The Sun.
London, England, 1828-08-07 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL.

TursnAv, Anc. 5.--High water 20 min. past seven.
W.S.W.—Arrived the Jamaica, Allen, from
Jamaica ; Carlton, Callender, from Miramiehi; Williath
Salthouse, Garnes, from Bremen; Earl Annesley,
from Bordeaux; Magnet, Watkins, from Charleston ;
Atlantic, Creary, froth Halifax ; Cassandra, Grossard,
from New Orleans; Susannah Dunn, froM Jaaiaira;
Mars, Gourlay, from Qu,hec ; James and Henry Cum-
ming, from St. John's, N.B. ; Blackstone,
from Wilmington.
CLEARED OUTWARDS.-The M‘Lellan, Higgins, for
Baltimore; Majestic, Page, for Boston ; Hermina, :Hu-
bert, for, Rotterdam ; Volharding, Tennis, for Antwerp :
Eagle, Rose, for Alexandria and Virginia ; Deveron,
M'Aulay, for Quebec; Favourite, Thomas, for Malaga;
London, Brown, for New York; Rover, Penn, for New-
foundland. •

Mr. MACREADY perfOrmed at our Theatre
five nights last week ; hut, we are sorry to say, unat-
tended with success.—Zreter Alfred..
TUNBRIDGE WELLS.—The presence of the
Duchess of KENT, whose arrival is expected en the 9th,
will give an additional lustre to the high fashion we at pre-
sent enjoy. The striking up of the music on the Parade
is the signal for a grand muster of rank and beauty, which,
even the late inclement weather has hardly prevented,—
our Colonnade affording, at such times,- a delightful shetter,
and enabling our visitors to enjoy the parade at all seasons
and in all weathers.

COURT OF SESSION, EDINBURGH, JULY S.

MOST IMPORTANT CASE.- BANKRUPT LAW.

(Abridged from. the Glasgow Herald!)

THE ROYAL BANK AND OTHERS AGAINST JOSEPH MILLER,

MANUFACTURER IN EDINBURGH; AND THE GLASGOW
BArIC, MESSRS. JAMES FINLAY AND CO., AND OTHERS,
HIS CREDITORS, AGAINST NATHANIEL GRANT, WRITER
IN EDINBURGH, TRUSTEE ON THE SEQUESTRATE!)
ESTATE.

As this case, when decided by the Court of .Ses-
sion this day, was stated by. the Judges to be one of
the most important cases that had ever come before
them in regard to the bankrupt or sequestration law
of this country, it is deemed proper to give the fol-
lowing short report of the case :
Joseph Miller, .manufacturer in Edinburgh, was
, sequestrated under the bankrupt statute on the 28th
of February, 1827, and Nathaniel Grant, writer in
Edinburgh, was appointed trustee on • his estate.
After the necessary forms had been gone through,
the bankrupt made offer of' p composition of one
shilling per pound to his creditors. Meetings were
called at the, trustees' house, for the purpose of con-
sidering these offers, and determining whether the
same should be approved of. By the 59th section
of the Bankrupt Statute, it is provided, that before
a composition can be approved of, nine-tenths of the
creditors, in number and value, whose debts amount
to 20/. and upwards, must concur and approve.
The bankrupt and his friend, seeing that the statu-
tory number could not be obtained to carry the trifl-
ing composition which• had been offered, 'fell upon
the following device for obtaining that number:—
Mr. George Miller, the bankrupt's father, had origi-
nally lodged a claim for 1421.; at the meeting for
choosing a trustee, it was increased by a second afli-
davit, to 1,`2611.;-and just before the meeting for
considering the composition offered by his son, it
had risen .by means of four additional affidavits to.
17,2971. With the view of giving his son the num-
ber required by the Statute, George Miller split
down a part of his alleged claim in 42 or 43 parts
or pieces, and having -written out as many orders,
upon small slips of paper, payable lo A, B, C, or
1), his sou wrote out a number of affidavits, and got
42 or 43 low persons 'to sign these. A mandate
was written on the back of each for a mandatory to
`attend for them, at the meeting, for taking the offer
of composition into consideration. At the meeting
accordingly, in Mr. Nathaniel Grant's house, held on
the 15th of June, 1827, for finally determining on
the offer of composition, there appeared, Mr. Geo.
Miller, Mr. N. Grant, Mr. W. N. Grant, and an-
other person, 'as mandatory for about 20 of the
people for whom old • Mr. Miller had split down a
part of his claim; and also Mr. J. Robertson for
himself, and as mandatory for about other 20 of the
people Who histgOt parts of Mr. Miller's claim, all
of whom voted for the approval of the composition
offered. Mr. George Dalziel, W.S., as mandatory
for Messrs. James Finlay and Co., of Glasgow,
creditors, objected, along with Mr. Wm. Miller, (of
Messrs. Ritchie and Miller, writers, Edinburgh), as
acting for Messrs. Levery, Bowman, and Co., on the
ground that there was not the legal statutory num-
ber and value, and that the device which had just
before the meeting been fallen upon, of old Mr.'
Miller splitting down a part of his claim amongst 42
or 43 people, was obviously illegal and improper:
The trustee, old Mr. Miller, and the other persons'
above named, fer themselves, and as mandatories for
these 42 or 43 people, declared the composition to
be,carried. Mr. Dalziel and Mr. Miller for their re-
spective constituents objected.
A petition was afterwards presented in the name
of Joseph Miller and' Nathaniel Grant, his-trustee,
kir the approval of the composition, when the Royal
Bank, Messrs. Janes Finlay and- Co., Of Glasgow,
and others',-appeared and objected. The. objectors
at the -same tinic presented an application to the'
Court for the removal of the trustee. •

Lord Justice CLERK—The question for your
LordAips to determine is, whether there are suffi-
cient grounds now before you for the dismissal of
Nathaniel Grant, the trustee on Joseph Miller's
eState. If ever there was a ease requiring the inter-
position of your Lordships, I have no hesitation in
saying, that a more flagrant, 'a mare inignitous,
or a more extraordinary case, never came before this
QoUrt since have had the honour of sitting on the
boa. The Bankrupt Statute, your Lordships are
aware, repiires that nine-tenths of the creditors,
both in number and value, should concur; and I
pray your Lordships, in .the first place, to attend to
the manner in which the value is raised. , Mv,Lords,
what do your Lordships say to a person increasing
his debt in,this 'manner, and 'at this time, from 142/:
to upwards 0f.17,000/..? The thing was so extra-
ordinary, that it was'the duty of this trustee to have
subjected old Miller's debtS, as well as his
the most rigid eiamination.: But did he do so ?
Certainly not. prey your. Lordships to obserVe
Upon what-documents these affirmations or claims
are founded. There are various acknowledgments
tacked to these new or fresh affirmations, both un-
der the hands of the bankrupt; and to which
_his fa-
ther swears. or affirms. , I do sincerely hope that
when this old man took these affirmations he was
not aware of what his son had. done,; for it is -utterly
incredible that these acknowledgments and these ni,f
&mations contain ajust state of his Claim. Anti hi
evidence of this; the Court have only to refer to the
bankrupt's own books. What-do your Lordships say
to the examination of the bankrupt, whose deposition
is,in the appendix ? I praryour attention to the ques-.
tins put to him by the gentleman whO' acted for the
complainers.." Being interrogated by that gentleman,
with reference to his father's accounts, entered in
his ledger, on folio 42; and with reference to the
entry at the bottom of the page, dated 1822, 19
ms. cash, 41004, and which appears, to be entered
with ink apparently more slew than either the pre-
ceding or following entries,—whether the said entry
was made of the date which it bears, affirms that he
believes it to have been made in January, 1826."
What do your Lordships say to such an entry as
this,—viz. 1,100/. as cash in 1822, and affirmed. not
tc§ have been entered in the ledger till 1826, and at
the bottom of a page, when both the preceding and
following entries are made in 18.22 ? But this is
mit all. There are other false entries to a large
amount. In short, the trustee has allowed this
,benkrupt to alter and fabricate his books subseqinene
tat the:sequestration. Nor were these frauds com-
mitted by the sonnlone. Look to old Miller's-exa-
tnination in regard to his bookS; Uptiti being inter-
rogated with yeference to his son's account, which is
entered in his ledger, " when the different entries
wire made, he affirms that they were inserted there
bt the aflirmant, after his , son Joseph. Was segues-
trited." And immediately afterwards he adds,
'" that lie rather,thinks they were inserted after his
ion Joseph bad applied for the approval of his com-
Eisition. There never was such a gross.. fabrica-
.tum-,of kooks-to suit a purpose, and at a lime when.
it ;was wished to make these evidence of old Mil:
lei's claim against his son. But this is not the only
viidence on the subject. Old• Miller's six affirma-
tions are in the hand-writing of his son. He frames
affirmations and acknowledgments for his father to
anti amount exceeding 17,000/. Now, I pray you to
co:nixmkt this fact With the one which appears tinder
thp banicrupt's own hand, in a letter to Messrs.
Cbchran and COMpany, dated February 1, 1827,
•olily twenty-seven days before he was sequestrated,
for he was sequeStrated in that very month. He
says distinctly to, Messrs. CoChran and Cornpany,
in: that letter, .".My Whole debts, including my
debt to my father, do not exceed 3,5001. Of
this, 1,200/. is_ due to. my father." Now, I ask,
if there be any truth in this statement, how is it
possible to reconcile it with the enormous increase
of. father's debt to the amount of 17,000/. when ,
the composition was wished to- be carried There
are other letters printed. in the appendix, written, by
the:bankrupt about the' period of his sequestration,
where he states that his debts didlhot exciect:ieriool.
Big there is one other most extraordinary in regard
to old Miller's claim. There is tacked to one of
his affirmations an acknowledgment in the following'
words Vim 2ms. 1822—,Received from Geo.
Aller, ;1,1001. to his credit. (Signed). JoSeph
11'I;i11er." Old Millers affiimation bears and affirms

that his son owes him this sum, "conform to the
annexed acknowledgment.',' Now it has been dis,
covered, on looking to the slip on which it is written,
that it could not possibly have been granted in
1822, for the paper bears, the water-mark of 1824.
It is utterly impossible that this trustee amid have
been ignorant of many of these facts. But let it be'
charitably supposed that he was so, I say that he
was.guilty of the most culpable negligence that ever
a trustee was guilty of, in not having submitted
these claims to the most rigid examination. It will
be seen immediately, however, that he was not.
ignorant of these facts, but was accessory to and
instrumental hi the fraudulent concoction of these
with the bankrupt and his father. The, next extra-
ordinary feature in this ease arises, from -old Miller,.
the bankrupt, and the trustees splitting down I,oooa
or 42001. among 42 miserable creatures whom they
get to make affidavits. A more
,abominable
was never heard of; and I say that this- trustee,,
Nathaniel Grant, was accessory to the cret4ion of
these. My Lords, I have now to, conclude by :vary-
ing that I trust your Lordships will not have a
moment's hesitation in pronouncing, a judgment,
instantly dismissing this trustee; and while I state
this, I cannot conclude without calling the immediate
attention of the
public prosecutor to this,case,. so ;iv
he may proceed criminally against the pulties who,
have been guilty of, or accessory, to, the fraud whichi
appear from these papers before us. ,
The other Judges concurred in the view takee.,o
these questions. by the Lord Justice;Clerk ; and in-
terlocutors were accordingly pronounced, refusing
the application for approval of the composition ; re-
moving Mi. Grant from the office of trustee ow the
bankrupt estate, and finding him liable in expenses,
A petition for a personal protection to the bank,
rapt, which had been superseded till these case,.
were advised, was now instantly refused.

COURT OF SESSION, SCOTLAND, Juut

(From the Caledonian Mercury.)

NOVEL CASE.--REV. W. CRAIG,•CONPLAINER, V. J. Al,

1). COLLIE, RESPONDENTS.

This case, which, as it in some, degree regarded •
`the liberty of the Press, and. the power of. the
'Court to exercise a sort of censorial power over the
reports of the proceedings of Church Courts before
publication, was one of considerable interest, erresc
out of the following circumstances :
Craig, the complainer} was settled as minister It
the Relief Congregation in Dalkeith. A few mouths'
after his settlement, viz. in autumn, 1827, charges
'of an indelicate nature were preferred against hirn.tt
:the Relief presbytery. The Presbytery discussed
them with some degree of privacy; and, without
'passing a judgment, referred the case iimpliciter to'
the Synod. The discussions of that reverend-body
'were also .in some degree private; but. when the case
'was closed,.and that degree of punishment awarded
'which was deemed requisite, the filial sentence was•
formally promulgated to the ..complainer's whole
congregation-from the pulpit. It was also the sub+
ject of a notice in some of the Edinburgh nevvspapers..
Some individuals, however, seem to., have been de-
sirous to give the matter greater piiblieity ; for
:an advertisement was issued, stating that a report of
. the whole case would speedily•be published. Craig
being desirous to suppress this publication, applied
to
.the Lord Ordinary upon the Bills for a bill of
suspension and interdict. The grounds of his appli,
cation were, that" the discussions had been conducted.
with closed doors, and. were private:. lu the use-
savers loigeti, for the Collies, their principal
.defence
was, that it is 'wholly incompetent for any-person to
seek an interdict "against the publication of the prO:-
ceedings of courts of justice; either civil or eccle-
siastieal. thegeneral case, it" is not competent
to prevent by interdict the publication of even libel-.
lons matter, however severely it -May be punished
after publication. But the reports ofjudicial .pror
eeedings are still more favoured,' for even the inaccu-
racy of :such repOrts does not, per se, found an 4c!,,
don of damages. The Lord Ordinary upon the
Bills, after considering the bill and answers,—" In
respect the judicial proceedings of the expected re-
port, of which the suspeUder 'complains, are co 4"
chided, and that the eomplainer does not and can-
not, in the circumstances, allege that it contains mat•
t.n. libellous or defaniatory, or gives'a false accotnit.
-of the res gesta, refuses the bill : 'Pin& the cow
plainer liable in expenses." Against this Craig pre-
sented a reclaiming note,* but their Lordships, can-.
sidering the ease preciiely upon the grounds which
the Lord Ordinary had stated, unanimously refused
the note, and adhered to the interlocutor reclaimed
against.
PRICES OF FOREIGN GRAIN.

DeE:ART,IttENT OE' TIER ENTAELIOR. • •
Table of the Average Price if Wheat, per Hectolitre,
in various Foreign Markets, according to the plices•cur-
rent most recently rcceiveci in. this Office:—
Places. Dates. Pricc,
London.: . • ' - ' Jahr 6
Stockholm .......: .June 27
• Dantzic - " .May 27 ... - ll 85 ! .
'- .. - 'Stettin
Amsterdam - . lune 30
Trieste June 30 n.,..:.18 7'
Naples ..: June 30 ' 12 :74 ' '
Civita Vecchia.— June 30 ...... - 14, 40 ,
Leghorn
4.,;ei10a ... June 14
Nice July 13 ....... ..... 19 50
13 14
ES aatricteartiod:ar
300
21 10
New Orleans March 30 l4 72
• France - June 30 `?,l. Sa .
The prices in general have a tendency to fall. At Ci-
vita Vecchia the decline during' the month of June' Was
4f. 45c. per hectolitre, and the Consul announces, -that
according to appearance there is reason to expect a more
considerable reduction. .
_.....