The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-21 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

COULTHAS V. THE REV. DR. ROWES-CEDL CON.
Their Lordships this morning, in answer to the application
of Sir Thomas Wilde on behalf of the defendant, granted a
rule to show cause why a new trial should not take place.
The Court was occupied the remainder of the day with the
pre- emptory paper, in which there was nothing elicited of
any interest except to the parties concerned.

BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY.)
Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)

IN RE BROMLEY,--IMPORTANT COMMERCIAL QUESTION.

To-day was appointed for a dividend in the estate of this
bankrupt, who was a solicitor in Gray's Inn, and failed to a
very great amount.
Mr. CooKE appeared on behalf of the Metropolitan Law
Investment Society, to support a proof for about 1,4001., to
1,100/. of which there was no of ; the remaining 300/.
was for money paid to Messrs. Hoare and Co., bankers, to re-
deem deeds belonging to the. Company, and deposited by the
bankrupt for money advanced.
Mr. WILDE appeared on behalf of the assignees, and ob-
jected to the proof, on the ground that the Company had no
legal or equitable claim on the estate, as they were not
bound to have paid the money, but did so for their own be-
nefit and advantage.
Mr. Comm quoted the case exparte Young, 2 Rose, p. 40,
in which case one of the partners of a firm had signed bills
of exchange which had been taken up, and it was afterwards
sought to prove the debt against the estate; and Lord Eldon
lvdcl, that although they were not, strictly speaking, sureties,
yet they were persons liable, and that the most liberal in-
terpretation ought to be put on the words "or persons
liable," where the party was morally entitled to
protection. In this case the deeds had been de-
posited with the bankers without the knowledge
of the Company, and the bankers threatened to
sell the property, and the only resource of the
Company was to pay the money advanced. It was
quite clear that Messrs. Hoare and Co. might have proved
their debt if they had thought proper, but they did not, and
the Company stood in the place of the original creditors.
The Learned Commtastoissit said that depended on whether
there was a legal liability to pay. Did the papers get into
the hands of the bankrupt as solicitor to the Company?
Mr. CooKs answered in the affirmative.

--- •
The Learned COMMISSIONER—Then the deposit of the deeds
was fraudulent, and the Company was neither legally or
equitably bound to pay; that fact, I think, excludes the case
entirely from Lord Eldon's opinion and judgment—morally
the proof ought to be admitted ; but the question is, can I
admit that to be a liability which was a voluntary.act ?
Mr. COOKE—Lord Eldon goes on to say, that in all cases
of this kind all the circumstances must be considered, and
the moral justice of the case be looked to; in the present
the estate had not been damnified, and they (the Company)
now sought to stand in the position the bankers were in at
the time of the bankruptcy.
The Learned Commisstortart said, in the case of Young the
partners were legally liable—but no liability arose here—the
company could nothave been compelled to pay the money.
Mr. COOKE said that the estate would have been sold had
the money not been paid. .
The COMMISSIONER—WouId not a court of equity have
interfered to have prevented a sale, or would not an action
of trover lie in a case of illegal and unjustifiable deposit?
Mr. CooKE—I can't say what a court of equity might
have done, but persons ought not to be compelled to resort
to courts of law.

The CommissioNEß—Suppo4ng no bankruptcy had taken
place?
Mr. CooKE—Trover would have laid against Bromley, and
our rights against him, in my opinion, follow his estate.
The Learned COSEUISSIONER asked if any cases precisely
similar could be adduced ?
Mr. COOKE-It is a novel case.

The COMMISSIONER said as to the moral justice of the case,
there could not be a doubt; but he was not prepared to de-
cide in favour of the proof.
Mr. WILDE said, that whatever the disposition of the as-
signee might be to sympathise with the claimants, they were
bound to raise the question. Here had been a criminal act
committed—an embezzlement—and had an action of trover
been brought, the bankers could not have made any reply.
The claimants had made a sacrifice of their money for their
own benefit.

The Leaned COMMISAIONER said he could not at present
take the proof, but would consider the point.

INSOLVENCY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the CHIEF COMIISSIONER.)
IN RE C. L. ILICDONAIII.

The insolvent was opposed by Mr. Nichols, for Mr.
Spencer, who had been plaintiff in an action of crini. con. with
his wife, against the insolvent, which was tried in the Court
of Common Pleas by Lord Chief Justice Tindal, and in which
1001. damages were awarded.
The insulvent's liabilities wholly amounted to 1581., 1401.
of which was for damages and costs in the action of trim.
con.

The insolvent stated that he was a comedian at the
minor theatres, and declared that the wife of the opposing
creditor represented herself to be an unmarried woman.
The Learned CIIIEF COMMISSIONER said in such cases as
these a rule of the Court was to remand insolvents according
to the amount of damages awarded by the jury. The
damages in this case strongly marked the animadversion of
the jury on the insolvent's conduct. The insolvent's station
was very alluring to minds ill regulated. Taking all things
into consideration, the judgment of the Court was that the
insolvent should be discharged after having been in custody
for ten months from the vesting order.