The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-24 00:00:00

BANKRUPTCY COURT.-(TIES DAY.)

Their Honours, the Judges of the Court, took their seats
shortly after ten o'clock.
EX-PARTE ROSE.

Mr COOPER applied to the Court in this case for the en-
largement of the time for the bankrupt to surrender. T'veo pe-
titions had been presented to the Lord Chancellor in this matter,
on which two orders had been made to influence the commis:
sion. Subsequently, however, those orders were abandoned,
and very shortly the case would be brought before their Ho-
nours, for the purpose of superseding the commission. In con-
sequence of the two orders that had been obtained for supersed-
ing the commission, the bankrupt had not surrendered, and the
Learned Counsel, under the 113th section of the new Bankrupt
Act, made the present application, which would have been
granted, as a matter of course, under the late bankrupt system.
Their HONOURS made the order as prayed.
EX-PARTE OSBORNE.

Mr. MONTAGU applied for the supersedeas of the commis-
sion in this case, by consent of all parties, and upon the usual
certificate that nine tenths of the creditors consented.

_......_........_ .... ___..,......,. ...„.......
The CHIEF JUSTICE wished to know whether all the
directions required by Lord Eldon's order had been complied
with ?

Mr. MONTAGU observed that he believed they had; but he
was confident that that would be taken care of in the Bankrupts'
Office, where the officers were exceedingly vigilant.

RODGERS IN-RE PARKIN.

This was the petition of an equitable mortgagee, praying that
he might be declared to have an equitable mortgage for a sale of
that security, and a declaration that the petitioner was entitled
to prove against the separate estate of Parkins, the younger.—
Ordered.

IN THE MATTER OF SCRIVENER, A BANKRUPT.
Mr. MONTAGU was instructed to apply to the Court in
this case for the further discharge of Augustus White from the
custody of the Warden of the Fleet. The Learned Counsel, in
making the application, observed that he was in doubt whether
he could do so upon motion, but he trusted their Honours would
be of opinion that he could, after hearing the facts of the case.
If it was necessary to proceed by petition, the expense would
be very great, and the object of the Legislature in enacting the
present remedial statute, was to remedy the evils of expense
and delay. A commission of bankrupt had issued against
a person of the name of Scrivener ; a petition was presented for
the purpose of superseding that commission, on the ground
that the petitioning creditor's debt was not a good one. An-
other application was made under another petition, to substi-
tute a new good debt for the bad old one; the original petition
was dismissed with costs, and an order made for the substi.
tuting of the new debt, and that order was confirmed
on appeal by the Lord Chancellor. No :proceedings Were

instituted under the petition to substitute the new debt ; so
that, in fact, under the orders made, the commission was good
for nothing, because the substituted debt had not supplied the
place of the original bad debt. The parties who had obtained
the order not having proceeded, a petition was presented,
stating that fact, and praying that the orders for the substitu-
tion of the new debt and the confirmation of it, might be
rescinded, and the commission superseded. The order for the
supersedeas was made, and, of course, every thing under the
commission fell to the ground. Before, however, the super-
sedeas issued, the party who had 'obtained the order for the
costs in the original petition, had procured the allocation of the
Master, and thus things stood till after the commission was
superseded. After that the prisoner was taken into custody for
the costs. The Learned Counsel had the consent of the
party at whose instance the prisoner had been committed, to
his discharge, he having discovered that he had acted improperly
in detaining him ; but the solicitor would not consent to it,
unless the costs 691. odd were paid. Under such circumstances
the Learned Counsel made the present application that the pri_
soner might be discharged from the custody of the Warden of
the Fleet, or in case the Court declined to make that order, that
he should be discharged on payment of the sum of 691. 17s. 4d.
into Court to abide its order.

The CHIEF JUSTICE enquired whether any notice had been
given of the present application.

Mr. MONTAGU observed, that he had the consent of the
petitioner, at whose suit White had been taken into custody, to
his discharge, but he had not that of the attorney, without
which, according to the rules of the prison, he could not be
liberated. The doubt which the Learned Counsel entertained,
was whether the present application could be made on motion,
if it could not, it would not be worth while for his client to incur
the expense of coming before the Court upon petition, which
would amount to 401.

The CHIEF JUSTICE, after consulting with the other
Judges, observed that the opinion of the Court was, considering
the peculiar nature of this case, that they were not competent
to hear it upon motion.

Mr. Justice ROSS observed that the object of the present ap-
plication was to rescind orders made by the other Courts, which
the Court thought it could not do on motion.
Mr. MONTAGU stated that all the orders had been res-
cinded.

Mr. Justice CROSS observed that the latter part of the prayer
was extremely simple, and could prejudice no one.
After some further discussion between the Court and
the Bar, •it was agreed that notice should be given to the
solicitor, who had opposed the discharge of the prisoner, and
that the case should stand for to-morrow.