The Sun.
London, England, 1826-07-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY. (Tilts DAN.)
COMMITMENT.

His LoItDSHIP Stated that the Registrar had handed
to him proceedings in a case in which a warrant had
been issued to take two professional gentlemen into
custody, for not delivering their bills of costs. His
Lordship would of course not have signed that war-
rant without having read all the proceedings that led
to the making of the four day's order ; those proceed-
ings he had read, and he felt satisfied that if the war-
rant were now presented to the Great Seal, he could
not, and would not sign it, for this reason, that the
order had been only served personally on one of the
gentlemen. Though it could not be a very handsome
thing for one gentleman in partnership, to say he would
take advantage of the order not having been served
on both him and his partner, yet the Court thought
it right, regard being had to the practice of the Court,
to object to the irregularity. The parties would have
to serve the order again on both the gentlemen.

IN THE MATTER OF SYKES, SNAITH, AND Co.

BANKRUPTS.
His LORDSHIP considered this to be in a narrow
compass, though there had been a vast deal of difficulty
in getting at the true facts, and though it was a most
important case to the commercial world. The petition
was presented in the bankruptcy of this banking-house
in the city ; the petitioners were a Mr. Harrison and
a Mr. Hippeas. Mr. Harrison was a cash creditor of
the bankrupts to the amount of 1500/. He drew bills
of exchange on Mr. Hippeas, which the latter accepted
for the accommodation of the drawer. Those bills were
carried by Mr. H. to the banking-house, and he there
got them discounted in such a way, that he had credit
given to him in the bankrupts' books to the amount
of those bills, minus the usual charges for discount.
Messrs. Sykes, and Co. then became bankrupts, and
a petition was presented by the drawer and the ac-
ceptor, treating the acceptor as a surety for the drawer,
the bills having been accepted for the drawer's ac-
commodation, and praying that such an arrangement
might be made between the drawer and the bank-
rupts, as would go to the discharge of those bills ;
otherwise the bankrupts would go, to the acceptor for
the payment of them, and then the acceptor would
call on the drawer, who in fact was the real, though
not the nominal, acceptor, and thereby prevent his
having that benefit of them from the banking-house,
which he otherwise would have. A question was
raised, whether Mr. Harrison alone should not have
presented a petition ? Then, whether, if he had done
so, the Court would have had jurisdiction ? And,
thirdly, whether, not having done so, he was now to
be ousted of the benefit lie would have had, if lie
had presented a petition alone, and the Court had had
jurisdiction ? His Lordship's opinion was, that the
Court would have had jurisdiction, if the petition had
been presented by Mr. Harrison alone. Then came
a question—whether such a thing could be disposed
dm bankruptcy, or whether a bill ought to have been
filed? The opinion of the Court was, that it could
be disposed of in bankruptcy by a petition, and that
it was to be treated on the same principles as if a bill
had been filed. Then the concluding considerition
was, whether, if Mr. Harrison was liable on those
bills, he had not a right to have his cash-account so
settled with the bankrupts as that he should have the
benefirof the amount of those bills ? His Lordship
thought he clearly had that right, and that therefore
the order of the Court below was right. The appeal
of the assignees was consequently dismissed, and all
parties ordered to have their Costs out of the estate.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH--(Ties DAY.)
YOUNG V. HANG.L.F.Y.

This was an action brought to restrain the defend-
ant from enclosing certain waste lands, in the parish of
Cookham, in Berkshire, to the prejudice of the plain-
tiff (Sir Samuel Young) and others, who were en-
titled to commons of pasture on said lands. It ap-
peared that the defendant had lately become Lord of
the Manor of these waste lands, which he thought
proper to plant with trees in the year 1821, whereby
the growth of the herbage was obstructed so as not to
be sufficient to graze the usual number of cattle. The
plaintiff's right to commons for larger cattle, but not to
sheep, was proved, whereas the declaration stated a
right to all commonable cattle in general. The Chief
Justice pronounced the variance fatal, and the plaintiff
was nonsuited.