The Sun.
London, England, 1805-06-11 00:00:00

. -

L,4 TV REPORT.

COURT KINC;'.,, BENCH, juur.
•tITTING.S AT N[31,1'111119, AF.FOXE 'mitt> ELLeNzortoUGH

ANfl A SPACIAL JURY._

At liA.ll.l.lrd V. RUTL4LIGE.

Titis wns an action of trespass, brought for the
yurPose of trying 'the validity -of a Commission.of
• tial:kruptcy issued against the Plaintiff.
Jr appeared that the Plaintiff was, by profession A ,
Surgeon. residing ,at Bayswater, and consequently
not le to be made a bankrupt in that capacity :
his mother, however, had carried on the business
of pattnt spring -stirrup makar, after the death, Qf
her father, .I\lr. Steil, who was the original inventor
'e)f the 'bpring stirrup, for which he had obtained
Ale King's patent. After the death of the mother,
the Plaintiff ca tied on 'this business for some time
during his lather's life time; but, soon .:after his
death, reliii(inihed it totally. The.Defenclant was
a carpenter, and had done work for the Plaintiff to
a considerable amount, when, in the sequel, he is-
.. suc%l a commission of bankruptcy against him, and
was appointed sole asignee, by virtue of which au-
thority he took possession 'of the property of the
'Plaintiff; and the issue was clireOted from the Court
of Chancery. -There were several' items in the De-
fendant's account against theylaintiff, the first of
which, commenced in the • year 1802, during the
time the Plaintiff was in the habit of bartering the
spring stirrups; and the chief question. to be de-
cided was, whether a sufficient, sum' had been due
by the Plaintiff to the' Defendant, to constitute a
debt on which a commission of bankruptcy might
be issued, during the time he was a trader.
On the part of the Plaintiff, it was contended,
that he never did deal 'in the spring stirrups on his
own account ; that the several paym'ents he had
made on account of those spring stirrups, to the
person who manufaaured them, and the sums lie

received fiam the purchasers, were on account of
his father, who resided at Portsmouth; and, that
after' Ns death, he finally 'closed all accounts relative
to the matter, and wholly relinquished the business.
On the part of the Defendant, a letter was pro-
duced, written by the Plaintiff to Mr. Hoven, of
Cambridge,. dated in November, 186.2 ; but, froM,
the post-mark, appearing to be- I !§O3, •ac.knowledg
ing the. receipt of money from that Gelitleman, on
account of 'spring stlirrupS, soliciting his Custom for
anyiqUintity of them he might please to order, and
engaging to settd them, free of expellee; . conclud-
ing by telling him that his father, Moth& sister, and
several othei• relations, in .the Whole amounting to
eight, had died since the, Christmas before,, and.
was much oceupled.in'settling their accounts.„ The setYant of the Plaintiff was produced, and prov-
ed, the denial to his Creditors. He, further stated,
that-, he had seen the punches for stamping these •
stirrups, with
,the Plaintiff„ and had assisted him in
packing up a parcel.of them in the month of No-

- -
trcmher, 1-805," the period at •which that part of the
Defendant's demand which might make the whole
sufficient to constitute -id aet of bankruptcy was
oniiafted. It appeared, however, that these stir-
rups were not packed up for the purpose of sale, but
to be left with, one Strike. till called for by the A*-
signees.
Lord Euniaonotrolt, in sum Ming up the evi-
dence, observed, that the question for the considera-
tion of the Jury was, whether the Plaintiff was ever
a trader, and to what time he had continued so to
be ? The trade did-not end at the tune the `manufac-
tory' ceased;' hut, if, after the death, of the father
and mother, he was found to be lxolding himself
Out to he a dealer iri this commodity, as appeared
from the setter he had done, then the question would
be, whether the debt due to the Defendant was.
col.traded within that period? .
The Jury found a Verdi& for the Defendant.