The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-11 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

THE NEW BANKRUPTCY ACT.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated that it was necessary
for him to mention a bankruptcy for the second time to his
Lordship. The bankruptcy he alluded to was one that had
been part heard before his Lordship previous to the passing
of the New Bankruptcy Act, and the Solicitor opposed to his
(the Solicitor-General's) clients, had carried the matter into the
new Bankrupt Court, and prevailed on the Judges there to en.
tertain it. He apprehended it was utterly impossible to sup-
pose that this could have been meant by the Legislature, and
he hoped his Lordship would interfere to prevent so great a
hardship upon the suitor, and not allow his jurisdiction to be
taken away in matters that had already been in hearing in
this Court. •
Sir E. SUGDEN also hoped his Lordship would be of opi-
nion that the Court bad jurisdiction. The greatest mischief
seemed to be the consequence of the new state of things as
they at present existed in bankruptcy. It was supposed, that even
every appeal that stood for hearing here before the passing of the
Act must now go to the Court of Review. The result was
that all matters of bankruptcy, which had been heard before
the Vice-Chancellor, and would be carried to the Court of Review
by appeal, and then that they would be brought hereby a second
appeal. The consequence of this state of things had been that
in matters of appeal here, in which heavy briefs had been deli.
vered and large fees paid, the appeals had been abandoned here ;
the same sort of briefs had been delivered in the New Court, and
small fees paid again there. This was a crying evil, which
ought not to exist. It could not have been the meaning of the
Legislature, that such a construction should be put upon the
Act of Parliament. As, however, the mischief did exist, it
was absolutely necessary that the Government should interfere
to put an end to such an outrageous evil.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he of course could take
no notice of any thing here, but of that which was addressed to
him in his judicial capacity.

Sir EDWARD SUDDEN was aware of that, and only
meant to address his observations to the Court in that charac-
ter; at the same time, surrounded as he was by those who had
a considerable share in framing the late Act of Parliament, he
could not help making some observations, which he hoped
might influence their conduct in another place.
Mr. MONTAGU was on the same side with Sir EDWARD
SUDDEN.

The LORD CHANCELLOR asked if this was ex-parte
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said it was.
Sir E. SUQDEN was of opinion, that some person should
have been here to have argued it on the other side.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, if he had been aware of
its being ex-parte, he would not have allowed it to have gone
on. It was a matter of great importance in whichever way
the Court decided upon the question. He would take time to
consider it.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.

CHAMBERS v. BERNASCONI AND OTHERS.

In our report of this case on Wednesday we made a mistake.
The verdict was for the defendants, and a bill of exceptions was
handed in by the plaintiff's attorney, on account of the Lord
Chief Baron having refused some evidence that was tendered.

Lord LYNDHURST sat in the city this morning, but no
case of importance came before him up to the time of our go-
ing to press.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY,)

DE SEWHANBERG v. BUCH ANNAN.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Baron de Sew.
hanberg, to recover from the defendant the sum of 21)0
guineas, the amount of a bill of exchange of which he was the
acceptor, given to the plaintiff by a Mr. Marsack, in payment of
a painting by Rembrandt.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE conducted the plaintiff's case, and Mr.
Serjeant ANDREWS the defence.
The plaintiff; a native of Belgium, is a connoisseur in paint-
ings of the most eminent masters, rand resides at an hotel in
Rupert-street, Haymarket. In the month of October, 1830, a Mr.
Marsack was recommended to the Baron, he having a valuable
painting he wished to dispose of ; a bargain was struck, and it was
agreed that Marsack should have the painting for 2.(X") guineas, the
Baron undertaking to receive a bill of exchange for the
amount drawn by Marsack upon the defendant. When the
bill became due, it was dishonoured, and the plaintiff now
sought to recover the amount.
For the defence several witnesses were called, amongst
whom was Mr. Marsack, the purchaser of the painting, who
swore that when he made the purchase, the Baron warranted
the picture to be a " Rembrandt," and, believing him to be a
man ofhonour, he was induced to purchase it at 200 guineas.
He subsequently discovered that he had been imposed upon, and
that it was not the work of Rembrandt, or that of any other
eminent master, and instead of being worth 200 guineas,
it was not worth as many shillings. Upon this discovery he made
application to get back the bill, and to return the painting, or
to procure another picture from the Baron, or some other se-
curity for the amount of the bill, but he could not succeed,
and therefore the bill was not honoured as it had been obtained
by fraud.
A Mr. Child proved applying to the Baron for the bill, and
told him that the transaction was altogether an imposition,
upon which the Baron said he could not return it as it was not
in his possession, and that if indeed it was lie would not give it up.
Mr. Wm. Seguere, in the service of his Majesty as keeper
and surveyor of the King's pictures, declared that the painting
was not a " Rembrandt," or that of his pupil, " Gerard Dow,"
and that instead of being worth two hundred guineas, was not
worth twenty.five.
Mr. Thomas Emmerson, Mr. Dunfar, Mr. Smith, Mr. Farrar,
and Mr. Norton, persons acquainted with the works of Rem-
brandt, and other artists, declared also that the painting was
not a " Rembrandt," and was not worth more than 101. or 15/.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE replied at some length, and contended
that there had been no warranty, and that his client was en.
titled to a verdict, and, said the Learned Counsel, " God
send we may get the money."—(Laughter.)
The CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, observed, that if
the Jury were of opinion that no warranty had been given, then
they would find a verdict for the plaintiff; but if on the con.
trary, then they would find a verdict for the defendant, and
would give such damages as they felt convinced would be an
equivalent to the injury he had sustained by such a false war.
ranty. The Learned Judge then read the evidence, and com-
mented thereon as he proceeded.
The Jury afterwards found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages 200 Guineas.

FASHIONABLE INTELLIGENCE.