The Sun.
London, England, 1826-10-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH—GUILDHALL--.(Tuts DAY.)
lIONOURABLI JUST INDIA COIIPANY tf• AND

HENRY HUNT.

Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated the case to the Jury.
This was an issue directed by his Honour the Vice-Chan-
cellor, and the question to be tried was, whether on the
Ist of July, 1822, there existed any, and what debt, due
from John Carr to the plaintiffs, so as to charge therewith
his separate estate. The defendants were the assignees of
John Carr, who had become a bankrupt. The history of
the case was to this effect :—ln the year 1809, a gentle-
man, of the name of Wm. Hope, having for a long time
been storekeeper at Madras, and having made his fortune,.
determined to return to his native country (England) with
his family, to live upon his fortune. He transmitted part
of his property, according to the custom of remitting money
from the East Indies, drawn in Exchequer Bills by the
Governor of Madras; the amount thus sent was upwards of
24,000/. by bills in different parts, which got into the hands
of Mr. Carr. The bills were drawn in Jan. 1809, and in
the same month Mr. Hope, with his family, left Madras
on board the Lady Jane Duchess of Gordon, having parts
of the bills with him—the other parts having been sent by
another ship. On the 14th of March, in the same
year, the Lady Jane Duchess of Gordon was seen in a
heavy storm, which was the last time she ever was seen
or heard of, and therefore there was every reason to sup-
pose that at that time she must have gone down, and
diet all on board perished. Mr. Carr had originally been
a partner with Mr. Hope in business in the East Indies,
and after his return to London had for many years acted
us his agent in this country. The bills in question that
came into his hands were presented at the East India-
house inlthe month of July, 1809, and were drawn pay-
able at three months after sight. The bills requiring
the indorsement of William Hope himself, before they
could be paid, Mr. Carr indorsed them in his character
of agent to Mr. Hope, producing at the same time a
general power of attorney, which at the moment was sup-
posed to be a sufficient authority to enable him to make
the indorsement. At this time Mr. Hope was no more
and therefore that power of attorney, in law,
.had been,
revoked, though the circumstance was not known here at
the time; it also turned out upon a more minute examina-
tion into the terms of the power of attorney, that it did
not authorise him to endorse bills of exchange. The bills
haiing been thus indorsed by the East India Company,
Mr. Carr subseqUently indorsed them "over to Barclay,
Perkins, and Co.. his bankers, to whom the amount in cash
was paid in October, and placed to the credit
of Messrs. Carr and Davis, by their bankers. In
the Spring of 1812, a gentleman, of the name of
James Murray, having the character of administrator to
the deceased Mr. Hope, applied to the East India Com-
pany for the payment of the 24,0001. to him, the applica-
tion was refused, and an action against the individual
Directors was the result; before this action could be tried,
Mr. Murray died. Administration was then taken out by
Mr. John Murray, who thought proper not to renew or
carry on the action against the individual Directors, but
to institute one against the Company. This action was
brought in 1816, tried in 1819, and the judgment of this
Court not delivered upon it till 1821, when the Court de-
cided that the Company ought to pay the money to Mr.
Murray, which they did, amounting, with interest and
costs, to more than thirty-five thousand pounds. From some
extraordinary coincidence of circumstances, on the very day
on which the Court gave judgment in favour of Mr. Mur-
ray, and on that very day on which the money was paid,
but before it was paid, Mr. Carr became a bankrupt, though
till that moment, Mr. C. had been considered a solvent
merchant in the city. Whether the idea that the East
India Company would call on Mr. Carr for the money
back had any weight or not, the learned solicitor would
not undertake to say. From the moment the application
was first made to the East India Company for the second
payment of the money, both Mr. Carr, and Barclay Tri-
ton and Co:, had been apprised of it, and no step had been
taken but what they had been informed of, and reference
made to them as the parties liable to refund the money if
it had been wrongly paid. The notice of the claim had
been given from time to time, and therefore it was hoped
the kettle of limitations would not be considered to apply.
W. Bell examined by Mr. SCARLETT—Wit 3 a clerk
with Messrs. Barclay, Tritton and Co.; they were the
bankers of Messrs Davis and Carr. Witness received the
money in question from the East India House on account
of Mr. Carr.
BY Mr. MARRYATT Mr. Cares account with Bardayi
Tritton and Co. • t account of Davis and Carr, but
did not know the v" a johand-wlini'ting
Richard Perry Davis.he body of
was clerk to Mr. y
the intlorsemen Mr. Davis's hand-
either_oafv
_l6).avis or Carr.
writing, but the cltli! bills was hand-
l' Carr was in the
writing ae, „ signature "
By Mr. Carr,
„,.
subsequent indorsement
on the bills of t nere is a
the hand-
writing of Davisl'al, and Carr, which
t in
reference to
the books, know that Carr
not, deep- from
the aril. had no benefit from
s of these hills proceeds
went to the Recount Of
Davisnit
Davis and
the whole in
the books was not in the ha d. and Carr. The entries
.1_
Shad no knowledge of the facts 'writing of witness, and 11
but as they appeared in the
books.
George Potter, a clerk in the
Treasurer's office of the
East India Company, Paid the
amount
clay, Tritton and Co.billss rad ut of the bills to Bar-
been previously ac-
cepted by Mr. Ramsay, the treasilrer.
i As the bills were
indorsed by procuration, the power
of attorney supposed
to authorise it, was entered in the book now produced.
(The terms of the power were
here read.)
By Mr. MARRYATT—in general
the Court of Directors

require powers of attorney to be left for sonic days with
them, upon the validity of which they exercise their own
judgment.
Vizar was attorney 'for Davit and Carr, and pro-
duced the power of attorney in question to the East India
Company.
Healing was attorney, first for. Mr. James and
then for Mr. Murray. Had the letters of administration
for both. Witness brought the first action against the
plaintiffs, and during that time had communications with
the last witness as the attorney
.of Davis and Carr.
Several letters were now put in and read, which passed
between the attorneys respecting the claim, and insisting on
it from time to time on the part of Messrs. Murray.
The particulars of the bankruptcy of Mr. Carr were
proved. _

Vizard recalled—Upon the dissolution of the part-
nership between Davis and Carr, witness became concerned
for the latter only.
Stafford Spurr was concerned as attorney for Mr. Davis.
There were many meetings respecting this matter about
six or eight years ago, but could not recollect attending
any of them.
Lawford attended some of the meetings in his
character of attorney, Mr. Carr and Mr. Spurr also attend-
ed some of them.

Mr. MARRYATT addressed the Jury on behalf of the de-
fendants. He thought the case was any thing but made
out on the part of the plaintiffs. The questions for the
Jury were, first, whether the plaintiffs were at liberty to
prove any debt whatever; anti next, if they were, whether
they were entitled to charge the separate estate of Mr.
Carr with that amount ? The law was, that if the plain-
tiffs had a claim against the joint estate of Davis and
Carr, they could not come against the separate estate
of the latter, until after all the separtxre creditors had been,
paid 20s. in the pound. It was also clear that unless the
debt had been admitted within the period of six years from
the bankruptcy, all claims would have to be considered as
barred, by the Statute of Limitations ; and here, he
thought, it was evident that the Statute could apply; but
the Learned Counsel's strong point, and indeed the whole
case was, that there never was any debt whatever, provable
against any body. Throughout the whole of the long
string of correspondence that had been read, between the
:tummies of the plaintiffs and Messrs. Murray, it did not
appear that the slightest intimation had been made to Mr.
Carr, or to Messrs. Davis and Carr, that they would ever
be called upon to refund the money, until by a letter of
the 4th of December, 1821, both Mr. Carr, Mr. Davis, and
Messrs. Barclay, Tritton, &Co., were informed by the attor-
ney of the plaintiffs, that they should all be held liable for the
money. It was conclusive, therefore, that the Statute of
Limitations did apply. It was not only necessary that
notice of a debt should be given, but that admission of the
debt, and a promise to pay it, should be made, to take
it out of the statute. The East India Company had
paid the money upon the indorsement of Mr. Carr,
under the power of attorney, upon the validity of
winch the Company exercised their own judgment,
satisfied themselves that they ought to pay the money under
it, and therefore they had no power to receive that payment
from any beingin ex istence,much less from Mr. Carr's separate
estate, he never having received a shilling of the money
separately, but the whole haiing gone to the joint account
of him and Davis. The Learned Counsel therefore relied
on the Jury finding their verdict in favour of his client.
The Learned JUDGE said there were a great many
most important points here, on which it was hardly to
be expected all parties would be satisfied with his in-
sulated opinion ; if the parties however wished it, lie
was ready to address the jury on all the points, or was
willing to leave it upon a special case, to be argued be-
fore the full Court.

Upon a consultation at the bar, it was agreed that the
Learned Judge should leave the question to the jury, whether
there had been such a recognition on the part of Mr. Carr
of an existing debt, as to take the case out of the Statute
of Limitations.

The Loan CHIEF-JUSTICE then summed up, leaving
this question to the Jury. Upon the questions, Whether
the plaintiffia had a right to sue others than Barclay, Trits
ton and Co. ? and if they had--whether they had aright to
go usliinst the separate estate of Mr. Carr, in preference to
the joint estate of Davis and Carr? the Court's opinion
was in favour •f the plaintiffs.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the
sum due, 23,3821.

WESTMINSTER 'SESSIONS.-(THIS DAY.)

The above Sessions commenced this day before Mr.
MARRIOTT. The morning was occupied in swearing in
the Grand and Petty Juries, and constables for the county
of Middlesex, and all further proceedings were adjourned
to Monday next, when the attendance of the Juries will
be required at Hicks's Hall, Clerkenwell.