The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-10 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

IN RE JIM...RAVE, A BANKRUPT.
Mr. 51oNrAcuir applied upon petition on behalf of a
creditor of the bankrnpt, for leave to issue a second fiat.
A creditor had issued a fiat, but, immediately on doing so,
had gone abroad, which left the debtor in a sort of franked
situation ; he was in possession of all his property, and
might, if he pleased, at any time, follow the creditor with
all be possessed. Lord Eldon, in such cases, was in the
habit of allowing another creditor to issue a second fiat,
without prejudice to the prosecution of the first, within a
reasonable time.

The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired if there appeared to
have been any collusion between the creditor who had
issued the fiat and the debtor ?

Mr. Morcractra was not aware. He was informed
that the creditor who had issued the fist had absconded
from hia own creditors, and that an affidavit was about to
be made of that fact.

The LORD CHANCELLOR directed the affidavit to
be made, and said he would ascertain what the practice
in such cases was.

IN RE MABERLEY, A BANKRUPT.
Mr. KNIGHT states that this matter had been set down
to be spoken to on the subject of costs. It was a
special case brought to his Lordship under the Bank-
ruptcy Act, from the Court of Review. The original
application was twice decided by the Court of Review
against the assignees, who brought it to his Lord-
ship. His Lordship agreed with the decision below,
although he thought it not an unreasonable thing on the
part of the assignees, protecting the estate, to take the
opinion of the Court of Appeal upon it, therefore the Court
dismissed the appeal, but without costs. The question
now was whether the original creditor, whose debt was
not much more than 3001. altogether, was not to have
his coats out of the estate? He asked for them not per-
sonally against the assignees, but submitted that having
had three decisions in his favour, he ought not to be de-
prived of his costa from one quarter, otherwise it would
have been better for him that be bad never entered a
court of justice at all; although in this instance the pro-
perty was small, yet the decision here would rule a great
many cases in Scotland under the same bankruptcy.
Mr. BETHELL was on the same side. The Court had
acted i❑ a similar manner to the way now asked a short
time ago in Coleman v. Smithies.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, it was much to be re-
gretted that a case so small in amount should have been
selected to have borne the expense of a litigation that was
to govern so many other cases of creditors.
Mr. SWANSTON contra did not believe that this de-
cision would have the effect of relieving either the as-
signees or the estate from further litigation in this matter.
This was an application to alter the minutes of his Lord-
ship's order made in August last, and which had already
been acted upon. If it were competent to make such an
application at all, the thing could only be decided alter a
full discussion, and not in the summary way now pro-
posed. The money hail actually been paid out of Court.
Mr. AIONTAGUE was on the same side.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said there was no question
here respecting the discretion of the Court. His doubt
principally turned on the words contained in his decision
when this matter was heard—" refused, but without
costs." If those words meant that the costs were neither to
be paid by the assignees nor out of the estate, undoubtedly
there was an end to the question. It had been suggested that
counsel were not present when judgtnent had been pro-
nounced ; that was no fault of the Court, probably it
was the result of accident. He was rather disposed to
consider that the words adverted to were not to be con-
strued so strictly as to preclude the possibility of the present
application being made. If counsel had been present to
hear judgment it was probable that this application would
then have been made, and it was consequently to be
regarded new as au application that would but
from accident have been made at that period. Con-
sidering all the circumstances, the Court were of
opinion the creditor ought to have his costs out of the
estate, but that in consequence of this application not
having been made in due time, be must pay the costs of
the present application.