The Sun.
London, England, 1856-11-19 00:00:00

THE TIPPERARY BANK.

In the Court of Chancery yesterday the importlet
case of O'Flaberty v. M'Dowell, official manager of the
Tipperary Bank, was opened, the object of the motion
being to take the proceedings from under the Winding-
up Act, and place them under the bankruptcy laws. Mr.
Whiteside stated the case of the petitioners, and occu-
pied the 'day with his address. The petition set out the
wet,' in relation to the establishment of the bank, and

its failures, &c., which were shortly as follow :—ln the
year 1833, a company, consisting of more than six per-
sons, formed a copartnership in the county of Tipperary,
under the provisions of the 6th of Geo. IV., c. 42.
By an indenture of agreement, which was executed about
this time, it was agreed that certain establishments
should be opened in Tipperary, Carlo, Carrick-on-Suir,
and other places, to carry on the business of bankers,
and to keep the money of any party or body politic
whatsoever.. He (Mr. Whiteside) did not complain that
this latter clause was not carried out, for he admitted
that this bank had carried it out to the very letter, by
taking the money of the public and never giving it back
to them. The capital, it was agreed, was mil; to exceed
500,0001., in 101. shares of 50/. each. The petition went
on to state themode in which tke business of the company
was to be managed by a board of directors. It appeared
that various persons became shareholders in the concern,
and the bank having commenced doing business as bank-
ers, such as discounting bills, receiving deposits, &a.,
went on for a period of ten years or upwards, and until
;Feb., 1856, when it suddenly stopped, and, as he (Mr.
/Whiteside) contended; within the meaning of the old
,Bankers' Act, the 33d Geo. IL, the statute upon which
the principal, in fact the only question in the case was
raised. At the time of this stoppage the bank was indebted
to the petitioners and about 500 other persons, whose
debts amounted to about 450,000/., to pay which there
were assets to the amount of about 50,0001., if even so
much would be realised. On the 2d February, in the
present year, a Mr. Rafferty presented a petition under
the Joint-stock Winding-up Acts, stating the fact as to
the stoppage of payment, and praying for an order to
dissolve the concern ; and on the 4th March, 1856, the
Master of the Rolls made .an order under those acts of
Parliament to wind up the co-partnership, under which
order Mr. 111`Dowell was appointed official manager on
the 17th of the same month. The learned gentleman then
went at great length into a detail of the litigation which
has taken place since Mr. M'Dowell's appointment, and
the defences made by the respondents* Messrs. Hone and
Stirling, to escape their liability, and contended at great
length, and upon a very full reference to the several
banking statutes, from 33d Geo. 11. down to the wind-
ing-up acts, that his lordship was bound to hold that the
old statute was applicable to the present case, and that
the decision of Sir Michael O'Loghlen, in the matter of
the Agricultural Bank case (Fausett v. Hodges), was
good law, and should be upheld. At the conclusion of
Mr. Whiteside's argument, the court rose.
Yesterday, in Master Murphy's office, Mr. Charles
Henry Edmonds, of London, attended for the purpose of
being examined relative to a bill for 2,3001., at 21 days'
date, dated the 28th January, 1856, drawn in his favour
on Glyn, Mills, and Co., and signed by J. W. Kelly, for
the Tipperary Bank. The bill had passed into the' hands
of Peas, Liddell, and Co., bankers, of Hull, and was
dishonoured soon after the failure of the Tipperary
Bank. Peas, Liddell, and Co. sued Mr. Edmonds,
who gave them judgment, and was obliged to pay. He
is nuw the holder of the bill. In the course of the
examination the disclosure of the *private affairs of
Mr. Edmonds rendered it necessary for the Master
to direct that the proceedings should be private.