The Sun.
London, England, 1828-12-16 00:00:00

FRY AND CHAPMAN'S BANKRUPTCY.

Yesterday a second meeting of creditors under
this commission took place at the room (No. 9,) at
the Bankrupts' Court. This was the first of the
extra meetings allowed by the Commissioners for
the proof of debts before the day fixed for the choice
of assignees. The number of creditors in attendance,
or the amount of debts proved, were neither as great
as might hate been expected on .a second meeting,
particuiarly where the engagements of the firm are
known to be extensiire..
Sonic debts were proved, -of which we did not
learn the amount.

Another wu•s for 4,0614, due to the Phoenix

Chartered Gas and Coke Company. Proof of this
was admitted by warrant of attorney to the Com-
pany's agent. This, we understood, was the largest
debt proved during the day. •
Soon after the Coininissioners had taken their
seats, their attention was called to the situation of
several individuals who it was alleged were cre-
ditors. These were the holders of cheqUes drawn
upon the bank by depositors and- paid as cash. The
holders of thoe cheques not being depositors at the
bank, had thought proper to hold them over instead
of presenting them for payment at their date, and in
the interim the bank failed. The Parties by whom
the cheques were drawn and paid aWay,..had, in
making up their accounts with the bankers, givers
them credit for the amount as if it had actually been
paid by them to the holders, and thus the ainount. of
their balances.as against the bankrupts'
,eStote was
leSsened by those sums. The question now sub-
mitted for the determination of the Conimissionets•
was, in what light the holders of those cheques
ought to be considered ? .Whether they should be
allowed to prove under the commission, or whether
they should be, referred for payment to the drawers
of the cheques, as the money had not been paid ?
It was observed that they had no legal claim on the
bankrupts, as these latter were no parties to the
transaction between them and the drawers ;- but it
was added, that as fur as the bankrupts' estate was
concerned, it could make no difference; for if the
present holders of the cheques should not be allowed
to prove, it would have the effect of swelling the
balances of the drawers by exactly that tunount.—
The question, however, is one of considerable im-
portance as bet Ween the drawers and the holders of
the cheques: for it would make the difference to
either between receiving the atnount, or credit for
-the amount, of the sum drawn for, and the propor-
tion of dividend which such a sum may ultimately.
receive from the produce of the estate.
The Commissioners said, that as the question was
one of considerable importance in itself, and as it
might involve claims to a large amount here, they
would take till next day of meeting (Wednesday) to
give their decision.
Another question was also submitted. for their
consideration. A creditor appeared to prove a debt
of 1701., which belonged to the funds of a charitable
institution. This was an institution raised by a
bequest, and the trustees were (as we understood)
appointed by the churchwardens and parish officers
.for the time being. The creditor sought to be al-
lowed to prove as one of the trustees, one of the
bankrupts being the other trustee.
The Commissioners were of opinion that one
trustee could not prove without the others, or at
least-their assentgiven in writing. It was observed
by one of the Solicitors to the Comm.ssion, that the.
parties whose names were in the bankers' book
might any of them prove for the others, as they
were the only parties who appeared in the transac-
tion.

The Commissioners said, that they were de-
scribed in the book as trustees, and the proof must
be made in the way which trustees were required to
male it. The deed of trust must also be produced.
They would, however, reserve their decision on the
point till Wednesday. In the mean time the party
applying to prove must obtain the written consent
of his eo-trustees.

Proof of anothex debt, being a balance in the
hands of the bankrupts, belonging to another charity,
and under somewhat similar circumstances (with
this difference, that it Was a charitable fund raised
by subscription and placed ►n the bank in the names
of t►ustees), was also directed to stand over to Wed-
nesday, to abide the decision of the Commissioners
in the preceding case.
Another question, involving a point of some im-