The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, APRIL 2.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN THE MATTER OF YOUNG.
The bankrupt was a hanker in Smithfield, and amorgst
the assets realised by Mr. Abbott, the official assignee to
the estate, was a sum of 1,000/., which was not divided.
Tbis thy Mr. Wilkinson, as solicitor far several credi.
tors, applied to his Honour to know what was to be done
in consequence of the " absence" of the said official as-
signee. The creditors under the bankrupt's estate had
already suffered severely, and it was too bad that they
should not have received such a divigend as the sum of
1,0001. would, if properly administered, have afforded to
them.

The Learned COMMISSIONER thought that the appoint-
ment of trade assignees was intended to look after the
proper division of the bankrupt's particular effects, and if
they failed in the necessary vigilai.ce which they should
have exercised, no blame could attach to the Court.
Mr. Wilkinson—That, your Honour, might be so ; but,
in this case, when a search was made at the office of the
Accountaw-gencral, in consequence of the neAsp,per
reports, referring to the "retirement," or rather the
" abscondment " of Mr. Abbott, nut even the mention of
the bankrupt's name was to be found in the books of this
(the bankrupt's) establishment.
The Learned Commissioner—The court is conapara•
tively powerless in this respect. The Commissioners do
all they can in the furtherance of benefit to creditors,
through the appointment 4.1 "trade assignees." and it they
will not do their duty, the fault is with the creditors oho
select them.
)dr. Wilkins-I:in.—ln other courts the Learned Com-
missioners call for the banker's bi,oks of the official assig-
nees ; and whtre they find that they have ca.,h in hand of
the bankrupt's estates, of whic, they are supposed to be
the protectors as well as the adminiitrators, to a lager
amount than 1001., they immedimtely oireet the surplus to
be paid in to the Bank of England, to the acclur,t of the
Accountant-General, and thereby sucure so much fur the
creditors.

Ti:e Learned COMMISSIONER.--I arn always most an-
xious tor the protecton of creditors. It was the great
object of the establishment of this Court, but we can only
exercise the power given us by the Act of Parliament.
Mr. Wiikinson.—Then I would submit to your Honour
that an alteration, and a speedy alt: ration toe, should take
place in the law ; it is hard enough that creditors (as in
this case) who might have receke five shillings i„ the
pounds upon their respective debts should n 0,,, be left with-
out a single farthing, although the audit was declared for
September last.
The conversation then dropped.
ASSIZE INTELI_ IGEN CE.

110 ME CIRCUIT—KING3T49N, APRIL 3.
(Before Lord DENMAN and a Speche Jury.)
DOWNE, CLERK, V. CRAIG, CLERK.
This was an action by the plaintiff to recover from
the defendant the sum of 99/. 10s. Gd. for dilapidations.
Mr. Thesiger and another gentleman appeared h r
the pLintaff, and Mr. Sergeant Channel! and a gentle-
man, whose name we did not know, conducted the case
for the defendant.
It appeared that the two parties in this case agreed
to exchange livings, the plaintiff transferring to the de-
fendant his vicarage at Leamington Priors, in War-
wickshire, for the rectory, then held by the latter, of
Patchett), in the county of Surrey ; the mutual trans.
fer, of course, being made with the consent of the re-
spective patrons, as well as with that of the bishops of
the two dioceses. Sonie time alter the plaintiff had
taken possession of the rectory he discovered that vari•
ous dilapidations had accrued, whereupon he communi-
cated the fact to the defendant, who in reply stated that
he did not consider himself liable for any repairs. A
lengthened correspondence subsequently took place, in
the course of which it appeared that the defendant gave a
partial, even if not an entire consent to meet the
demand, adding, however, that he declined to be bound
by the estimate made by the plaintiff's surveyor. That
party, nevertheless ,made an estimate by which it seemed
that the repairs necessary to put the rectory into a te-
nantable condition would cost 99/. 10:3. Gd. ; but that
if the repairs were to he such as would come within
the description of substantial repairs the outlay would
be 141/. The plaintiff, however, only required the te-
nantable repairs, and therefore demanded the smaller
amount ; and the defendant persisting in his refusal to
comply with the application of the plaintiff on the
subject, the latter had felt himself compelled to resort
to the present proceedings. It further appeared that
the defendant had since brought an action against the
plaintiff to recover the amount of dilapidations alleged
to have arisen at the vicarage at Leamington Priors.
In the course of the evidence it was proved that a de-
duction of 71. 9s. Gd. must necessarily be made, tla.it
amount of the dilapidations not being "rectorial."
Oa the part of the defence it was contended that
the parties had made the exchange, each to be subject
to all the advantages and disadvantages of the respec-
tive incumbencies, or in other words, that each was to
t ike the livings just as they were, without, leaving any
demand to be made from either. It WhS at the same
time admitted that there had not been any agreement
entered into on the subject. It was urged, too, that the
plaintiff had come into the rectory in the character of a
tenant for life, and by purchase and contract with the
consent of several patrons and bishops.
The Learned Counsel for the defen(lant regretted
that this matter had been brought in a public court.
Mr. THESIGER here interrupting, said it there wa'
any question of law the opinion of the full Court should
be taken upon it.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL had no objection;. and
then that the opinion of the Court on the point of law
should decide the question in that respect as to the Iwo
actions—the present action and cross action instituted
by the defendant.
Lord DENMAN considered the proposition as fair and
reasonable. The case, however, must set forth the
whole of the correspondence then as to the facts.
Mr. THESIGER said the verdict could be taken in the
present action, subject to the question of law to be ar-
gued before the full Court on a special case, the facts
at o be c
tion ascertained
would b
also
thereby y a gen gentleman rye
,),3:n ttiact, t,he bar.
with
th the The
eexception
pothertion
of the amount of damages, which likewise were to be as-
certained.
The Jury, under the direction of his Lordship, accord-
ingly returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 92/.,
subject to a special case.

MASON V. KING.
In this case the action was brought against the Hon.
L. King, the late High-Sheriff for the County of Surrey.
Mr. Sergeant Channell appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Thesiger and Mr. Platt for the defendant.
The facts of the case were somewhat. numerous, but,
as actually affected the present action, it would appear
that the defendant had made an overcharge, amountinz
to 51. 18s., in a bill of costs for the execution of a levy
on the gands and chattels of a person of the ?time of
,
Newland, then occupying the Cricketers' public house
at Mitcham the sum arising from the levy, at the same
time not being
sufficient to cover the original debt.

ROLLS COURT.—APRIL 1.
PALETTE V. LONDON DOCK COMPANY.
Z11,,t1(1C., whieb Was foe the disseletioe of ea In-
-eetion, oceopied the Court tiie whole of Fs;day and
Saturday. At the conclusion of the argument, the
Master of the Rolls delivered judgment, from which the
facts of the case may be gathered.
His LoRDsHIP observed that some time before the
month of September last, a person of the naive of
Pujardos Mayans, carried on a business which he called
" a General Spanish Agency," at Paris. He alleged
that he carried on business by commission, between
various countries of Europe, to a very lsrge event.
He became acquainted with a Colonel Valdes, and be-
sides the various transactions which be carried on as an
agent for the transmission and exchange of goods be-
tween persons residing in different countries, he was also
engaged in some political transaction. That political tran-
saction connected him with Col.Valdes, and they went
to Bourdraux together. With regard to that matter
at Bordeaux, the present plaintiff, Leonard Veletts •
and Francois Janot Drechon, carried on busicess as
brandy merchants, and a M. Estiave, as a wine mer-
chant. Those gent!emen were ecquaintances or friends
of Col. Valdes, who introduced Pujardos Mayans to
them, and the introduction ended in a contract be-
tween the parties. Messrs. Velette and Drechon, on
their part, supposed they were entering into a valid
agreement for the sale of seventy-five casks of brandy,
for the sum of 25,000 francs, of which between 9,000
and 10,000 were to be paid in hills, and the remainder
was to be paid by drafts of the jil•tiet ffs upon Pujar-
dos Mayans. The contract having been signed, Va-
lette and Drechon proceeded,, on the;ri pert, to carry it
carry it into execution. file brandies were to be sent
to England, the bills of lading were made out to "
Bearer," but the consignment. was made to Mr. Gold-
ney, a lace dealer in Cheapslde. The brandies arrived
on the 3d df December, on the 4th they were entered
in the London Docks in the name of Mr. Goldnity.
The warrants were made out and delivered to Goldney
or his agents on the 28th. &Yore that time there had
been some dealings on the part of Pujardos Mayans
and his agents with respect to the brandies, which in-
duced a French gentleman to make communications to
the plaintiffs. In consequence of these communications
the plaintiff Drechon came to England on the 26th of
December, two days before the warrants were delit ered
out to Goldney. He supposed that a fraud had been
committed on his house, and having endeavoured to
adopt some means to prevent that fraud taking effect,
on the 6th of January he filed the present bill for relief,
and on the 7th of January obtained an exparte injunc-
tion to restrain Goldney from parting with the
warrants, and to restrain the Dock Company
from parting with the brandies. The present
application was to dismiss that injunction. The ques-
tion as to what ought now to be done, was of the utmost
importance. If the brandies were now the property of
the plaintiffs, and should be delivered to Pujardos
Mayans, the injury done to the plaintiffs might be per-
fectly remediiess. His Lordship observed that the
transaction in every part of it was subject to so much
doubt, and there were such strong reasons for thinking
that if he allowed the goods to get into the hands of
Pujardos Mayans, he might allow them to get into the
hands of some person who was not entitled to tl,em,
that his opinion was, the injunction ought to be con
tinned.