The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-05 00:00:00

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, MAY 4.

EX•PARTE SAMBOURNE IN THE MATTER OF WICKS.
This was a petition by the assignee of the bank-
rupt Wicks, to supersede a commission which had
been subsequently issued against the bankrupt by the
name of Knox.
Mr. HORACE Twiss supported the prayer of the
petition, and Mr. WIGRAm, on behalf of the assig-
nese of the second commission, opposed It.
It appeared by the affidavits that the bankrupt
had, prior to the year 1830, been trading at Hoxton,
Clapham, Pentonville, 1-lolloway, Limehouse, Bex-
ley, Blackmore-street, Clare-market, and at various
other places, sometimes as a grocer and sometimes
as a baker, for periods of three, six, and twelve
months, in the several names of Knox, Peters, and
Wicks ; and that subsequently to that year he had
traded at Maidstone in the name of Knox. Whilt
trading in the name of Wicks, a commission was
issued against him. This was in January, 1830.
His debts under that commission amounted to 4,0001.
and upwards; but there were no assets. 11
afterwards traded at Maidstone in the name of
Knox, and had acquired credit to a consider-
able extent. The goods he so obtained were
sent to London, and now constitute the whole or
greater part of his effects. A second commission
having been issued aginst him on account of this
subsequent trading, the question was, whether the
first or second commission should prevail.
Mr. Twiss argued that as the bankrupt had
traded in the name of Wicks for three years prior to
tho issuing of the commission against him in that
name, the creditors under that commission were not
liable to the objection of negligence, and as the
bankrupt had not obtained his certificate, all sub-
sequently acquired property by him became the
property of the assignees.
Mr. WIGRAM, on the contrary, insisted that as
the bankrupt's real name was Knox, and as that
fact was known to the solicitors and other parties
concerned in the first commission on the day pre-
vious to the choice of assignees under that com-
mission, they ought to have rectified the mistake in
the name; and not having done so, they had been
the occasion of the bankrupt trading in his own
name to the injury of his subsequent creditors.
The COURT were of opinion, that as the bank-
rupt had contracted his debts prior to the first com-
mission in the name of Wicks, and there not being
any evidence that the parties to that commission
were at all privy to the bankrupt's ever having
traded in the name of Knox, there wa: not sufficien,
grounds to sustain the second commission, as against
the first ; that is to say, the equitable title of the
creditors under the second commission was not suf-

(Before Mr. Commissioner EvAws.)
SIR GEORGE DUCKETT, MORLAND, AND BERNARD'S
BANKRUPTCY.
A meeting of the creditors under that fiat issued
against this banking establishment was held this
day for the proof of debts, and for the bankrupts to
pass their examination.
The debts proved in the course of the day
amounted to between 1.5,0001. and 20,000/., and
were principally composed of claims for small
amounts.
A proof was tendered on behalf of the treasurer
of the fund raised to distribute warm clothing
among the poor, and of which Mr. Alderman
Thompson is the treasurer.
The COMMISSIONER said, that as this was not a
corporation, and no party was authorized to corn-
mence actions, the proof could not be allowed as
applied. There was, in fact, a difficulty as to
whether any one could prove for the amount due.
He thought the subject had better stand over far
the present.

In the course of the day proofs were allowed for
claims made by Admiral Stopford, the Marquess of
Waterford, the Earl of Beauchamp, &c.
Mr. BRIGGS, the solicitor to the estate, said he
wished to draw the attention of the Court to 'a
point of some interest. Some of the creditors felt
difficulty in making their claims, arising out of the
-following circumstances :—Several persons, who
were in the habit of banking with the firm, paid in
money in checks on the Monday night previously to
the stoppage of the firm, which occurred at ten o'clodk
en Tuesday morning. No money was paid by the
bankers on Tuesday morning; but the collecting
clerks took money checks paid in on the previotis
afternoon, and received them on the same morning
the docket was struck. The parties who bad paid
in such checks conceived they had a right to have
the amount of their checks paid in full, as they had
been received when the firm had stopped.
The CommtssioNEtt asked if the bankers had re.
fused to pay money on Tnesday morning ?
A creditor said they had—they had desired a
Mr. Johnson to call again.
Mr. WALFORD, the legal friend of the bankrupts,
said a check had been presented, drawn by a party,
with a view to take out the balance of a large ac-
count, and payment had been refused. With resp-ct
to the checks paid in on Monday, they were carried
to the accounts of the respective parties as cash.
A Creditor said the bankrupts alone could answer
the questions. The firm had received all they could
on Tuesday, but paid nothing out. His claims
were small, and it would be imprudent to appeal to
the superior Court; but he conceived he had a
right to be paid in full for the amount thus received.
Mr. BRIGGS said he had a duty to perform to-
wards the general creditors of the estate, and he
could not consent to any examination of the bank-
rupts on this point in public. The parties might
have stopped the checks.
Mr. WALFORD said, by way of example, that had
he paid in 901. in checks, arid 101. in money, his ac-
count would have been credited for 1001. in the
eterit of none of the checks being returned unpaid.
Mr. BRIGGS said the assignees might consider the
subject of allowing the claims.
The COMMISSIONER said the assignees could allow
nothing—he sat there to decide questions of this
kind; he supposed these parties had cash balances
in the banking-house.
Mr. BRIGGS said they had.
The proceedings were here stopped by the Com-
missioner desiring that some person might be placed
at the door, as he had heard that thefts had been
committed, one gentleman having lost a cloak, and
two others their hats. He cautioned the persons
present to look to their property.
§llMRldes'ifaTu-the o'ot:tea were for a minor, but
with the consent of his father.

Sir G. Duckett, in reply-to a question from the
Commissioner, said he knew his sun dealt %vial the

claimint, but had no idea that the amount due was
so large.

The proof was postponed for the purpose of
inquiry.

It was then announced that the first dividend nn
:he claims against the estate was fixed for the `.2:A!I

of July.

The bankrupts then signed their accounts; and
the Commissioner asked whether any of the solici.
tors wished to examine the bankrupts before they
passed their final examination.

Mr. BARROW asked the assignees whether they
had looked over the accounts?

Mr. Pugh said they had looked into the accounts,
but the full inspection of them had been left to the
official assignee.
Mr. C. Baldwin, M. P. (another assignee) re-
marked that they had not gone over the account&
oae by one, and they were satisfied of their
correctness.

Mr. GOLDSMITH (the official assignee) declared
that the accounts were perfectly satisfactory. Th,
..ceounts had been made out from the commence-
men of 1831.

Mr. BARROW asked the Commissioner whether
that was sufficiently early to commence the investi-
gation of these accounts? The transactions of the
firm had commenced in 1819, and he considered
that the capital the partners had commenced busi-
ness with, as veil as their profits and losses during
Cie whole period, should be shown. They were
now only in May 1832, and he considered that the
accounts should be made out front an earlier period
than 1831, especially as the firm had been of 13 or
14 years' standing.
Mr. BRIGGS said he should oppose any proposition
for dehiying the last examination of the bankrupts.
Mr. BARROW contended that the accounts ought
to be investigated further back than 1831. He only
put forward the suggestion hypothelically, that, in
the event of partners having taken money out of the
concern before 1831, there was no mode of coming.
to the knowledge of such a circumstance if the whole
accounts were nor gone into. He had a duty to
perform for The creditors, for whom he appeared.
Mr. BRIGGS protested against any supposi,iont;
be;rig entertained that money had been ab.tracted
from the concern by the bankrupts. Bankers' books
were public—they were open to the clerks, and not
kept, like tradesmen's books, by the parties them-
',elves. The whole of the bankrupts' books, from
the commencement of their transactions, were in the
hands of the official assignees. It was a matter of
great importance that the bankrupts should get
their certificates as soon as possible, and he therefore
protested against delay, as it would be injurious to
the estate.

Mr. WALFORD said there was no ground for de-
lay. Should the property possessed by the hank-
upts not bring one-half or one-third its valuation,
there would be ample assets to meet all the b.-dances
due to the creditors of the house. He felt as•nred

tinTaet
pthroetreest‘ould be a u
evdagainst sairlyplts exceeding
etaseof 100,000!.
a
hypothetical
nature being brought forward relative to the abstrac-
tion of money from the estate. It would be a
great hardship on the part of the bankrupts if their
tonal examination were postponed.
Mr. GOLDSMITH said that he had considered that
(here were any doubtful points in the accounts, he
should have gone further bark than 1831.
Mr. BARROW felt assured of the honesty of the
iecounts—he only put the ease hypothetie.dty.
Mr. WALFORD said the business had been corn-
inenced in 1819. The books would .how that since
that time the bad deb,s exceeded 100,0004; and the
claiwere 80,000/. The profits of the concern had been
.airied to a liquidation fund.
concern
against.t
fromn n BARROW
Iwtsbles,aiodu estate,gthllt as
oBi)fihe:saws.
eaCdrier:tal;::of the

In reply to a question from the Coo- missinner,
it G. Duckett said the boukh were bulauced every