The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-05 00:00:00

CHAPMAN V. KEENE.

In this case which was an action upon a Bill of Exchange
tried at Guilford, before Chief Justice Tyndall, and in
which the plaintiff had been nonsuited, the RECORDER
moved by leave of the Learned Judge, for a rule to spew
cause why a verdict should not be entered for the plaintiff
for the amount of the principal and interest of the bill,
if the Court was of opinion that the notice served
upon the drawer of the bill was sufficient. The Learned
Counsel not having the notes of the Clerk's evi-
dence before him, the COURT took leave to consult the
Learned Judge before whom the case was tried.

RIDGEWAY V. THE HUNGERFORD MARKET COMPANY.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT said, that in this case, which had
been tried before Lord DENMAN at the sittings after last
term, a verdict for 121. had been entered for the Plaintiff,
with leave to move for a nonsuit. The circumstances
were as follows : On the establishment of the Hunger-
ford Market Company in the year 1828, the Plaintiff had
been appointed Clerk at a salary of 2001. a year, and conti-
nued to act in that capacity up to the month of March, 1833,
when it was intimated to the plaintiff that the Company did
not intend to continue him their clerk, and a meeting of
the Directors was called for the purpose of appointing an-
other. At that meeting the plaintiff refused to make the
entry to that effect in the books, and subsequently entered
his protest against it. On the 11th April the plaintiff was
dismissed. It was alleged at the trial that the plaintiff was
engaged at a yearly salary, to be paid quarterly, but this al-
legation was not sustained. The Learned Counsel con-
tended that as the plaintiff had been discharged in conse-
quence of his negligence, the breach of contract was on his
part, and not on that of the Company.
The Court granted a rule nisi.
THE KING V. LANGHOME, MAYOR OF BERWICK-UPON-TWEED.

Mr. Serjeant AITCHEELY said this case had been tried
at the Somerset Assizes before Lord Lyndhurst, and a ver-
dict had passed for the defendant, with leave to move for a
rule to show canse why a verdict should not be entered for
the Crown. It was an information quo warranto, calling
upon the defendant to show by what authority he held the
office of Mayor of Berwick-upon-Tweed; but the real
question was as to the legality of the defendant's election to
the office of Burgess of that borough. According to the
terms of the charter, 2 James 1., notice of the meetings of
the burgesses, and of the purport of such meetings, was re-
quired to be given, but on the election of the defendant the
notice had not been served upon all the burgesses. The
Jury found that the omission had been made, but that such
omission was accidental, and not designed. On the part
of the Crown it was contended, and such was also the
opinion expressed by Lord Lyndhurst at the trial, that the
omission, being accidental, did not make the proceedings
and election the less illegal, and contrary to the terms of
the charter.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—Take a rule in the alternative.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

Sittings in Banco.
STANCLIFF v. lIARDWICKE.

This was an action of trover' for the recovery of two
ho74es, which was tried before Mr. Baron Gurney, at the
late Assizes at Lancaster, when a verdict passed for the
pltintiff.
Mr. CRESWELL; on the part of the defendant, moved for
a rule to show cause why there should not be a new trial,
or the ground that the Learned Judge had improperly re-
jected evidence tendered by him. At the trial, the plaintiff
showed the property to have been in the defendant's pos-
session, and his selling them. The defendant had pleaded
first " Not Guilty ;" and secondly, that a partnership ex-
isted between him and the plaintiff, and that the horses had
been sold for the purpose of paying the partnership debts.
He offered evidence to prove the latter plea ; but the
Learned Judge refused to receive it. He (Mr. C.) now
submitted that such evidence ought to have been received,
otherwise the defendant was shut out from proving the first
plea of " not guilty." He was certainly entitled to spew
that the conversion was not fraudulent, for it would not be
said that one partner had not the right to sell any property
for the purpose of paying any debts due by him in his part-
nership capacity.
The COURT doubted whether, under the new rules, the
plea of " not guilty" did not altogether deny that the plain-
tiff had any property at all in the houses in question. How-
ever, as the point was a new one, they would grant the rule
in order to have the point settled.

CARR AND OTHERS V. BURGESS AND OTHERS.

This action was tried before Mr. Baron Gurney, at the
late assizes for Newcastle, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiffs, Damages, 12,889/. 10s. sd.
Mr. PoLLocx this morning moved, by leave from the
Learned Judge, for a t ule to show cause why the verdict
should not be increased to the sum of 17,144/. 4s. sd. He
said the action was in trover for the recovery of the whole
stock in trade and fixtures of a bankrupt named Chapham.
The plaintiffs were the assignees of his estate ; the defen-
dants were two of the trustees of the North of England
Joint Stock Banking Company, and the material point in
the case was, whether the bankrupt had not committed an
act of bankruptcy in the making of the deed of assignment,
which gave rise to the action. The fiat of the bankrupt
was dated the 11th of January, 1834, and it appeared that
on the Bth of July in the previous year, the bankrupt had
signed a deed, by which he conveyed the whole of his stock
in trade, leases, &c., and every thing he possessed
to the defendants, to cover a large debt he was owing them
upon his account with the Bank, which he had overdrawn
to the amount of mow There was no doubt but that
the bankrupt was left in possession of the goods in viola.
tion of the terms of the deed up till within a very few days
of the date of the fiat, and he meant to contend that the
property cquld not pass to the defendants, because theyl
Wig parties to
the d"d Illust have beet} cognizant of the
fact that in signing ithe (Chapham) had committed a clear
act of bankruptcy. He was a manufacturer of soap at
Newcastle. He was also a Director and Trustee of the
Back i so that it was very natural that he should be ac-

commodated readily tvith advances, and, on the other
hand, it was as natural that he • should be
equally anxious to give them as much security
as it was in his power to do ; accordingly the deed
was very long, and so framed that it appeared that no one
thing of any kind which was in his possession, or over which
he had any controul, was omitted from it. The main point
then was, was that deed an act of bankruptcy or not? The
Jury had found that when it was made, he had then no in-
tention of their becoming bankrupt, but they had found
that it was made for the purpose of defeating other creditors.
The Coura inquired whether the deed stated it was in
consideration of future advances.
Mr. PoLLocx—There was a large sum overdrawn, which
it was to cover ; but it was also to be a security for future
advances. He had shown at the trial that on the
Bth July, there was upwards of 13,0001. overdrawn. He
contended that no trader had the power to assign over to
any party such a part of his moveable effects, as would put
it out of his power to carry on his business, after the deed
was put in force. In that case the bankrupt had put it in
the power of the defendants to put an entire stop to his bu-
siness on any day they thought proper, and, in fact, they
did so, but fortunately he had previously committed another
act of bankruptcy, which made their possession of no avail.
Lord LvNntwas.r—Suppose that there was no debt to
the party, and that a trader assigned his whole stock in
trade to a person for a sum of money, then need there be
an equivalent, and could the possession be disturbed ?
Mr. POLLOCK said however that might be, it was not in-
volved in this question. Here 18,9301. was the ultimate
debt, and while it was contracting—indeed from the (late
of the deed—the bankrupt was carrying on his business,.
not only at the mercy of the defendants, but actually for
their benefit.

Mr. Baron PARKE inquired whether the plaintiffs sheaved
that there was no other property left—not named in the
deed ?

Mr. PoLLocK conceived that that was for the other party
to show.

Mr. Baron GURNEY said that, on the trial, it was proved
that there was another deed made months after the one in
in question, by which three ships were assigned to the de-
fendants by the bankrupt, upon which he obtained an ad-
vance of 13,000/.

The COURT then refused the rule, upon the ground that
where there was enough of property left behind to save
the party from insolvency, he had a perfect right to assign
—in a bona fide way,—the other part to any party he
pleased.