The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-13 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

ROLLS COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

Nothing of any public importance occurred in this
Court up to the period of our reporter's leaving.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

THE LONDON AND MARGATE STEAMI'ACKET COMPANY•

GODFRAY V. HURST.

In this case, which has occupied several days in argu-
ment, the bill was tiled by certain shareholders in the Los-
don and Margate steam-packet company, for the purpose
of obtaining an injunction, restraining certain of the trus-
tees from making any further payment in respect of the di
vidends approved at the last General Court, from supplying
the Company with coals and other articles, and generally to
restrain them from acting as trustees, or for a reference to
the Master to appoint a fit person as manager. The bill
charged the trustees with having made dividends improperly,
with having supplied the Company with coals and other
articles at an exorbitant price, and also with other acts of
mismanagement, totally inconsistent with the copartner-
ship deed, and the rules and orders by which the Company
was regulated.

Mr. KNIGHT and Mr. BETHEL appeared for the plaintiff...
Mr. PEPYS, with whom was Mr. WIGRAM and Mr.
GIRDLESTONE, jun., appeared for the defendants, con-
tending that the plaintiffs being shareholders in a rival
Steam-packet Company, had filed the present bill to har-
rass, and, if possible, annihilate the Company of which
his clients were shareholders.

Mr. KNIGHT this morning replied, after which
His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment.
Ile considered the conduct of the trustees open to no just
ground of accusation, the papers showing most clearly that
every transaction in which they had been engaged, was
conducted in the most fair and honourable manner. His
Honour saw no ground whatever for the motion, and or-
dered it to be refused, with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

TILE KING V. EVAN OWEN JONES.

This was an indictment against the defendant for con-
spiring with other persons to conceal certain property,
part of his his estate and effects, he having been declared a
bankrupt. The case was tried at the last Summer as-
sizes at Bristol, and the defendant was found guilty. The
defendant came up to day from the King's Bench prison
by a writ of Habeas Corpus to receive judgment.
Mr. Sergeant Bo arrus, on the part of the defendant,
moved either for a❑ arrest of judgment, or for a new
trial. The indictment was founded on the 112th section
of the new Bankrupt Act, and the principal question was,
whether the indictment sufficiently set forth the offence?
It merely averred that the Commissioners had found
that the defendant was a bankrupt, and also that be
had ben declared a bankrupt, and it also aver•
red, as the overt acts, that he had conspired with
certain other persons (therein named) fraudulently to
conceal certain goods part of his estate and effects. The
Learned Counsel submitted that the averments were not
sufficient, for the whole circumstances of the bank-
ruptcy, of a valid petitioning creditor's debt, and of
the defendant's submission to the commission, &cc. ought
to be averred and proved at the trial. Accord.
ing to the present indictment those facts were not
put in issue. The defendant might never have submitted
to the commission—he might have superseded it—and he
[night have recovered some of his property by an action
against his petitioning creditor, and yet he would be liable
to an indictment framed like the present. It was neces-
sary for the purpose of justice that a valid bankruptcy
should be averred and proved, in order to convict a party
of concealing his own goods, instead of merely averring
that be had been declared a bankrupt—which, for any
thing that appeared, might be disproved when the whole
facts were in issue. The Learned Sergeant went through
a variety of cases in the late and present Bankrupt Acts,
and contended that the indictment was bad.
Lord TENTERDEN, after conferring with the other
Judges, said, he for one, at present, and upon this indict •
went for conspiracy, entertained no doubt that the offence
was sufficiently averred ; what might be the case if it were
an indictment for felony he' would not now say. But as
one or two of his Learned Brethren were of a different
opinion, he thought the best way would be to grant a role
nisi for a new trial.