The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-09 00:00:00

LAW INTEdiLIGENCE.—Dec. 8.

COURT OF‘SHANCERY.
(Before the Lords Justices of Appeal.)

AITCHISON V. LEE.-IN RE THE ROYAL BRITISH RANI.

The arguments in this important case w,:l-0 further
proceeded with. To the attentive though stultified ears
of a densely crowded court, a eourt packed in every
corner by the anxious creditors and desponding share-
holders of the bank in question, the lingering measures,
long drawn out, of legal distinctions and professional
subtleties have been allowed to run through the better
part of five days. Where, upon a no very extensive
question, containing no greatly serious ramifications,
the Court has had the advantage of being assisted by no
less than [seven counsel on one side, and has still to
attend to the remainder of a phalanx of five more on the
other, it is hardly to be expected that what Hamlet
terms " damnable iteration" should be avoided, and,
truth to say, if that iteration had been avoided the case
might have been compressed into a very reasonable
compass, and within such a period, as was thrown out
by authcrity during the argument, as within which there
were legitimate materials only for two days' argument.
Without disrespect to any of the learned counsel who
have been ir structed to appear, it may with truth be
said that, after the copious opening of the appeal, the
observations of juniors were no more than "ditto," or,
at any rate, "ditto, with variations ;" and with regard
to the respondents' case, after the leader's elaborate
opening, it partook of the same nature, though it is only
fair to say that on each side tbere was at least one cre-
ditable exception.

During this day's argument,
Lord Justice Knight Bruce said it would be well if the
professional gentlemen on both sides would agree to lay
down some scheme of proceeding to be adopted in case
this Court should annul the bankruptcy, and a scheme
of proceeding to be adopted in case this Court should,
on the other hand, support the bankruptcy. The ques-
tion of the validity of the bankruptcy must of necessity
be decided, that question being before this Court, which
it was not before the Vice-Chancellor. Some such ar-
rangement would be of great service to all parties, and
before the judgment should be delivered it was essential
that it should be come to, and each side bind itself to
abide by it.
Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Glasse, Mr. Phipson, Mr. W. '
Murray (both of the common law bar), and Mr. W. D.
Lewis, have already addressed the Court in support of
the appeal from the Vice-Chancellor's decision, and Mr.
Bacon and Mr. Huddleston (with Mr. Lewi-) bave ap-
peared in support of the appeal motion against the adju-
dication. Mr. Rolt, Mr. Joseph Browne, and Mr. G.
M. Giffard have been heard in support of the order of
the Vice-Chancellor, and Mr. Swanston, with Mr.
Bagley, have now been heard for the directors of the
bank in support of the adjudication in bankruptcy.
The only things which varied the weariful monotony
of the discussion were now and then an explosive sig
gestion from one end of the " well" handed up to coun-
sel, which, when enunciated, caused a storm of indignant
denial from the troop of lawyers on the other aide, and
now and then a woful strain of compassion for the cre-
ditors, met by declarations that but for the conduct of
the official assignee or the official manager, as the case
might be, those creditors would not be in a situation to
elicit any such expressions of commiseration.
Sir Fitzroy Kelly will reply to-morrow (this day.)