The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-29 00:00:00

El PARTE PITT.

Mr. DAMPIER appeared against a rule obtained
by Mr. Pitt in person to show cause why he should
not he discharged out of the custody of the Sheriff
of. Middlesex, on the ground that he had been ar-
rested whilst under the protection of this Court.
The plaintiff in his affidavit having left the court on
the evening:4)f the 22d instant, was arrested—Or-This
way home in Adam-street, Adelphi, and taken by
the officers to a lock-up-house in Cursitor-,treet.
This was a breach of the privilege which the Court
allowed its suitors when making application to the
Judges, and, therefore, lie submitted that he ought
to be discharged out of custody. Upon this state-
ment he was allowed the rule.

M. DAMPIER, in answer to the application, read
the affidavit of the Sheriffa' officer, who swore that
he followed Mr. Pitt out of the Court at twen►y
minutes past five o'clock on the evening of the 2?d
instant, and saw him go into his office in Adam-
street, Adelphi. The officer wailed until he came
out, about seven o'clock. Mr. Pitt then went into
the shop of Mr. Kelly, the tailor, where he was
arre,ted. Mr. Damper said it was clear upon the
office►'s affidavit that Mr. Pitt had takvn refresh-
ment in his own premises, and having entered a
shop he could not be said to be within the protec-
tion of the Court.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked whether the
Learned Counsel was aware of the case in which a
person arre,ted was allowed after quitting the Court
to go to a tavern and dine. In that situation ii was
held that he was not our of the protection of the
Court because he stopped for refreshment on his
way home.

Mr. DAMPIER, notwithstanding that case, thought
he arrest of Mr. Pitt valid.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE thought it better that
the office's of the Sheriff should not dodge persons
out of Court ; and that public order, as well as the
&pity of their proceedings, required that suitors
under the protection of the Court should be allowed
to go quietly home. This case was stronger than
the one cited. The rule for Mr. Pttt's discharge
must be absolute.

The JUDGES concurred in that decision.
Mr. Pitt—Thank your Lordships.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, JAN. 28.

(Before Mr. Cornmi,,ioner FA NE. )
SOUTIIALL AND MILNE'S BANKRUPTCY.

A meeting of the creditors under the jai issues
against the bankrupts in this case, who were coal.
merchants, was held to-day, for the further proo
of debts, &c.

Mr. PALMER, the solicitor to the fiat, had to call
the attention of the Court to the points in dispute
between Mr. Chambers and the assignee the
creditors, Mr. Pope, upon which the Commissioners
had promised to decide. The question was as fol-
lows :—Soon after the bankruptcy of the parties,
Mr. Chambers received from parties indebted to the
bankrupts debts, which he placed to the credit of
Sum hall and Mattes, as a set-off for a portion of the
debt due to him, Mr. Chambers contending that
the money so received was due to him for coals
the bankrupts had sold, they acting as his agents.
In order to avoid litiga.ion and expense the ques-
tion at issue was left for the decision of the Com-

missioners.
Mr. Commissioner FAKE asked if an agreement
to this effec. had been signed between the parties ?
Mr. PARKER replied in the negative.
The question was postponed.
Mr. James Milne, a relation of the bankrupt,
appeared to prove a debt of 1,2731. 13s. 10d.
which was opposed by the assignees on the follow-
ing grounds:—First, that the claimant held as a
security for his debt a policy of insurance on Mr.
Southall's life, as well as an assignment of his in-
terest in certain reversionary property; secondly,
that a sum of 181. for interest was improperly
charged for the hire of aship, of which the assignees
knew nothing.
The Solicitor to the fiat considered this a very
important question. The point was as to the r'ght
of parties having in their possession available securi-
ties to prove for their debts against the estate
without first realizing the value of such securities,
and proving for the balance, should any remain.
This was the usual course, or that the securities
should be given up to the assignees for the benefit
of the estate, taking their dividends on their debt
pari passu with the other creditors. In the present
case the securities referred to were received from
one and not from both of the bankrupts.
The COMMISSIONER considered the first objection
taken was certainly a valid one.
The Solicitor on behalf of the claimant contended
that, as the security was given by one and not by
both of the bankrupts, the case was different from
the ordinary proceeding, where a creditor held pro-
perty which he must first realize, and then come
prepared to prove only for the difference.
Mr. PARKER—As the question was certainly one
of considerable importance, he hoped the Court
would direct a claim to be entered, and that the
proof might be reserved until the case had been
more fully considered.
The COMMISSIONER acceded to this request.
The proofs to-day amounted to 3871. 125., and
the declaration of a dividend was postponed till the
next meeting.