grounds---first, that the
*poly wini the bankrupt's; gold out and out to hint by the in.
(16titurei.which purported to be a lease; which, they said;
was ilathink,else but, an ingeniotis device to get rid of the,
ties of the usury laws ; and secondly, that if it was not his pro-
perty, it was property- in his order and disposition nc• the time of

LOliruptcy, 'And 'therefbre available to OW, purposes of his
estattrunder the statute of James 1.. The chief points in the
cas4therefore, turned upon the construction of this deed, which
Mr. Sergeant PE L L for the plaintiff's, eentended was usurious,
and tlierefore null and void. On the part.of litedefendants.,lt
was maintained. by Sergeant Vaughan, that the plant and other
machinery were fistureS belonging to the freehold, and therefore
trover would not lie for them ; that even if it Would, the
tiff's were out of court in consequence. of there being a des
Gciency of proof as to any act of bankrupte,y having been-611)1s,
mitted by Proctor, or any conversion of the roper!), having
been effected by Stevenson; and last of all, that the ihtlentnrc,
which had been described as usurious by the plaintiff's copse!,
was a tuna fide lease, and that the defendant had a right to.
enter into, possession of the premises, as a fiirleiture of the lcaae
had ot-rurred by the insolvency of Pro :6r or that -if it -was
not a lease, but a deed of gale, Proctor had been guilty of such
a gross Misrepresentation of his circumstances to Stevenson.
to entitle.him to repossess himself of his 'ploperty•Whehever• he
could. (r 1 vast mass of conflicting 6,4le:ice was heard during
the progress of the cause.)

The lonD CHIEF JtrsTrcit summed it up with great care
to the .3 tiry, and left it to them to say whether the, plant act(
miter machinery were in the possession of the bankrupt, ProctOi,
at titreetime of. his bankritptcy, and witcrintr"the indenture-be•
t wer him and Steven Son was for a lease (T'saie of it. ft they
found high points in the affirmative, there most be a verdict:for
the Plaintiils as-there must be if they' battle
rapt had fraudulently evendulently misrepresented his tirouratances to the
difendant, for the fraud on one side P.r ii been fully met by the
tummy on the other.
!.The 'Juni found a verdict for the plaintiff's on both the
''r4o Value of the plant, Stc. is to be decirled out of
Uourt:

PREROGATIVE COURT, Dix: 8.
11111 FORE SIR JOHN DART.]
TELFORD V. THOMAS.

In this cases-a creditor of the deceased had called upon the
widow, to exhibit the effects of her late husband. The widow,
instead of putting in an inventory, had put in, a declaration, to
which an objection was made, on the ground of id not specify-
ing the whole of the property. .
On the part of Mr. Telford, Dr. JENNEtt argued that the
Court had thejurisdietion.
Sir .1011 x IS:remora. said, the qireStiott'caMebefore him in
, the form of a motion, and it involVed aat fitter very tionsitler-
able importance. 'lt had appeared -that AM), -Tbotiels was the
widow and sole executrix of John Thontas, late '4l livettSed vies
ttialler near Drury-lane, and she waS cited by Mr. 'John Tel.
ford, a creditor, to exhibit an inventory of her.deceased
fiia-
band's property. She had exhibited a declaration, instead of
an inventory, and prayed to be dismissed frti'rn the suit.. The
creditor objected to the dismissal, and prayul to be liei,irt! .on
,Iris . petition. The grounds Of the creditor's 'objectioris' Were
these :—She had not set forth the 'oloi:id:as of certain effects
of the d. ceased, nor by whom they were. aqrai,a-tl.- It appear-
ed she still carried on the business, and lease of the house
was mach greater than idle had stated .-it to be, and • that
the inventory was not a full and • pert's:o4..o6e. It had been
argued on behalf of the widow, that the'Ctiiiit had no jurisdic-
tion to object to an inventory at the Suit tO creditor, and, that
it had been so decided in eases at conntion i tw, partieularlyin
there ent cases of IlenderSon and 'FrCricli, in .;11:itiLi and S'el.
wyn'teltep. which also . referred to fermerticeisiops, and the
- case of If einiersmi and nand), which -had', been • Mainly re.
lied upon, was decided probably on the Enidfe
rnier
cusps. ut'airmer
cases. It was to be regretted that S. iptestion t,tf tlie,juridic.
Lien of , the 'Ecclesiastical Courts, long tieret.svit. should bit •a
Iteen'tleeided without the ttrertimeins of Civilians, . Who,;frttni.
their Miperience
.in the Ecclesiiistici:tt Law, were Much tier
infOrnital in that respect than Advocates in other I,oitrta:' it
was a Matter of great convenience that,sktlitors and•legateea
should be able to ascertain what the deceased ii.ictl pms;:asted•of.
before. going to the expence of proaecotiog sea in these
Cohrts. A disclosure of assetaahe executor wsis lttnnttl fObtike
by the oath' taken on the party, .taking' upon ,them,ielVele
cliife• an., executor or „administrator ,could a
...disclosore of the assets 'by the mere. prod Urtit):l of, atiy
paper they', thought proper to exhibit. tt ale icy it ,tie .pro-
priety. of,. enforcing a more correct .stattaa
,talterwise
the purposes of this , practice . would be. iu tr. great :Mea-
sure defeated, as it frequently happened that the p:u ties call-
e.d upon to make. a, disclosure,. were, little to Make a
The case Of Henderson FITIIIII,
the Ring's Bench, appeared to be argil in 'ieil-ran.Ote. the
li:llmi...it:ley, of
qn t-Ilei:titryst reatute. Al'! rile are;uments a}aprtired jsi
atvetut
lied reference to that particular statute. The cases cited sup-
posed the jurisdiction of this Court as regarded inventories to
be merely ministerial, for they qttoted that part of the clause
which .ordered an inventory to be given upon oath to the
. Bishop' or-Ordifiary, and inflicted a penalty of ten
upon the Bishop or Ordinary refusing to rectave,an inventory.
It was much 'to he doubted If the Court of Einii'slifeneh had
Been attended by Advocatea of' the Ecclesiastical Ceitr4' Who
would have, argued upon what the Ecclesiastical law was, pre-
vious to the passing of that statute,.whether that (Inuit would
ant. • have come to a different decision. - Before the' 'stewed
..flenry Linwood, who wrote at that time, admitted the
full jurisdiction of-the Ecclesiastical Courts in enrolling a eon: -
plete disclosure of the deceased's 'effects from alto Eattatars,
Administrators, &c. Switiborne,.ancalier writer on the' Eerie-
siastical Law; confirmed what Linwood stated ; •he :arid; that.if
any executor had more gooda''of the, testator's than were men-
tioned in the inventory, the same must be fully arid..disitnctly
stated. • Such had been the old ecclesiastical-law, and the.con-
thmed practiCe before and 'idler the passingof -the statute' of
• Itenry the Eighth. The 'object of this statute' was to litirit
the amount of fees to be taken for probe& of testairientsand
the whole preamble declared the limitation of tees. The only
part respecting inventories was in.. the Middle of the fourth
•• chum., and appeared to have occurred incidentally. The',chitise
• stated, " that the executor or executors, or two itimegt 'Aen,
should make or cause to be Made tt true and perfect. -inventory
of all .the effects, goods and chattels, wares, merchandiser;,
Moveable or not moveable, and clink thcin td be ilellietett on
oath, taken before a Bishop of Ordinary, and the eettittet alert
to remain in the hands of•the executors or adroinistritters." It
also statcd the teas, and concluded by inflicting a penalty of
ID/. on the Bishop or Ordinary refusing to receive the invert..
. tory.; This act did little more than confirm. the former. prac-
tice, besides regulation of the fees, a 'tatter of serious int.
penance. The eighth Clause of this statute • reserved' to
the Ecclesiastical Court all their jurisdiction, and express-
ly regulated that they should do any thing coricc,rhing
the same on or before the passing of the Act. The Act did.
not make the jurisdiction of the Court merely ministerial. in re.
ceiving possession of an inventory, but -by 13 purport, gitve
power to enforce. a full-and complete inventory. ff the„Statate
of Henry VIII. had been rightly explained in the Court, of
King's Bench, it would have been the duty of this CoUrt to
have paid obedience to it, as that Court was the most proper
tribunal for defirdng jurisdiction. The case of Shackleton v.
Lurch .11arryorore (which was argued by Lord Stowell), decided
in-1794, ~waS deddcd on parallel grounds to the present case.
The Learned Judge adverted to other eases, and gave it AS his
opinien, that the jurisdiction of the Court m
issue, rpecting the titres-
don at was fully established previous to the ptediing of
the Statute of Henry VIII., and also retognized bythe Statute,.
Ile therefore decided that Mrs.. Thomas, the widow, had nor
given a full and complete inventory, containing every rettoiaite
information of the Meets of her late husband. •

CAmettil)6t, Dix. 7.—We understand that the
Sheriff of the County of Huntingdon has just received a war-
tant for the execution- of Thomas Savage the younger, who was
convicted of arson at the last Assizes: The day of txectition
fixed for Saturday, the nth inst.
• FATAL Acutnr.NT.—Between the hours of Obe
and two o'clock, on the Mernitig of Sunday last,-as J..Trigg, of
gorge-yard, Batton-wall, :driver of the backney-thuriot,
;No, 614, was returning to town, after having set down afire
a little beyond NewingtOn.green, thie horses, terrified ,by .the
force of.the storm,. which .then raed with tremendous fury,
started off the main road, and plunged the carriage into a
dyke ; the driver was. thrown-, off the box into a coni.,
&rabic pool of water\ from which; • being an 'elderly %ma
infirm roan, he was unable to extricate himself, and. thee
remaining in this deplorable state for several hours, hit.itsittl
being scarcely above .water, he WAS dJscavered by some, carnien,
who dragged him out, in a state of total insensibility.„ The
chariot, which was completely shattered,. WAS draggidthily,A few
yards farther. The unfortunate man unored in great *goy
until yestettlaY morning, when'tle,ata put period- to bis'ettirer•
the Eseulaj)lanikrt,,waS generally
legs. tiewas-Aiovants of sixty.years-old,and ftront hitr in
known amongst his brellircn
of the whip, by the title.vf ", Doctor Trigg:`

I. ,

,y +., ~.
~.'
:1

wk. e

10-'?

11%