The Sun.
London, England, 1805-03-16 00:00:00

*LAW R APO RT.

. .
COVRI' OP CHANCERY, Lute IWAtcst 13,
IN THE. MATT,EIt OF „NO,L ktf, A BANlpttl.Pr..
Tim eause.his been frequently before the Court
and the Public' in the course of these last twelve
years, and the.criession chiefly turned upon the con..
cealetteut of property by the Bankrupt.
Mr. COLLett, ors behalf of the Bankrupt, applied
for his discharge.' He stated, that he made this
application, 'first, upon the grounds of the Bank.
rupt's having made a full disclosure of his property;.
and, secondly, upon the janisdiflion of the Com.
rnissioners of Bankrupt's; which, he contended went
no faither than. fur the-purposes of diseovery,-• and
not for the purposes of punishment and•example.—
The Bankrupt had originally been. committed to
Newgate by the Conifnissioners for refusing. to an.
'ewer interrogatories respeding a disclosure of, his
property, oat. of which, hi had stated, bad been
lost in the mail coach. The Bank.notes of which
this sum had been composed had been regularly tined
to the respeflive banking. houses ; and, in the sob.
'tiquent answers of the .Bankrupt he had fully di s.
closed all the remaining property, in the account of
which he had been corroboiated by the evidenceiof
his wife. With respet to the second ground, the
,Commissioners had refused to discharge, him out of
custody unless he would', criminate himself by ac.
knowledgifig that he had been 'guilty of a capital
`felony, in secreting his property from his creditors.
lle contended that the lutisdittion of.the Commis.
signers only went to the purposei of inquiry and
`discovery, and not to that of punishment and ex..
ample. • The Statute had chalked out -a line for their
conduEt in such cases; but it remained with. the
Court to decide the rest. The Bankrupt had teen
UpWArds of twelve •years it confinement, . and the
Commissioners uniformly refused to discharge him.
Upon these grounds he truited his Lordship would
grant his discharge.
Mr. RoMILLY, on the part of the crattors,
observed, that 6,1 far from ,the account which the
Bankrupt hattgiven being c!tlifaetory, it wasAuite
the [cyclic ; and the examination of the Bankrupt's
wife was a (tired contradietion of his account.
The Lotto CIiANCELLott said, that from the
proceedings before him, he'had a full persuasion on
his mind that, the answers given by the Bankrupt
were by no- means '
satisfactory : in the first place,
the„emunissionets had reported that his answers
were unsatisfactory ; and there was, great lemon to
izitagine that there was still a Coneeatinent of a very
considerable part of the Bankrupt's property., With
respeCt to the second ground, of making him accuse
himself of a capital offence, his Lordship did not.
think this point came before the Couttin a proper
fdrin : it was in'the power of the Bankrupt either.
tc answer the questions Put to him, .which he hid a
right to Licitand in writing, or to demur kr then);
he would thin come ))etote, the Court under.Habe.as
Corpus, the matter might be Wily investigated, and
his Lorthltip could then-decide whether he was' to
answer: the qneStionor not.. • . • '•
'Mr. Cu Lt.zst .assured his Lordship, that he had
not-been aware of the Report of the Counnisiioners
as is the first pact, or he; -should not have troubled
the Court with this nation. .
The Application was .tccordingly. refused.
QVARRELL v.c r,..
• 'Phis was an api)eal from the MAsTslt of the,
Rot.4l' ..Decree, by the Defendant, Mr. William
Beckf ird.
- 'The. Defendant, as survivor of his late father acid
node, became the mortgagee of an estate called
Blackwall, situate in use island of Jamaica, and
having filed a bill of foteclosUre,- he 'was put into
tossesaion'of the estate by a Decree of the Court' in
that Racal.• The Plaintiff, in the present, cause,
filed his bill in this Court, claiming his right to the
equity of redempiion, as the assignee of the original"
mortgagor.' 12he•MasTete• of the gott,S, in that
carve, decreed, that the Plaintiff should, be let into.
possession. upon payment of the Sum due for princi.
pal, interest, and costs; against which Deer,z Ole
Defendant now apVealetl, cesttinding,. first, that he
was regularly put into thepollession under the De..
cree upon 'the bill of foreclosure; and, .ite,rnelty,
that at all events,' having expended a considerable
aumpf money. upon the estate in stocking it with
Slays Etc. he had a right to receive a remuneration
for this, as Well as his original debt, with lore.
rest, &c. .
MGR oss against the Appeal,contended, that
the Defendant had not made thehecestiary persons
parties to his original Bill of Foreclos4r; ; theMOrt.
gaged premises had been assigned at different times,
and the persons. who had the legal interest vested
in them were not parties 111 the Bills The Plaintiff,
in this cause, wakti), assignee of the equity of re.
deteptioo, .and had 'a;ifght to the possessiUn,
payment of the pririetpat, interest? and costa.
Afier.solne further argument by
In snub-ft of the Appeal, the LoatietiAtscw,ok
reserved the further cotisideratiort of 'the tioest,on
till to.ruottoW.,

MA It C .1 4.

otTAARBIL lIVCKTOJID.

This Ca-se again came before the Court for fur-
ther cunside.ration this clay'. Mr.' I.ICHARDti
heard on the part of Mr.l3eckford, ant verged that
he should bi allowed intirest on hiCderhartdi at the
rate payable in Jamaica, Which was 81. per cent, :
and further as he had`laid out ut to,oool. in
the purchase of Shyer',Sec. thatlie thotildsbc allowed
those ex'pendittires in the adeorint,
Mt. LF:E6H Was heard at some length in reply;
and. the. Losto'CHANGIVI.I.OII dismissedthe
dirtittir,g that the' intetesr ahntild be-payable at. the
iretitorni;ryirate in 'thelsland: ollainaice,' and that
ac,:ount of Me etileiyilitkires of the betetnitine
"trpoir tine Vtitote tritip be 'taken.