The Sun.
London, England, 1823-01-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN. 11.
During the firopart of the morning the Lord Chaticellorsat-
in his private room. On caning into open Court, he pro
ceeded with the following
BANKRUPT PETITION.
EX-PARTE IMPLY AND OT/IF.RS IN TILE MATTER OF
KELTY.
Mr. HEALD.—In this case there were two petitions; the one
was presented by Archibald Elisha Impey, Esq. one of the
Commissioners of the 14th list, acting under a Commission
issued against Alexander Kelty, which prayed that the proceed-
ings might beoompounded ; that an action of trover brough-
againattim by George Walbank, the assignee, might be stay-
ed ; and that Walbank, together with his solictbr, Mr. Lester,
might pay the costs of this application. The other petition
was filed on behalf of the creditors, which 'prayed that Wal-
bank, for contumacy in refusing to attend the Commissioners,
for his general neglect and misconduct as assignee, might be
removed, and another person appointed in his stead. It was
stated that dividends of the bankrupt's estate had been from
time to time advertised, but that no distribution had ever been
made. This circumstance induced the Commissioners to ap-
point a meeting, for the purpose of inquiring, into the cause of
the delay, and of inspecting the proceedings. The assignee ex-
cused himself from attending this meeting, on the plea that
havingchanged his solicitor, he had had no opportunity of com-
municating on the subject. Further adjournments took place,
when the Commissioners being determined on inspecting the
proceedings, at length took possession of them for that purpose.
Shortly after Mr. Lester made a formal demand to have them
returned, and threatened an action if they were longer withheld,
which threat he aftewards carried into execution by comment-
ing a suit at law.
HART had repeatedly pressed for delay ; indeed the cir-
cumstance of a fresh affidavit having 'been filed against him
made it absolutely necessary.:
The LORD CMANCEILOR had himself read the proceedings;
but before he decided he should prefer having the opinion of
Counsel upon them, and therefore the case might stand over.
Mr. HART hoped that what had been advanced would be con.
sidered as merely an es:partc. statement. The public were too
much in the habit of setting down all the statements of Counsel
as correct, and borne out by evidence, whereas every professional
gentleman naturally made out the best case his ingenuity afford--
ed on behalf of hiS client, leaving the evidence to support it. as it
might
The LOUD Cstastem.t.ou..—That the public mind is too
Often misled by what is advanced eapqrte nobody can deny, and
every body must lament. I hope at least that the state of my
mind is not such as renders it liable to ,be so biassed. I have
rather a considerable judicial. fault this way—that of not deter-
minilig soon enough.
Mr.. COLLINSON followed in, support of the petition; after
which the matter was directed to stand over until Saturday next.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Jr.A 11.
THE KINGIV. Tim REVEREND JABIES HARRIS.

This was an indictment against the defendant for alleged
wilful and corrupt perjury, assigned upon an affidavit of debt
made by the defendant, on the 25th of January last, whereby
he deposed that the. Rev, Cleqge Masters was indebted to him
a sum of 108/., being the amount of half a year's rent, in arrear,
of a certain Chapel in Spring-garden, demised by the defendant
maim prosecutor; and that the prosecutor had not tendered
.
any, notes of the Governor and Company of the Bank of Eng-
land in payment thereof.
The assignments were--first, that
the prosecutor was not indebted to the defendant in a sum of
1064 ; and second, that 'he had in point of fact tendered to the
defendant a sum of 92/. 2s. 6d: in notes of the Governor and
Company of the Bank of England, and other monies,' in • pay-
ment •of the same debt, before the affidavit was made. The
defendant pleaded Not Guilty. . .
The Somerton-OE artuat. (with whom were Mr. SCAR,'
LETT, Mr. GURN'E't, and Mr. CUTWOOD) stated the case for
the prosecution. The substance of the case opened was this
—The defendant,. being. lessee, under the Crown of Spring-
garden Chapel, underlet the same for a thin of seven years to
the Rev. Mr. Masters ; at a rent of 2501. per annum—the latter
covenanted to do certain repairs to the diapel. The defendant
had left in the chapel_ an organ, some lamps, and other turn!.
ture, as appurtenants. In the lease was a covenant of forfeiture,
in case of the non-performanee'of Divine Service in the chapel
on any one Sabbath during • the term demised. At Aliehael-
mas, 1821, half a year's rent was due to the defendant, and
at an interview between Air. Masters and the defendant's at
torney, in the December following, it was agreed that Mr.
Masters should pay to the defendant a liquidated sum of 021.
2s. 6d., giving hint credit fur the money laid out fur repairs,
&c. This sum .51r. Masters offered_ to pay by a cheek on his
bankers; .but the attorneys not being prepared with a receipt,
went away to get one. Next •day Mr. Illasters himself made
a formal tender of the money to the defendant, but he refused
to take it. Notwithstanding this, the defendant, on Friday
the 25th of January, made the affidavit of debt on which the
perjury was assigned. A writ was sued nut on. the same day,
and Mr..Harris,was anxious to have Mr. Masters arrested on
tI in the hope, its was stiggested, that 11C
e
andahereby cause him to break the t:
could
nottttrd procureayev en ibt
co-
venant respecting the. perforinance of Divine Service. The
prosecutor, however, was not arrested until the Monday' fol-
lowing, when lie was obliged to give a bail bond. • '
After hearing evidence for the prosecution,,a doubt wasstug-
gated whether the principal assignment of perjury—namely,
thaerespe.cting the tender of notes, of the Bank of England
could be supported in point of law ; and reference was had to
the Bank Restriction.and 1 and 2 Geo• d• and to the 69 Goo. 3.,
Act,
t3h7eGeofon.no3r,
it
is provided, that no
person can be held to bail for a debt alleged to be due, unless
the tender of any Bank of England• nowt is • negatived in the
affidavit of dent. The latter :statutes, which relate to: Bank
cash payments, repeal the 37 Geo. 3, in certain provisions, and
amongst others, that respecting the negation of the tender of
Bank of England notes.
The Lout) UntEr. JuSTICE, after looking to the provisions
of the several' statutes, was clearly of opinion that perjury
could not be assigned upon an immaterial and unnecessary
statement in a deposition, though it might be false. Upon
that part of the indictment which related to the tender, it was
clear that the defendant was entitled to an pegnittal. Then, as
to the other assignment of perjury, namely, that a sum-ofloBl.
was not due from Mr. Masters to the defendant; the prosecutor's
Counsel could hardly expect a conviction, unless the supposed
perjury was corrupt and wilful. An indictment for perjnry would
not lie against a person who sivore-to a given amount of debt,
though the debtor did not owe him so much. The debt might
be good inlew, and though the debtor inightPlead a set-off in
reduction of the debt, When it came to'be enforced in a Court
of law ; still SUCII a deposition, merely for the purpose of hold-
ing the patty to bail, could not aupport:an assignment
.01' per.
jury. ,Now, in this case, it appeared that there were cross de-
mands, and the precise amount of the defendant's deinand had
been matter. of dispdte. (In these grounds it appeared to his
Lordship that the defendant was entitled to an aequttnd.,
Mr. C.ostmox SEnJt!aavr end Mr. AnoLettua tbr the de-
fendant, were not called upon to go into their case. .. •
The Counsel for the prosecution yielded to time ruling of the
Learned Judge, slid
Jury, under his Lordship's direetions, found the defend.
ant—Not Cuing.