The Sun.
London, England, 1823-01-11 00:00:00

EXTPARTE WILLIA,IIB_IN RE DAVID AND OTHERS.

Mr. MONTAGUE stated this to be a case of some difficulty.
There were two firms in the same neighbourhood in Wales-1
one of Williams; Pearce, and others, woolstaplers, who had be-
come bankrupts, and owed to the other firm of David, Wil-
liams, and others bankers, the sum of .5001. It had been
well observed by the Court (in ex-parte Vere) that composi-
tions were theither more nor less than private bankruptcies,
partaking of all the inconveniencies of public ones, by which
it was generally sought to call in new creditors to undertake
the burdens of the old. In the present case, supposing him-
self to have been consulted as to the best way of securing the
banker's interest, he would have advised him as follows : « Get
the man who owes you the money to buy all the wool he can
purchase, and snake it over to you in barter ; then sweep away
all the remaining effects by executions, so that there shall
ro be no
ipperty left on the estate to litigate your right to the

Tile LOUD CHANCELLDR hopped that there was nobody in
Court who wanted instructions as to the best way of fleecing
their neighbour.
Mr. MosTaiatE said, that it. was not for him to tell the
Court how he came by the particulars; but it would be seen
how the transactions agreed with his description. Late in the
year of the bankruptcy, the petitioner and one of the bankrupts
arrived in town together from Wales. The .bankrupt made
purelites of wool, which on each occasion were immediately
transferred to the petitioner.. The last purchase and transfer
were on tilt...day in which the act of bankruptcy was committed,
and the parties, who had resided at the same hotel during their
stay, returned to Wales. The petitioner levied execution on
the remaining effects shortly after they got home, and became
thus possessed of the whole estate. The other creditors, hoW.
ever, interfered, and a commission was sued out. The peti-
tioner procured himself to be named chief assignee, and the
other two were of his own selection. A creditor, named RAW-
-IMs, petitioned for their -reinoval ; and thereupon arose three
questions—first, if here Was not a fraudulent, pfcference of cre-
ditors ; secondly, whO was the right owner of the wool seeing
that the samples only were delivered when the act of bankruptcy
was committed, though the wool Wasafterwards regularly de-
livered to the bankrupt, and by him to the assignee ; thirdly,
the transactions were not altogether void from the foreknow.
ledge of the parties agreeably to the statutes of bankruptcy. The
Vice-Chancellor, feelingthe difficulty of these questions, had
directed an issue to try if the present petitioner was entitled to
avail himself of his knowledge of the bankrupt's affairs to get
himself appointed assignee. Either .the order had been too
loosely drawn, or the conditions were not satisfactory, one of
which reasons had Originated the present appeal. His (Mr.
Montague's) motion was to have the assignees set aside, because
their interest from first to last was opposed to that of die gene-
ral body of creditors.
Mr. COLLINSON followed on the same side.
Mr. HART, in support of the petition, sought to have the
commission established. The order was incorrectly drawn, and
was unsatisfactory to his clients, and therefore he had to move
the Court for Amore perfect'one, with a view to determining the
right of property in the petitioner to the wool. He apprehended,
that whatever was the nature of the commission, his Lordship
would scarcely undertake to disturb it under this motion, be-
cause that might materially
.affect the interests of the creditors,
who, from any thing in the proceedings, had not sliewn the
slightest dislike to the present assignees.
The Loma CHANCELLOR thought that Williams should
never have been appointed assignee. As to the suggestion just
thrown out respecting the jurisdiction of the Court, the appeal
had left it open to him to do as lie would, supposing the busi-
ness originally brought before him. He desired That the pro-
ceedings under the commission might be brought into Court
mtoa-iinnoorrof
hwismproesrneinntgo.
piljio anft,etrimelonoikvinog ointtvzinttioiren he should
tihept esen re
t,as:
signees must be set aside, because Mr. Williams, as an assig-
nee, was bound to give all the information in his power to the
creditors even in those cases where it would manifestly go
against his own interest.

COURT OF KINGS BENCH, JAN. 10.
crtaatartts v. HOOPER.
This was an action brought by Mr. Chambers, as surviving
partner of the firm of Birch and Chambers, bankers, on a
guarantee 'by the defendant, Dr. Ifooper, for the payment of a
bill for 1,000/. by a person named Ifarpur.
It appeured in evidence that Mr. Harpur, who was the son-
in‘law of the defendant, had an account with Messrs. Birch
and Chambers, and was pergonally acquainted with Mr. .Birch.
They permitted him to overdraw his funds to the extent of
2,0001., 1,0001. of which was paid off; and the residue was to
be secured by bill. To this bill 'they wished to have Dril
Hooper% name; but he wrote to them, stating, that he had
made a solemn engagement never to sign any bill or note? but
had no objection to guarantee the payment of the Money in six.
months, it Harpur should be unable to pay it.at the expiration
Of that period. When the six' months expired, Ilarpur had
Some cash in the hands of the bankers, but not enough to sa-
tisfy the bill, nor was he .then able to pay it: No attempt,
however, Was then made to compel payment from Harp!, nor
Was any notice given to Pr. Hooper that he was holden liable.
sonse time after, the defendant, by what means did not appear,
became acquainted with the fact that the bill was still un-
paid, and two applications were subsequently made to him for
a renewal of the guarantee, which he refused. An action was
then commenced against Harpur by the bankers, and they, 1
iwithont consulting Dr. Hooper, took a warrant of attorney
from Harpin; by which they were entitled to take out execu-
tion at an earlier period thall if the cause had proceeded. In'
the interval, If arpur had at various times balances in the hands
of Messrs.'Birch and Chambers; and at one time had cash de-
posited with them to the amount of 1,208/.
Upon this evidence,.Mr. ..MA.,RRYAT, for the defendant, con-
tended his client was not liable on the guarantee ; first, because
the bankers were bound to apply the money in their hands to
the satisfaction of their claim ; and secondly, because they had
given indulgence to the principal, without the concurrence of
the slimy.
Mr. SeARVETT, in reply-to the first ground of defence, ar-
gued that the debt, at-the expiration of the six months, be-
came absolutely the debt of Dr. Hooper? and .that no funds of'
Harpur were thenceforth'applicable to its discharge ; and in
reply to the second, that ;as no time was given, the arrange-
ment was really for, the surety's benefit.
The Loin) Ciligy JUSTICE said that the question which
fie should leave to the consideration of the JutY. waa,. whether
the bankers had so acted as to give Dr; Hooper reasonable
ground to suppose that they. did not hold him liable ; because,
if so, lie was clearly of opinion that they had discharged him,
It was true that the warrant of attorney. put an earlier termina-
tion to the suit than it might have otherwise reached ; but the
surety had a right to expect that the creditor should not volun-
tarily suspend his power of arresting the princiPal, at any nio-
;nerd when the surety might require the pressure Of law to be
exerted.

Mr. SCARLETT then said that his client was quite patistled
with the opinion of hh Lordship, having: brought ail the bear-
ings of the case before hint, and would now submit to be non-
suited.

The plaintiff' was accordingly nonsuited. •
• OWEN V. MANSEALIi,
This action was brought to recover a halanee alleged to be'
doe to the plaintiff for lamps and devices furnished for an illu-
mination on the Coronation of his Majesty. The plaintilrplead-
ed a tender of AI. Ila. parcel of the demand, and denied his
liability to pay the residue.
it ap.peared that the defendant, who is an attorney residing at
Kettering, and the tinder Mead the county of Northampton;
being desirous of making a splendid demonstration of loyalty
on the night of the Coronation, called at the Shop of Mr. Owen,
at the corner of 41ov:sell-street, Cofent.garden, looked at a
crown and letters, and afterwards' gave orders for the words and
letters " George IV." to he sent it/ him with a large crown, and
thirty dozen of lamps, ready for lighting with oil; The lamps
were accordingly sent, but they were never returned, and Mr.
Owen accordingly charged for them first as if letto hire for the
occasion, and then for .their value as if sold ; Making in the
Whole a charge of His, per dozen, besides the oil and devices.
He tlid• not chew tlito the original contract was. for hire,: and not
Or purchase : unless this inference might be drawn from a list
which he sent with the articles. Witnesses were called on fits
behalf to prove that the mode in which he charged was accord-

ing to the usage of the trade. The defendant had advanced
101., and tendered 81. I Is. 6d„ which be had paid into Court;
but the plaintifrs demand, according to his rate of charge,
amounted- to about 81. beyond this sem. •
For the defendant, James Rarlow was Called, who fixed the
price of lamps prepared for illumination at 12s. per dozen ; and
,Mr. Randall, of the firm of Matthews and Randall, agents for
the defendant, proved that the plaintiff had expressed his will.
ingness to take 18/. I Is. 6d. in addition to what he had already
received, in satisfaction of his claim.
Mr. SCARLETT, in his reply, observed that the defendant,
like others of the present day, was willing to let his loyalty
shine forth at the expense of others; but when the day of
reetioning!..aMe, like them he was unwilling to pay the costs of
his enthusiasm.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE left the Jury to say whether
181. lls. M. was or was not a sufficient compensation for the
lamps, under all the circumstances before them.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.

ABnATIAMS V. COOPER.

Thii was an action for slanderous words, imputing theft to
the plaintiff. The words in question were used at the auction-
rooms of Mr. Phillips of Bonet-street, in the month of Mar last.
On that occasion, a dispute loose between the parties, who are
dealers in old plate, when the defendant said to the' plaintiff,
" You are a common thief. I will put down five pounds to
your five pounds, to be forfeited, if I do not prove you a common
thief; and if I do, your five pounds will be forfeited, for you
robbed Mr. Japp, and I will
.prove it," with other opprobrious
words. The defendant, in justification of part of the words,
pleaded, that the plaintiff did steal a picture from Mr. Japp,
and the general issue to the residue.

On the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, it ap-
peared that much altercation took place at the time, and that
the parties actually paid 5/. each by way of wager, on theques-
tion of the guilt or Innocence of the plaintiff, anti that these sums
were still in the hands of the stake-bolder.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE -interposed, and said, he
thought the plaintiff could not temp more than a shilling
damages. If the parties did not content to put a stop to the
case, he should feel it his duty to do so, and not to permit the
Court to be occupied by the trial of such a wager. The more
regular course wouldbe, to enter a verdict for tie plaintiff with
Is. damages on the general issue, and to discharge the Jury
from giving any verdict on the justification.
This was assented to, and the verdict of is. taken on the ge-
neral issue. By this arrangement each party bears his own
costs.