The Sun.
London, England, 1803-03-14 00:00:00

LA IV REPORT.,

COORT OF-KING's BENCH, rca. 7

fiAaDING ‘VATIONs.

Pints Case was argued on Sa-turdiiy; and Mr.
justice LAW R ENCE observed, that a difficulty had
nccuried to a part, of the Court, from an idea that
Mr. Ilultitoucies award wasdifferent him what in
faa it was, and they had talked it over tipgether,-
and he should deliver the judgment of the Court.

This was an application to set aside....an award
that had been made by M. BURROUGi!, who de.
termined it in favour of the Plaintiff.

The facts of the case were specially stated, so
that the opinion of the Court Could be taken on
them. They were these : A Trader,' of the name
of Lewis Jones, having committed a secret act of
Bankruptcy on the sth of Oftober, 1801, and a
Commission of Bankruptcy issued out against him on
the 31st December following. After. he had Corn.
Misted this secret of of Bankruptcy, and before the
issuing or the Commission, he prevailed on the De.
fendant, Mr; Watkins, ivccept a'l3lll of !soh in'
order to enable him to raise Money upon it. He not,
being indebted to Jones at the title, Jones gave
him a le?se of a hccuse Bernard street, which'
,hO,-promised to assign to him by way of mortgage,
for the purpose of indemnifying him against his ac.
oeptance. On the very day the Defendant. accepted
the Bill in favour of Jones, he (Jones) applied to
the Plaintiff, who paid the full value for it, and had
n'o knowledge °Nile aa of Bankruptcy committed
by Jones, nor of agreement between Jones and,
the Defendant. A Commission having issued-against
,Jones on the 31st of December, the Assignees re.
quired the Defendant to deliver up the Lease which
the BailicruPt had pledged with him ; and he did
deli‘trit up, . For the Defendant it was contended
(tfry Mr. GIB Cs) that that property passed into the
hand. of ltis Assignees, nnleis it Kas trust property„
which this Bill was not ; and it was the same thing'
as if Jones had paid to .the Defendant tsol. of the
money of his Assignees, CIO his undertaking to pay
that money to_the Bankrupt's order; and as such
order could give no authority, the Plaintiff cannot
.cover in this. Aaion.

• t,
1-liS Lardship 'said., the Colin did not agree'to
that state of the transatlion. Lewis Jones having
, no money in the Defendant's -hands,- prevailed on
him to accept a Bill, and to indemnify him against
that nc
acceptae, deposits a. Lease, which was the
property .of the Assignees. *As between Jones and
the Defendant, there was no consideration to enable
Jones to sue the Defendant on that Bill. It was
never intended should be fiable to Jones ; and
that Lease was not deposited with the Defendant as
a thing to be paid for The Bill, but merely as an
&trinity in case he should fail to repay the-amount
of that acceptance ; and therefore, as Jones could'not
sue on the Bill, the Assignees: cannot. To make
the delivery of this Lease to the7Defendant the
same thing as pacing him I 501. the engagement of.
the Defendant should:have, been to deliver up the
Lease to the Bankrupt's' order. The ,case is no
mote•than this : If the Defendant wouleaccept a
Bill of jc,nei he wait to have the assignment of
a lease,as a security; the consequenceis, it becomes
an acceptance 'without consideration—an acceptance
on which, as the Bankrupt could not sue, thi As.
signees had no ioterest'in it; And thewant, of con.
siderariortfurnishes no defence against the man wh6.
has advanced the .money
.upon and,therefore, said
hi; LordshiP, we are of opinion the Arbitrator has,
decided•right, and that this Rule should -be dig.;
'charged. Judgment lid Plaintiff,
,and Rule tics.:
charged. . •
, -