The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-13 00:00:00

THE LUDLOW AND LEOMINSTER BANKS.

EX-rARTE BURLTON, IN THE AIATTER OF COLEMAN ANS
OTHERS, BANKRUPTS. a a

This matter, which was argued originally before
Sir A. Hart, and again before the Lord Chancellor,
previous to the Christmas holidays, was disposed of
in judgment on Monday by his Lordship, and which,
but for want of room, we should have given fully
when it was delivered, as there is not only a new
point in it, but it is of considerable mercantile im-
portance, and of great consequence to many parties
in the West of England.
Thomas Coleman and Edward Wellings carried
on the business of bankers at Ludlow, under the firm
of Coleman and Wellings. Coleman was also a partner
in a banking establishment at LeOminster, carried on
under the style of Coleman, Morris, Alorris, and
Morris. A commission of bankruptcy issued against.
Coleman ,and Wellings, and soon afterwards another
issued against the other firm. The object of the
petitioners (the assignees under the bankruptcy of
Coleman, Morris, and others) was to have the Lud-
low commission superseded as far as regarded Cole-
man. Though it was the practice, in a case sufficiently
made out,oil an application to the Court, to supersede a
separate Commission, and to consolidate the separate
estate with a joint one, the new question was
whether, as was sought in the present instance, a
joint commission against two could be superseded as
to one of those two, in favour of the joint estate of
four partners; that one of the two against whom the,
commission was prayed 'to be superseded being' a
member of the larger partnership, though the other
had no connexion with the larger firm. It was con-
tended that the late act of bankruptcy gave the
Chancellor the power of complying with the prayer,
and,

His Lou:milli', in disposing of the matter, said—
" I have read the affidavits in this case. It was the
case of a commission sued out against Coleman and
Wellings, partners in a Bank at Ludlow ; there was
another commission sued out against Coleman, Mor-
ris, and other partners, in a Bank at Leominster.—
The commission against Coleman and Wellings
had priority. The application is to supersede
the commission of Coleman and Wellings, as
far as relates to Coleman. Now, in ordinary
cases, where there is a separate commission and a
joint commission, if it is for the interest of all parties,
concerned, the separate Commission should be super-
seded, in order that the joint Commission may be in
operation—it is a matter of course to do that, if a
sufficient case is made out. No instance has ever
occurred of an application of this description. The
answer which is given to that is, that it would have
been impossible to have made such an application
before the Statute of the Gth of ,George IV.; and
reference has been made to the 16th section of that
Statute, as a section by which the power is given to
the Chancellor to supersede a joint Commission,
as far as relates to one partner, without making
the Commission void. By the operation of that
clause, it is stated that the Chancellor has the
power to do what is prayed in this instance. It is
unnecessary, however, for me to give any opinion as
to whether or not the Chancellor has the power to
do that, because after reading this case, and the
affidavits, I think a sufficient case has not been made
out to warrant the interference of the Chancellor in
tile way in which it is prayed, even if he had the
power. It is stated on the part of Coleman, Morris,
and others, that no joint debts have been proved
against the estate of Coleman and Welline-s. Id
an-
swer, however, to that, it is sworn tnat joint debts to
the amount of 78,0001. have been proved under
the commission ; that a dividend of 4s. in the pound
has been actually paid ; that there is a suit in Chan-
cery actually now depending, under which 13,0001.
or 14,0001. of debts have been proved before the
Master ; that many actions at the suit of the assig-
nees; under the commission of Coleman and Wellings,

are pending, and that there is a claim made by the
assignees, under the commission of Coleman and
Morris, against the estate of Coleman and Wellings,
to the amount of 14,0004, Which the Commissioners
under Wellings and Coleman's bankruptcy have not
yet allowed. Under these circumstances it appears to
me, even if I were disposed to say, on the arguments
addressed to the Court, under the statute of the 6th of

George IV., that the Court had the power of doing
what is prayed, and which the Vice Chancellor
when the matter was before him. thought the Court
had no power of doing, I should .not exercise 'a
sound discretion if I were to comply with the prayer
of this petition. I think the effect of complying
with the prayer of this petition would be to create
great difficulty under the commission of Coleman
and Wellings, and to involve the whole of the
affairs of the estate in inextricable confusion.---
The -only ground.. on which this petition is
supported is, that contracts• have been, entered into
by the assignees of Coleman and Morris for the sale
of the real estates of Coleman. Now, at.the
the assignees entered into those contracts they-were
fully aware of the situation in which Coleman stood,
therefore,if they have entangled themselves hi that
respect, hey muse take the consequences; but it is
a sufficient answer to that to say, that in the affida-
vits it is stated that no, application, has ever been
made by the assignees under the commission of Cole-
man and Morris to the assignees under the commission
of Coleman and Wellings, to join in those contracts,
and that they state in their affidavits they are willing
to do whatever is required of them, and proper to
be done. I therefore think the ground on which
the application has been made entirely fails, and
without giving -any opinion with respect to the
Vice Chancellor's judgment, I am of opinion that
this petition cannot be sustained.
Mr. BICKERSTETII then applied for the costs on
behalf of the assignees of Coleman and Wellings',
and

His LORDSHIP ordered teem to be paid out of the
joint estate of Coleman, Morris, and others.

WELLESLEY V. THE DUKE OF BEAUFORT.

Mr. HORNE applied to-day for an order, directing
the Master to proceed de die in diem with the in-
quiry which had been ordered in this case, respect-
ing the maintenance and education of Mr. Welles-
ley's children. It having._ been intimated to the
Court that Mr. Wellesley intended to appeal to the
House of Lords against the late Lord Chancellor's
decree, and as it was likely that the appeal would
soon come on to be heard,. the Court directed that
the prosecution of part of the inquiry should be Sus-
pended ; the consequence of this suspension was,
that a petition was presented on the part of the in.
fant plaintiffs, on the 26th of July last, stating that
it was highly expedient that they should proceed to
Eton under the care of Mr,,,Pitmen„ their private tutor.
Upon this petition it was referred to the Master to
report a plan of education, to state the amount of
the allowances necessary for. their education, and the
funds from which the money was' to be taken; and
in order that the inquiry might proceed with as little
delay as possible, the Master was at liberty to pro-
secute it de die in diem; he, was also at liberty to
make separate reports froM time to time; Upon theie
matters. His Lordship then seemed to. think it
of great consequence that the children should Ise
educated at Eton, and so desirous was he that the
report might be soon made, that he had, in effel,
commanded the Master to prosecute it de die in dici,,
although in the usual courteous language of the
Court, when addressing its officers, the Master was
told that he was at liberty so to prosecute it. The
petition upon which this order was made was heard
in August last, and yet up to this hour the. Master
had made no report. The Misses Long had, how-
ever, in anticipation of what the Court would
, ulti-
mately. do, sent the children to Eton on their onni
authority. Mr. Pitman accompanied the boys, and
this- was deemed necessary even in the view which
their aunts took of the case. It unfortunately happen,
ed that in December last, Mr. P. was obliged, from
ill health, to quit the children at Eton, without evils'
communicating the circumstance to the head-master;
neither was ,Mr. lions _Wellesley informed of it.—
Mr. Wellesley having, by the assistance of lads
friends, procured Mr. Ebden, a Fellow and Tutor
and Junior Master of Trinity Hall, to undertake the
office of private tutor to his sons, went in before the
Master-with a statement of facts,-and a proposal that
Mr. Ebden Should - be appointed to the situation,
which he had `consented to accept. The other site
were perfectly apprised of Mr. Wellesley's. intention-
to urge the Master to prosecute the inquiries with
all possible speed; and that gentleman took °tau
warrant on the 15th of January. On that day Mr.
Nirellesley's solicitor attended, but no one appeared
for the opposite party. Another warrant was taken
out for the 22d January, when their solicitor's clerk
attended, and asked time to bring in proposals. This
was objected to on the part of Mr. Wellesley, but
the • objection was over-ruled, and time allowed.
This might all be perfectly conformable to the prac-
tice of the Court, but he (Mr. Horne) put it to his
Lordship to say whether these ladies, who were the
authors of all these proceedings—who had clothed
themselves with parental power—ought to have lost
a single moment in making the necessary inquiries
as to the character and competency-of Mr. Ebden.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that no man could
be more competent than Mr. Ebden. His Lordship
asked where the children now were?
Mr. HORNE replied, that they 'had lately been sent
back to Eton under the superintendence of a Mr.
Dawson. This step had been resorted to without
asking for the sanction of the Court. The Learned,
Gentleman, in conclusion, entreated his Lordship to
enable Mr. Wellesley to provide a competent tutor
for his children, and thus to fit them for that station
in society which their rank entitled them to.

Mr. Bats followed on the same side.
- The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the applica,-
tion, and entered into a long defence of the conduct
of the Misses Long, who had a-elected, in Mr. Daw-
son, a gentleman of great aegnirements. He con-
deinned, in strong terms, the affidavits made in sup-
port of the application. So far, was their•.hostility to
the Misses Leng carriedi.that they-actually charged,
by implication, these ladies with afflicting Mr. Pit-
man with that illness, which made him turn his bac*
on Eton with so much haste, as if these ladies had
actually vaccinated him with consumption--as if they
had operated on his system with the view of pro-
ducing a pulmonary affection. •
The Loan CRANCELLOR thought that the appli-
cation, if granted, would, in some measuie, cast Ten:
sure on the Master. He therefore thought it would
be.only proper to speak with the Master before any
order was made.
A long discussion took place between the Counsel
on both sides, as to the usual practice in such cases,
and.it was finally arranged that the application should
stand over until the Lard Chancellor had an oppor.
tunity of speaking with the Master on the subject.