The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-10 00:00:00

ODDIE V. THE BISHOP OF NORWICH.

This anise has occupied - the attention of the Court at diffe-
rent intervals for several years. The question at issue is the
construction of a will. The testator, Mr. Thelluson, by his
will, directed that his estate, which was considerable, should,
after his death, accumulate for a certain number 'of years,
when it should revert to the nearest " lineal male descendant"
of his three sons living at the time he framed his testament;
and in default of any such lineal male descendants; that it
should devolve to the Crown. The property of the testiir has
accumulated to an astonishing extent ; and the point to be de-
cided is—whether ,the .words " lineal male descendants" are
used to designate descendants in a direct line from males, or
descendants through females. It appears that there are no de-
scendants of the former description, and the aintiir Oddie
claims to be considered as the nearest descendant. through a
female. His Lordship took a review of -the facts of the case.
and stated that he felt it extremely difficult to decide upon the
construction that was to be put upOn the words " lineal male
descendants." Ile said that it was his intention to send the
Case to the House of Lords for ultimate-decision; but added,
that he would again allude to it to-morrow.

•• VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 9.
HOWARD AND G}DDS'S DANKRIA'TCY.
This case having been specially ordered to stand for hearing
at three o'clock, the Court at that time was crowded to excess.
A very long discussion ensued, as to whether the petition should
uow be gone on with, in consequence of the lateness of the time
at which some affidavits had been filed; and also in consequence
of a Mr. Pearce not appearing, whose debt had been disputed,
and which disputation, if carried, would turn the balance for
the choice of assignees against the gentlemen now chosen to hill
that office. It was, however, stopped by the suggestion of the
Vice-Chancellor, that Mr. Horne should proceed to state the
grounds on which he applied for the hearing of the case out of
its regular turn.
Mr. Hn oxt then stated, generally that it was the petition of
the three first-named persons, who prayed that they might be.
chcsen Assignees, and others,. who stated that they would be
properly chosen' assignees under the Connnission ; and praying
that the Commissioners might be directed to execute a bargain
and sale to them. The. Court was aware that a former com-
mission Imam) superseded by the Lord Chancellor, and e se-
cond one issued cn'the 22d of .August. and that Mr. Shaw had
been one cf the assignees under 'the former commission, and it
would also be recollected that a petition had been presented to
remove Mr. Carrol, on the ground that his debt had been dis-
puted in consequence of a charge of usury.
Mr. HEALD said, the bargain .and sale was also to admit a
Mr: Hennon,who Was not before the Court, and therefore a post-
apponement must of necessity
The. VicE-CilikxcE tr.on said, the first point to decide was
as to the hearing of tile case. take place.
Mr. llousn again proceeded. The former order of •the
Lord Chancellor had supersede& the commission, and umler the
new commission there had been many debts proved, and many
attempted to be Proved ; and amongst them one by Mr. Carrol,
who, at the same time, 'gave notice thnt there were more, which
he intende&to prove at a future time. The Commissioners had
refused to admit the claim, on the ground of usury, and a refu-
sal to expun its nature ; and it was now for the Court to con:
sider, whether, under such circumstances, it would permit Mr.
ruptcyk
Carrol to be chosen assignee, and entrust him with the custody
of all the books, papers, and writings, niid:.e this him
He would net say that Nlr. Carrcd 'Would put them to an im-
proper Use; but lie would say that it would be doing that which
the Court always did with the inot. jealous eye, nor until a
strict inquiry had been made.
The Vic n-CnANCEI.Lou—Who are .cl;osen assignees?
Mr.,HonxE—Mr. Carrol one, Mr. Duff is another, whose
debt only amounts to trl. 7s. ad., anti it is expressly swbrn that
this debt is founded in' usury.; and the only question now is,
• whether
.or not pair is a .proper person to be assignee ? the
•
lie Commissioners thought it
other- is Mr. Wilkie.
,bas been discovered to be so
The Vicu-CiLuicELLOR—T
was not usurious.
I'Pheßnxett_gloPiciser' alSiro'bjbecuttion he liad to make. was, that the
names of &4,4,;jacakad.becri• put in by the bankrupts; and

threats had beet Used to inddee *ate§ for them ; in fici in one
instance this had been carried so far to influence one person
to refrain from attending at Guildhall. The amount of the
debts of the Co-Assignees was 17,7391. 7s. 10d. One of the
debts that cons, ituted that sum was • that of Mr. Duff; another
was proved by Mr. Pearce, under the following circumstances;
Ir. Pearce was one of the two partners who claimed a sum of
0001., and Mr. Pearce gave a warrant of Attorney, which was
only signed by himself, and which he contended was not a legal
instrument, as though one partner might prove for both, yet he
could not execute a deed for both, and consequently the proof
by the Attorney for both in the usual way•ought to be expunged.
In fact, the document itself seemed to have been got up in a hurry,
for it was written in the first person in some parts, and in the
tl7ird person in others. The. gentleman in question who voted,
was no other than the son of Mr. Howard, and the brother-in-
law of Mr. Gibbs, and it was but fair, without meaning to give
the slightest offence, to feel the peculiar situation in which he,
or any one, would stand under such circumstances. The Learn-
ed Counsel concluded by submitting, that the Assignees ought,
on the whole, to be dismissed.
The ViCE-CHANCELLOIt intimated that Mr. Home had
very properly stated the general circumstances of the case, and
observed, that Mr. Treslove would in all probability follow the
same..cdurse.

Mr, ME SLOVE said, he did not feel it necessary to trouble his
Honour farther, after the able manner in which Mr. Horne
had stated the case, and in fact, rather under than over. There
were creditors to no less an amount than 16,0001. who had not
yet voted, though they had proved their debts ; and, with re-
spect l.to Mr. CerroTs claim, he contended that it-was of the
highest importance that he should not have the custody of the
books, since there had been transactions subsequent to the year
1815 to no less an amount than 200,0001. Mr. Carrol had also
given three different accounts relative to his transactions, and
after his claim had been disputed by the Commissioners, was it
to be said that he was a proper ilerson to be chosen Assignee ?
The VICE (41ANCELt on—flas Mr. Carrol made affidavit
that he does not mean to prosecute his claim further ?
Mr. TnEstovr: said, he (Mr. Carrol) had intimated an in-
tention of petitioning the Lord Chancellor to receive his claim.
Mr. Mowraelf said, there was no petition as stated, but
there was one for 32,0001.
Mr. llonxE—Your Honour will thus see what an improper
thing it would be to suffer Mr. Carrol to have the custody of
the books, &c. under this bankruptcy.
Mr. BLAKE, in addition to the former arguments, said, such
questions had been put to Mr. Carrol as he had not deemed it.
safe to answer, and the Commissioners had, in consequence,
thought proper to refuse the admission of them. Ile contended,
that the suffering Mr. Carrel to have the books would be fraught
with the greatest danger in a judicial view of the features that
characterised the present case.
Mr. HanT, on the other side, contended, that the only ques-
tion for the Court to consider was, whether any thing had been
shewn to warrant the hearing of this cause out of its regular
turn ? Mr. Shaw seemed to forget, that he had'been joint assig-
nee under the former commission, with two of the Gentlemen
whom he now sought to displace. If there was any thing ma-
terial for the case being now heard, he thought it would turn
on the propriety of admitting the vote on Mr. Pearce's debt. -
[A conversation' of some length here ensued on the legal
point relative to the grounds on which the Court would interfere
to remove assignees.]
Mr. BE LL contended, that there could beno danger in letting
Mr. Carrol continue assignee, as he had been so thefora consider-
able time, under the former commission, and could have pos-
sessed himself of all the knowledge he might want to acquire ;
and, in fact, this had been the opinion of creditors, to the
amount of 16,0001. who remained silent, fearing no danger.
Mr. MorcmouE said, the only question was whether this ;
cause was to be heard out of turn, or an interregnum to be suffer-
ed in the prosecution of the proceedings under the bankruptcy ?
if any thing (he observed) of this case is said out of Court,
hope that it7will not be said that all that has been alleged is true,
but that part of it is true and part untrue. The Learned Cou-
nsel then contended, that Mr. Carrol was bona fide creditor to
the amount of 13,0001., which had never been disputed, and
that it had been demanded to look into all the proceedings of
Mr. Carrol, to induce the Commissioners not to admit the debt,
arising on the three bills. lie defended the, character of Air.
Carrol against the observations of the Counsel on the other side,
relative to the different answers given by Mr. Carrel, and said
he had had the books in his possession over and over again, and
had had the power, if he thought lit to use it, of gaining all that
he wanted. The law must prevail here as in other cases, and
he would .undertake to say, that the whole of the allegations
would be rebutted. When Mr. Carrol applied to Prove time
whole of his debt, it would be time enough for the Court to in-
terfere, but. at present, he contended, there was no reason for any
removal whatever. After some further observations, the Learn-
ed Gentleman concluded by submitting, that there was no rea-
son for stopping the proceedings under the Commission, or
hearing the case out of its turn.
TIieVICE-CHANCELLOR, after reviewing the arguments on
both sides, give it as his opinion, that the cause ought to be im-
mediately decided ; and at length, Wednesday next was fixed
as the earliest convenient day on which that could be done, as
his Honour could not displace those cases that were entitled
to be first- heard, though he had not the slightest objection to
sacrificing his own time after the regular disposal of other
business.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH,
,Nov. 9.

BIRCH AN]) OTHERS V. CREWE.

This, it will be recollected; was an action by the plaintiff's,
who are Bankers at Staffbrd, as indorsees of Bills of Exchange,
to the amount of 9,0001. and upwards, drawn by one Birkes,
payable to his own order, and alleged to have been indorsed by
the defendant, the Rev. Mr. Offiey Crewe, a Clergyman of the
County of Stafford. At the London Sittings after last Term, a
verdict was found for the defendant, on the ground that the sup-
posed indorsements were forgeries.
The Sesnrc rron-GENERAL now moved for a rule to shew
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial
granted, on the ground that material evidence was now in the
plaintifrs possession, which could not have been procured pre-
viously to the last trial. Ile moved on payment of costs. The
evidence to which he alluded was that of Birkes, the drawer of
the Bills, whose testimony, however suspicious. could be corro-
borated in many material partienlars. It would be recollected
that Birkes had absconded to America ; from thence he had been
since traced to Bordeaux in France, and in the month of Septem-
ber last was apprehended in the neighbourhood of the London
Docks, where lie was passing under an assumed name. Inasmuch
as the ground of defence taken at the trial was, that the endorse-
ments on the bills in question had been forged by this person,
his evidence on a new tri,.l would be of the utmost importance,
particularly •under the extraordinary circumstances which came
out at the trial, tending to prove, that an intimate connection had
subsisted betweeen him and the defendant, who, it was admitted,
had had some bill transactions with this person. After Birkes
had been taken into custody, he • was taken to Stafford gaol,
where he now remains, under a charge of not having surrender-
ed to the commission of bankrupt which had tnani taken out
against him. No charge had been preferred against bins before
a Magistrate, and therefore he Was not in the condition of a per-
son actually committed for felony. Considering the importance
of the case, and the extraordinary circumstances to which lie
alluded, he trusted that the Court would think it one which
deserved further investigation, on the terms of paying costs.—
After consulting with the other Judges,
The Cisius' JCSTICE said, we think there might to be a
Yale to chew cause, but the affidavits upon which the motion is
founded must be filed, in order to give the other side an oppor-
tunity of answering them. Our doing this, however, is not to
have the slightest weight with respect to any other case that
may be tried upon other bills, which are supposed to have been
indorsed by the defendant. -I cannot forbear stating, that from
the situation in which Birkes stands, the absolute subjection
under which some of the plaintiffs, who are the assignees under
his commission, hold him, whatever conies from him, under
such circumstances, will be received with great distrust.—
Rule Nisi granted. ' _ .