The Sun.
London, England, 1804-06-12 00:00:00

COURT OF CHAATCERY, juNE z.

EX PARTE PARR AND OTHERS, IN THE MATT: R OF

EAGLETON, A BANKRUPT.

THIS Petition was presented for the purpose of
obtaining the decision of the LORD CHANCELLOR
upon the point, how far the power of the Commis-
sions of Bankruptcy to examine a person, to whom
it was supposed money had been pail after an Act of
Bankruptcy, extends. It stated, that a Commission
of Bankruptcy had been sued out against Edward
Eagleton in Odober 1803, and that the Ad of
Bankruptcy consisted in his laying in prison two
months. That during the time of his so being con.
fined, he paid to one Cussans, by the hands of a
person named Clarence, the sum of 2.5,01. being the
amount of one of the debts for which he was de-
tained ; which payment the Petitioners, the Assig_
nees, conceived-to be fraudulent, being m ide sub_
sequent to the commencement of the Ai of Bank.
ruptcy ; and they, therefore, caused Cussans to be
summoned •to attend before' the Commissioners, in
order to examine him as to the circumstances under
which the payment was made. . That upon Cussans
attending the Commissioners, he admitted that he
had received his debt and costs, while Eagleton, as
he believed, was in prison, and that he thereupon
discharged him from the Alion at his suit ; but he
refused to give any answer to a question put to him,
.g Whether any, and what communications, conver-
sations, or letters, passed between -the Bankrupt and
him, previonS' to the payment being so made, and
whether such payment was not in consequence of
some arrangement between the parties, and what
were the contents of such letters, and the purport
of the conversations, if any such did pass."
Mr. Rots/ILLY and Mr. WETHERALL, in support
of the Petition, contended, that under the clause in,
the Statute of the / 3th of Elizabeth, a power to en-
force an answer to such a question was clearly given
to the Commissioners. That clause extend jto all
persons into whose hands the money of the Bar.k_
rupt had in any manner come after an An of Bank-
ruptcy-, whether it was paid to, detained or se-
creted by the person proposed to be examined. That
this power in the Commissioners was virtually re.
cognized by Lord HAstow 1 CKE in a case before
him, and has been the-constant pradice. It was
clearly the objed and policy of the whole clause to
give the same jurisdidion to the Commissioners as
a Court of Equity had, in case a Bill were filed for a
discovery, and prevent the expence of such a proceed-
ing. A distinaion might perhaps he made where
evidence was-sought to sustain an Adion of Troves',
but not in assumpsit.
LORD CHANCELLOR—." Was there ever a Peti-
tion similar to this ? I have great doubt whether 'the
Commissioners are bound to obey my order. Their
authority must certainly he limited by the general
principles of law as a Court. They commit at their
peril, and are liable to an Aaiun for damages, in
case they do it improperly. In directing them,
therefore, to enforce an answer to this question,
might I not be ordering them to du that which
would subjea them to an Action ?"
,Mr. Rom LLl."—" If any order is made, the party
would then he hound to answer under the order of
the Court, and not the authority of the Corrstnis.
stoners."

Mr. HAr,T, for Cussans—.-" My Client has not
denied the jurisditliotr of the Commissioners, but he
objeds that these interrogatories go too far. fie is
only bound to answer upon the immediate fats re-
lating to this particular demand, and he has already
distinctly admitted that he did receive this sum of
25401. in full for hiS debt and costs, from the hands
of one Clarence, while Eagleton was in prison.--
These interrogatories extend to all communications,
conversations, and letters which have ever passed
between the Bankrupt and him, whether relevant

or not."

LORD CHANGELLOR" Might nct the Commis-
sioners examine this man, to prove whether the pay.
meta was made in contemplation of Bankruptcy, 'for
the A& of Bankruptcy had here.only begun, but was
not complete ?"
_ _

Mr. HART---" He is willing.to answer, provided
the interrogatories are reduced into writing, so that
he may consider and see the extent of each question
before he answers."

LORD CHANCELLOR--." That is not the prac-
tice, fOr very good and obvious reasons. The point,
is,' whether the' Commissioners have not a power to
ask all questions which they think material ?"
Mr. HART—" They must be relevant to theitn-
mediate purpose of recovering the money."

Mr. RomILLY—" Mr. Cuasans may be released
from all further examination, if. he wilt admit that
this was nOta bona fide payment made in the 'course
of trade, for this is the objet} of the questions, and
they merely extend to conversations, letters, &c. on
the subjeEt of this payment. He is clearly bound. to,
produce all that relates 'to this IrAnsaaion,,hs he
would be in this Court.

LORD CHANCTLLOR—" I should hesitate a long
time before I made the order prayed for by this pe-
tition ; for if I were once to establish the principle
that a party, who is brought before the Commis.
sinners to be examined, has a right-to demur and ap-
peal to this Court, there will be no instance in which
the elle& of such an appeal will not be attempted.
I believe there never was any instance of an appli-
cation similar to this ; and so new are these ques;
tions about the power of the COmmissioners, that it
was even doubted lately.whether it were necessary
for this Court • to. interfere in order to compel a
Witness to attend the Commissioners. The point
simply is, could 'the party have refused answering
these questions if a Bill of Discovery had beet; filed;
and it he could, nor, what -power have the Corn;
missioners to enfore an answer ? I see so much
danger in establishing any precedent as to their
power, .that I am not disposed to make any order
upon the subjea, and as there is no-precedent, and
the Commissioners themselves do not seem to have
any doubt about their authority, I. will 'give no opi.
oion.upon it;"