The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-25 00:00:00

BANKRUPTCY COURT.—Auci. 23.

IMPORTANT COMMERCIAL QUESTION RESPECTING THE
LAWS OF JERSEY.
A meeting of the creditors of James Le Couteur, a
bankrupt, residing at St. Peter's Port, in the island of
Guernsey, was held this morning, when some extraordinary
disclosures were made respecting the laws of Jersey and
Guernsey as regards commercial transactions between traders
in those islands and traders in England.
It appeared, from a statement of the circumstances made
by Mr. Whitelock, the solicitor to the assignees, that in
May last, Le Couteur, who was a draper, in Guernsey,•
came to London on matters of business, and purchased a
large quantity of goods for sale in Guernsey. On the 10th
of that month he was arrested for debt, at the suit of one
of his London creditors, and he was then advised to call
his London creditors together, and submit to them the
state of his affairs. In the meantime, and, as a matter
of precaution, to prevent any of the creditors from ob-
taining a preference over the general body of cre-
ditors, he was also advised to dispatch his son,
then with a respectable house in London, to Guernsey,
furnished with full authority to register the whole of his
(Le Couteur's) property, according to the custom of the
island, for the equal benefit of all the creditors. Le Cou-
teur acceded to this proposal, and accordingly his son was
dispatched to Guernsey for that purpose. Young Le
Couteur, however, on his arrival in Guernsey, instead of
waiting on the proper officer with his instructions, apprised
the Guernsey creditors of the object of his visit, and the
consequence was that the Guernsey creditors registered
their debts first; By the laws and customs of Guernsey,
creditors are entitled to a preference, according to the pri-
ority of the registration of their debts in the Royal Court
of that island. The London creditors, therefore, whose
debts amounted to about 5,0001., are (according to these
laws) excluded from any participation of the division of Le
Couteur's effects. Before the result of young Le Couteur's
mission was known in London, Le Couteur, at a meeting
of his creditors, assigned all his estate and effects to
trustees for the equal benefit of his creditors. The
Guernsey creditors, however, refusing to abandon the
preference they had obtained, a fiat of bankruptcy,
dated from the day of the arrest, was issued against Le
Couteur, and must, therefore, overreach the registration.
But here a question of great importance to the commercial
world arises, the Guernsey creditors standing, as they say,
upon the privileges of their island, refuse to admit the ju-
risdiction of the Bankrupt Laws or to part with the pro-
perty which they have attached. In the meantime the
commission is regularly proceeding, and the assignees are
determined to bring the right of the creditors under the
cognizance of every Court of Appeal in the island ; and if
they fail to obtain justice there, to carry the question before
the Privy Council. Le Couteur's debts in London amount
to about 3,0001., in Guernsey to about 4,000/., in the West
of England to 550/., and in France to 841.
Mr. Whitelock was fully convinced that the decision of
the Privy Council would be in favour of the creditors, if the
Guernsey jurisdiction refused to admit the right of the
London creditors. Mr. Whitelock, having cited several
cases said he had informed Mr. Le Couteur, by letter, that
he would be required to attend his last examination next
Tuesday, and that if he disobeyed the summons a proceed-
ing of outlawry would be taken against him, and it would
then be necessary to apply to the Privy Council to secure
his person.

Mr. Devas, of the firm of Devas and Co., was convinced
the bankrupt did not care two straws for the authority of the
Bankruptcy Court, and therefore would not attend.
Mr. Whitelock said he would be liable to seven years'
transportation if he did not attend.
Resolutions were then submitted to the creditors, and
signed by the whole of those present, directing that means
should instantly be taken to defeat the supposed claims of
the persons who had made the registration in Guernsey.
Mr. Whitelock observed that if the mode of proceeding
sought to be established by the Guernsey creditors was
allowed, any man might come from Guernsey or Jersey to
London, obtain goods to a large amount, and, by advising
his friends to register debts against him, sweep off the whole
of the property,
Mr. Faireloth, of Cheapside, who proceeded to Guern-
sey with the view of endeavouring to arrange with the cre-
ditors there, described the proceedings which took place
when he was called upon to appear in the Court of Guern-
sey to show cause why the intimation he had desired to be
notified to the creditors at Guernsey, that he, Le Couteur,

had been declared a bankrupt, should not be annulled,
These proceedings were as follow :
" Advocate Jeremie said he had caused the notice to be
served with a full knowledge of the circumstances, and he re-
garded the question as one of a very important character.
" The Attorney-General of the island said that it was
enough to make any one's blood boil with indignation, when
he considered that a merchant domiciled in Guernsey could be
made a bankrupt in London. What, then (said the Learned
Attorney-Ueneral), was to become of our privileges, of those
chartered rights conceded to us by a long line of sovereigns,
and which declared that no inhabitant of Guernsey could be
summoned to leave this island to appear in any higher court ?
And then the creditors here were required to go to prove
their debts in Basinghall-street. They were to be deprived
of the benefit of pleading before their natural judge. No ;
the Lord Chancellor of England had even pretended that his
authority extended to these islands. It clearly did not, and
Mr. Jeremie had acted without due reflection in issuing the
notices, and he thought he was somewhat to blame for having
served them.

" The Bailiff said it was absurd to think that the natives of
Guernsey could be impleaded in an English Court, where both
the !forms and language were different. As to the notices (he
said, I regard them as illegal, and I do not think I should allow
the case to stand over, because that would to a certain extent
be sanctioning the principle on which they appear to be
grounded, namely, a right to remove this case from this juris-
diction to another.

" A Jurat said the notices were illegal, being contrary to
their usages and customs. They would not be entertained for
a moment. The object was to compel inhabitants to plead in
foreign Courts. Mr. Jeremie, in his capacity of Advocate,
was certainly blameable for having issued the notices. He
was for annulling them as illegal.
" Another Jurat said that the object appeared to be to force
Guernsey creditors to plead in foreign Courts, which would
clearly be a violation of their rights and privileges. He was
likewise for declaring the notices null and void.
Advocate Jeremie said that he demanded leave to appeal
to the full Court or Court of Judgments.
" The Bailiff and two Jurats rejected this demand to ap-
peal, but said that if the defendant felt himself aggrieved he
might petition the Court to allow the case to be heard again.
" Advocate Jeremie then said that he would complain of a
denial of Justice." [This is the usual form of expression by
which an aggrieved party reserves to himself the right of com-
plaining to the superior authority when the regular appeal is
denied.]
The meeting theu adjourned.
This bankrupt is ordered to surrender next Tuesday.

PALACE COURT, AuG.23.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.-BOULTON U.BUSHELL

This was an action for breach of marriage. The plaintiff,
who is a prepossessing young woman, lived in a gentleman's
service in Burton-crescent, in the years 1831-32, and 33,
with the defendant, who professed on all occasions an unal-
terable attachment towards her, and his determination to
make her his wife. During the latter end of the year 183:?,
when his master's family was out of town, and he was living
on board-wages, he proposed that they should be married
before Christrm-, which she, the plaintiff, consented to, and
sent to his lodgings suitable household furniture, bed-
clothes, wearing-linen, and in fact everything requisite for
the wedded state. She moreover sent him money, from
time to time, as he needed it. The banns were published,
the ring purchased, the wedding-clothes prepared, the
bridesmaid appointed, and the wedding-day fixed, but when
it arrived, the defendant shammed illness, and the wedding
was postponed. His visits grew less frequent, and at length
he ceased to see the plaintiff, who became almost broken-
hearted. At length it was ascertained that he was married
to the intended bridesmaid.

The Jury, under these circumstances, returned a verdici
for the plaintiff—Damages 191. 19s.

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS, AUG. 23.

WRIGHT V. LITTLE AND OTHERS.
Mr. Adolphus stated that his client, who was a gentle-
man of wealth and respectability, had recently expended
upwards of 14,0001. in rebuilding a house in the Strand
(late the Turk's Head Tavern), opposite Catherine-street,
which it was intended to open, when all was completed, as
a first-rate hotel to retain, however, the old appellation of
the Turk's Head. After the building had been raised, a
dispute arose as to whether the party-wall bad been built in
the manner required by the Building Act. Mr. Wright's
surveyor insisted that the construction was strictly accord-
ing to the Act, and the result was that Mr. Montague, the
City Surveyor ; Mr. Smith, the Surveyor of St. Paul's ;
Mr. Gutch, and several other surveyors, made a survey,
which costs Mr. Wright 1001. Four of the Gentlemen,
Messrs. Little, Foxall, Kendall, and White, certified
against him, and this appeal was made against their certifi-
cate. After all the trouble given to Mr. Wright they had
not chosen to respond, but had withdrawn the certificate.
The Court allowed the appeal, but had no power to give
costs.