The Sun.
London, England, 1802-03-18 00:00:00

Lifici REPORT.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MARCH
2.
BEFORE LORD ALVANLEY AND A SPECIAL JUR',

Si'C.ONNEL AND OTHERS V. HECTOR AND OTHERS.

This Case occupied a.considerable portion of the
time of the Court, and from the nature of the de-
fence, assumed a very serious an'd important aspea.

• 'lt *as an Attion of Trespass brought by Messrs.
M'Connel arid Co. against. Messrs. Hector and Co.
to recover damages in consequence of the Defend.
ants having taken the property of the Plaintiffs, as
the-Petitioning Creditors and Assignees of their
estate and effeCts under a Commission of Bankruptcy.
The single question in this Cause was, whether
the Commission of Bankruptcy issued against the
Plaintiffs, could be supported in point of Law ?
',The issue was upon tke Defendants, whose case
was opened by-Mr. Serjeant BEST. He stated that
a regular Commission had issued against the Plain-
tiffs on the Petition of the Defendants, who were
described as Merchants formerly carrying on trade
in North :Britain, and.latelk in London.. The
demand for whiCh the Adion was brought, arose
out of contrails ;entered into upon the Continent,
and although some of them referred to tritniadions
which were unauthorised by the Revenue Laws of
the Country, yet it had been decided, that an ob-
jedion founded on the nature of such transactions
would not defeat the Creditors' right to petition for
an. ACI Of Bankruptcy.
Evidence' for the Petitioning Creditors' debt'
having been given,
Mr. Serjeant COCKELL replied pn the part of the
Plaintiffs, observing tlia.t'the Commission of Bank-
ruptcy was altogether illegal. He stated that the
Defensiants:had described themselves as traders resi-
dent in-Scotland, and recently in London. Neither
-.o.theseiallegations were true; the fad was, they
had carried on their , transactions in the Batavian
Republic, and at the 'tittle the debt in question was
-contraded, resided at FlUshing ; the Plaintiffs were
they Merchants at Dunkirk. The parties were all
British Subjeds, and owed allegiance to His Ma-
jesty. In order to authorize a Commission. of
Bankruptcy, it was necessary there „Mould be a legal
Petitioning Creditor, a regular ad of bankruptcy,
and a legal debt. With regard to the first, and in
this case the•prineipal-question; he should 'contend.
that the Plaintiffs were not legal Petitioning Credi-
tors. He had ever considered it to be Law, that
no man was capable of beComing a petitioning cre-
ditor for a Commission of Bankruptcy, who was
incapacitated fporn maintaining a Civil ACtion
to. recover "money. The Defendants were na-
tives' of North Britain, and subsequent to the
Revolution in Holland-, had resided in the Bata-
vian Republic—of course they stood in the situation
of Alien Enemies, as well as his own Clients, who
were also British Subjeds, and resided at Dunkirk.
These parties had been carrying on a nefarious
and
.shocking traffic; hostile to the interests Of this
Country: By an ACt of the 38th of His present
Majesty, made upon an occasion every good Subject
would regret, it was epatled that every British
Subject, who should voluntarily depart from this.
kingdom to the dominions of His Majesty's, Ene-
mies, or who should remain in them six months'
after the date of the Ad, should be considered as a
felon, and suffer death. The Defendants he consi-
dered were within the very scOpe and pfletlicament
of this A. It appeared from the testimony of
the Defendants'. own witnesses, that two of the
Partners had corne'to this Country, but that a third,
Mr. Read, still resided at their house of trade, at
Flushing. It further appeared, that the aceounts•
current between the parties on
yin
the balance
was struck, applied to concerns pithe year, 1799,
when France and the Batavianßepublie were at
war with this Country—he therefore contended,
that the Defendants had given a death blow to their
own case, and had clearly -shelirn they were not.
entitled to be the Petitioning. Creditors for a Com-
mission of Bankruptcy.
Mr. Serjeant BEST maintained the Defendants
were in a condition to sue for a debt ; two of them
we now in this Country,. within the King'sprn-
tedion, and bad a right to_ appeal for justice to his
Courts.

Lard ALVANLEY observed, that tUe.Defendants
having been resident at Flushing prior to the war
between France and-,Hoiland, and this 'Country,
were nor, as had been stated, felons, for having
remained there, hut were only subjeaed by the
Alien Bill to two years imprisonment for a misde-
meanor. He could not conceive how they could
be entitled to bring an Alion for a debt incurred
in any Enemy's Country diiiing hostilities. An
Englishman who carried on trade with an Enemy,
Was himself, by the' Law of the Country, consi-
dered as an Alien Enemy, and if he dealt in war-
like stores, was a Traitor. He had no doubt that
a British Subjea, who carried on trade abroad,
with a State with whom we were at war, was as
much an Alien Ener,;y -as if he was a Frenchman.—
The argument, that a British Subjeet carrying on
trade in France, could bring an action, when a
Frenchman could not, was what he had-no concep,
tion'of. It appeared that one of the Partners was
still in an Enemy's Country. The 'Republics of
France and Batavia must necessarily be considered
as hostile, notwithStanding the Preliminary Treaty.
He wished to God we could consider ourselves as at
peace with France : but that was impossible till the
Ratification of the Definitive Treaty. His opinion,
therefore,- upon-the whole was, that the Commission
was not established.

The Jury, under the direClion of his Lordship,
returned a vetdiCt for the .Plaintiffs, with 4os. da-
mages, allowing to the Defendants the liberty of
applying to the Court for leave to enter a verdict in
their favour, if the Court should be of opinion they
were legal Petitioning Creditors.

The Abbey, Hamlin, from Lisbon to Liverpool,
wilich was on the sands on the coast of Wales (after
having discharged her cargo) has been got off, and
arrived at BeSurnaris, where she took fire on the gth
just. which consumed the vessel and materials.