The Sun.
London, England, 1805-11-23 00:00:00

L4IV R4PORr.

COURT OF KING's BENCH, WISTMS NST;P., Nov. 22.

• :XITCITXR P. BIRCH.
This was an: Action upon :several of Ex-
change, tnadeby the Defendant .to the. Plaiittiff,
who was, a Bankrupt, subsequent to his,bankruptcy,
and before, he had Atained his. Certificate.
• A verdk was entered fur the Plaintift, subjectto the ...10inion of- the Court, whether the Bi'llikrupt
should Piave made an assignment of. this, 'after-pro,
petty to his assignees ? or, whether he should tuain4
• lain an atqitni in his OWn name, and for his own
benefit ? '
Mr. Ittcwtasorr, for the Defendant, argued this
ease at great length, . Contending, that the Bankrupt
could not rti4jutaiu his aaiotir although he 'night
bold these, Bills
.against all the world, but his'.4s
signeeS. He assinulattd..tWs case to several others,
which he cited; among which was one of a chim,
. ney-swceper's boy, who found. a jewel, and brought.
it to a goldsmith, to ascertain its value ; but the lit-
ter detained it, and the chimney-sweeper brought
his aetion; when it vs solemnly determined, that
he had a right' to 04e possession of the jewel ay.inst
idl the woild, but the.yeal owner.
Mr, on the., other hand, :entered
lt4t•:) I ;Lig and able argunielq in behalf Of the
'‘,.ll•:.:Li 116 Court gave iti,kmout for the
.
. .

1312:n1.Y V.

Wai an adion brought to try the right of
Coope.s to work on Quays' belonging to the Wt.Sl.
li4i4 Po4-_,Cornpany.. •
Lord EL,4eNsaortoucu, in pronouncing the judg-
nieut of the Court, observed, that the case was clO7,
Ce;it on the part of the Plaintiff, and therefore the.
Court could give no opinion ...with respe't to the
ri2;iit. of Cooperage on those opinion.;
The special
ierdid was deficient in 'not. stating what wo done
on „the legal quays; whether the privilege of working.
there Subsisted by bargain, or permission, No,
argument could be drawn from the pradice on the
legal quays, it must be colleded by some pradical
convenience or necessity, and no such necessity or,
convenience was alledged. Nothing, therefore, in
case 'could Ue presumed by the Court, but ac-
cor(/ing to the fads as stated upon the special ver-
did. Their Lordships were theretbre of opinion,
641 the had fitiled-inmaiting riuc his:-Case
befke the Court, and accordingly ordered judgment
to b entered for the Defendant. .

The Sowczrott-„GtsTan. applied to the Court
for, an Attachment against. Henry Tatnana, 'Keeper
of ate Gool. at Warwick, ..for not executing thosen-
tepee oftize Court against one Robert Sidney. Sid-
ney
.bads.been sentenced to two years iniprisbninent,
but,: the . Gaoler advanced him to the'post of Turn-
key, and •he was frequently seen outside of the
gaQl.
.. Lord. ZLIANDIAotroi observed, that be bad
known instances of,. this sort of indulgence granted
within the, gaol, as a reward. to persons for, their
meritorious conduit in confinement ; and was very
Irgc.ll .to .be commended in Keepers of Prisons
jut his:being at large outside .the gaol was quite,
a; other at air; andlite. Court accordingly granted
the itule. .

•
Mr. WiLsOrt moved the' CoUrt for a of,
Atemiaigur,.in:thc!nature of a Quo illirranio, to be
direded to Mr. Peoll Foster, to show how'he claiths
to be 'a Common' Count ilmarr of the Borough of
Yarmouth. 33y the Statute of Charles 11. a cer-
tain number of Commont and Aldennen were to
Constitute a body for the eleetion Of a Member, of
which sufficient notice was previously to be given..
On the 21st 'Of June last a meeting took place; not
for any partitular purpose,when one of the Members
observedi that Mr.. Thompson, a Common Council-
man, was dead ; when it.Wai immediately, proposed
that they should proceed to ' ati,e)e&ion, to till this
ricancy;without making any furtherlnquiry. The
Mayor was present, and consented, but many of the
Commons refused' to ballot, and went ,away; so that
Lothing more was done on that day. A subsequent
meeting tookplace, and, under the dire6tion of the
Mayor, a ballot was demanded, but: several refused,
to vote, and left the room, and a sufficient number
to Constitute a majority,of the body did not remain;
however, the • election was proceeded on, and Mr
Foster sworn in before the Deputy-Mayor, iustc.td
of the: Clerk, as Ma.. Neither did he take the
oaths Of allegiance, supremacy, or abjuration, which,
by the Statute, he was bouud to do.. There was,
however,;A defeit in the affidavits, the Deponents
signateres being omitted: ' _

-The Court ordered them to be sent down to have
thisidefea atnended, and the Rule not to Lc granted
till they were reaified.

'Tim RING V. GENEUAL PrCTON.

Mr, LAws applied to put Off the trial of this qse
until itex.t Term. ,The indielment was brought upon
cnarges anedged to have been committed in Trinidad,
when the Defendant was Governor of that Island.
',cite depositions were extreniely long, and mostly in
fc?rei;;ulatiguages„ so that it required Some time to
have dicta trawlated. There were 700 tblios, 500
of 'which were in Spanish.
COURT.r-.-" Take your Rule."

~s. ~

deed, whit-11, on his whole debt; amounted to 1501.
and after ;:ards brought his adion for the remainder.
lie therffore pmyed all injUlTaloll.

The.A.iTORNEY'•GENIMAL, on the part of. Dixon,
opposed the motion, on' the,ground that he.hod,re,
eeired the dividend only, in part of ing debt, and ,that
he had done 'so' at the express desire of,Millerand

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that Dixon, having
received the dividend under the deedot trust,- vvas
bound by it, though' he had the most binding instru-
.ment in Writing to the contrary. He should, there-
fore, grant the;ntjunelion. If:. Dixon. had any fur-
ther circumstances in his favour to show .-that- :he
ought' to be allowed to proceed in his action, he
might bring- them forward-by Moving to dissolve the
injutic iotl.• •- •

'COURT ()F. cogdNfoN :PLEAS, Nay. 21.
LONom,vw. OTHERS V. TRIPP AND OTHERS. •
Mr. Seijeatq WILLTAITS, who moved on a'for
mer day for a Rule to sheN,s;* cause why the Defen-
dants in this Case should net • pay to the Plaintiffs'
the purchase-Money of the ':Copy-right' of • a News
paper, now moved to make the Rule absolute.
The Ca.:o Nl'33 as 10nOWS.:—The • Plaintiffs, who
are the f‘,,,-;o:,ees of the thrtner Proprietors-of
" Bolger 's Bristol Mercury," noW a,Bankrupt, pre-,
,fcrred this MoOon thr the Defendant to 'show
.cause why they should not pay' 'to them the va-
luable consideration which they had agreed to pay
~to she former Proprietor, or deliser up the Copy-
right,. intsmuch. as 'he, being a Bankrupt, had ;no,
right to diyose of it, being part_ of the assets be
longing to the Creditors, 'in consequence of his
Bankruptcy. On this
,ground, therefore, the
Learned Serjeant moved, 'that the, Rule be now
made absolute..
Serjeant BEST, m SiTeWitlk Cause for the
Defendant, argued, that ttie Mere title of a News-
paper w is not of the description of assets, or tan-
praperty, Blair iable by the Commission of
Bankruptcy ;, that its value was ideal, and depend-
ad entirely on the continuance of the publication,
which, as a Bankrupt, the Proprietor could not pro-
tract for his own account; and was not bound to de
for the. Creditors ; and, in taet, the title, or copy-
right, were of no value at all, unless the talents of
the Editor could. also be transferred with the' Pa-
per ; that, therefore, any consideration which the
present possessors Might chose` to 'allow to the,
Bankrupt on a futUre.day, was not to 'be consider-
' al as a rightful Claim on the part of -the Assicf-
MW . ,
Mr. ,Serjeant ictra.ms contended,- as a prin..
ciple clearly' and indisputably e.tablished, theft all
right and title to any property vested in a
rapt is transferred, 'as of course, to his Creditors, and
tho Assignees for them under the commlifsion ; as,
for instance, the right" of aftioa for debt, or any
other just claims*, and even" iu the case of 'claims
for forfeiture of double 'amount, forinoney lost 'at
play, and many other' 'cases' which he had upon ' a
former case cited in support of a similar case, and
for Which the CoUrt was pleased to complitnent
him ihr having takenso much paini; That the UHT-
form usage add praaice of the Law I;vas„ to.con-
sider every assignable right ',or the Bankrupt as the,
property of his Credito,:s, and triat he 'had no .
to enjoy any Valuable consideration in lien, of such
assignments.
Sir JAmtis MANsrtztin; called Upon 'the.Learned
Serjfi_qtat, foi the Defendants to' cite any case in
Which it had ever been imagined that.' am- such
right of reserve, or disposal/ belonged to the Bank-
tupt,which left 'him .at liberty to assign, either with
or without a valuable consideration, any right ,or
title-of which he was possessed, and which, under
, the Statute, must belong to his Creditors; so, far as
he knew, the ,praetice, :he. always, understood, as
well in :the case ri.cited by the,Learned Serjeant for
the Plaintiff, as in that now before the Court, and
in the right, of News-walks, where the possessor's
interest depended upon the sale of Newspapers to
certain_ customers, within a certain district, a pro-
perty waS Vested in the. p6Ssessor, which he.might
sell for a valuable consideration, flimsy' instances of
which occurred in suits of law where such preperty
had been devised by will, or otherwise assigned;
and: which became,the'siibjM of investigation both
in chancery aod,elsewhere : so far then the fa& of
•a valuable right' in such., properties establish-
ed ; that right,' in' the present 'Case, Was-clearly
transferred to the: Plaintiffs by.the assignments un-
der the Statute; and, the''l3aaltrupt could have no
right to di4poSe of it lot a-v;.llultYle -consideration, or
otherwise.; consequently,' whatever purchase-mo-
: ney, he had reeeived, or *MIS 'to.. receive, was the
right of his .Creditors ; but if this should appear not'
to be the .CilSe, under the 'Bankrupt 'Um, then
the Defendant might either go on as uSnal with the
L, Paper, or be • entitied,to 7liave his purchase-money.
I refunded.-

Sir ALLEN -04AMBRE, iii'atii‘irer to What had fill-
lett fromSerjtrant;.llasr; with resped to the value of-
the Paper -depending of th6' trahsfer of the Editor's
talents,' observed, that cetainly the, Creditor's had
no right, to assume any 'property in the future.la-
bour or talents of a Bankrupt'; but clearly whatever
Valuable.right he possessed at the time of bankrupt-.
cy belonged' to his Creditors.
Mr. Serjeant BEET Said, he had been very indni-
.
trionit in Wit search for cases; but had not been able
to find one to fib; purpose ; he 44d therefore ground-.
ad his tuttimeiligttpon the nature of the ease befbre
the Court He:e-appkeherideil the do 'trine Of 'the
right of creditors to all .claitris ari finally vested in a
bankrupt was not so general' as laid d'oWn' by his
Learned Brother; in the case,' for instances of a right
to action Lbr slander. :Ple trusted, in the present
case, that if the Court would: not consent to the
right of his client to the copy-right, they would 4il.
low his Learned Brother to consider the prOprietY
of dividing the urchase-money between_ the bank-
rupt and t&ie asiagnees:
TO this the Court would not assent, but made the
Rule alsolute.

COLE V. SIMPSON.

Tliis was a motiorrhy::Mr. Setjcant BAILEY; to
rr7Ake, absolute the Rule for which he Moved upon
a former day, to shew -eatise why the award of a
writ of inquiry, in. the Sheriff;' s Court, on this
case, should not be set aside, and a new writ ex-
ecuted •