The Sun.
London, England, 1827-12-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-.(THIS -DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
IN RR icriswoaTir, A BANKRUPT.
thatMr• TomLyy, on behalf of the bankrupt, moved a petition which had been presented to stay the
:lan4"Pt's certificate might be beard on an early
iiaye the bankrupt having undergone an examination
nere" the Commissioners since the petition had been
selitedi and being now a prisoner in the King's
Bend.

onlhreid
ar;OnneDxt.CHANCELLOR ordered it to be heard

th.l?.s
ILLIS V. BADNIELL—JUDGMBNT.
Lottnsuip gave his decision in this matter,
t had been argued some time ago, to the follow-
ileffeer :—Badnell and Ellis, and three other per-
io-leiaYtied on business at Leek, in Staffordshire,
partn 4; shortly after they had entered into,
meseeershiP. it was agreed that Ellise com-
'retir atent of the following year should
sho,,e from the pattnerahip, but that no alteration
lowt,wl take place in the firm till January in the fol-
ou of Year (1827). It was further agreed, that.
should
Year (1827).
Ellis had lent to the firm, 7,1001.
18261,n Ellisterms,
e \Mild
iorett%h. e partnership business upon
After this, and at the beginning of
other
llebother partnerl:°'
of
t. usual manner. and the business went on in
wards the close of 1826 three
who had been engaged in usiness, fell into emhaiyassment, and in con-
toltleence the partnership was dissolved as far as related
The „ill,' They soon afterwards became bankrupts.
the ar''Y Person, tlierefore, who actually remained in
Aft:llllWaS
Eadnell, but Ellis's _name continued in it.
to 1)1' (de three had become bankrupts, and ;cased
it weagi/a'tni,er;, Badnell changed the firm, from what
and iAll'emre, without notice to Ellis, to Badnell
ttsietthoefior °II the Ist of January, 1827, according
t stipulation, Ellis insisted on the dissolu-
zetie; e Partnership being advertised in the Ga-
ingm, but adnell objected to this, until the follow-
tioi, and then the advertisement of the dissolu-
baigPeared.ln the very.next month Badnell became
for iii,./uPt• In this stateof things, thebond Ellis held
claim I'loo4 being both joint and separate, he had a
As tat:r.t the estate of
,Badnell for that amount.
tiers'. 18 had allowed his name to be used in the pa!t-
cre
d:Piitfollowtid that he was responsible to the joint
titiedurs. Ellis, however, contended that he was
te.ne-
-7 to to Prove upon the bohd to the amount of
nh
3 0/
he the Commissioners rejected the proof,
teivrearioned this Court to order that proof to bee re-
Nate& He also prayed, that upon indemnifying the
a ,A4' against the claim, of the joint creditors, an
he tit Might be taken of the joint debts to which
was liable, 'and that he might prove to thatllll,t against the estate of Badnell. lam of or-
a:4' (continued his Lordship) upon the arguments
in
the authorities, and, in fact; there is no doubte
ease that Ellis is not entitled to prov
.jo`itt' the 'hood for 7,1001., i.n. competition with the
tied, erLeditors. No proposition is more clearly set-
a b ,skin
that where one of two partners becomes
Pet4i,rruPt, the solvent partner cannot prove in com-
that:a with the joint creditors; he cannot diminish
Paid'rd, out of which the joint creditors are to be
creel himself being liable to the payment of those
or,.
Two All the authorities are. uniform in that.
Alineb°.r three cases at law—the case of Gibson v.
j(.:0,„-,.1" and Parker v.Ramsbottom, decided by the:
Bench, were cited for the purpose of
Pear, t°„`"l3 court to a different conclusion; but it ap:
4ie. (i" me these cases have no application to theprerel
'with ~'"esrisii at all. The question there, waseofy
Pro ip,-"Pect to the effect upon the certificate
C 4.2%,"g debts. My opinion therefore is, that the.
tl°l' '94ioners were right in refusing to permit
`° Prove in competition with the jointcreditors.
the 48 to the second part of the petition, whether
°a Commissioners should- be directed to take
13 kcount of the joint debts to which Ellis
iiable, and then upon indemnifying the
tetate of Badnell he should te entitled to
sProve to that extent o), , the case of Oglevy v. Wil-
-1 "' in 3d Vesey and Beames, page J 33, was cited.
t
atiahltt case a similar question to the present arose,
saellion the discussion of it ar-parte Young was
ecis before Lord Eldon, who said, " In both the
the cued, until all the joint creditors were paid
th
,Petitioners could not prove -in competition with
ti:r creditors ;" afterwards, however, the peti-
eets were allowed to prove on indemnifying
kept estate, therefore in point of form these cases
111 to support the present application. But the
N',t_i°o afterwards came before Lord Eldon in a
tr-eo more serious and deliberate form, in the case
~be4Parte Moore and others in the case of Sheath,
teill the whole matter was fully argued. I have
cello` note of the arguments, and of the Lord Chan-
opinion in that case, and he there most dis-
to ih'Y considered and held that it was not sufficient
iii,:deninify the estate, but that the joint creditors
all 4,he paid, or a discharge obtained from them
ci,.'efere the partner could prove. The Lord
1144.4110 r argued it on the 49th of George 111. So
ailtt ;5 Clear, the solvent partner cannot prove un-
diatil"e io'nt creditors are paid, or until be obtains
amNe from them. Under these circumstances,
allo4,l°l)inion, that no part of this petition can
Vd.
r,
applied for the
costs, 051 for the respondents,
1.4
„is t
g °libstrip thought the • case hard enough
" ,Inst 1,,
ther for'',r• s; he had lost his 7,100/- and
e he ought not to pay costs. Costs refased.

Not' T• \ICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
,
`-ourt of the slightest interest occrred in
°A go the dine of out goieng to pruess.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH•

This MERU° V. 5124.1,10165.
I 000 i .1,-„48, .an action on a bill or exchange for.
'l3l. ,i. 1, "e bill was drawn by M. de Lisle, ac
1,-jaatiiiiwtifta's.
tla'illileteddefence
ehei`:-e- "Y the defendant, and discounted by the
set up was, that the transac-
tharged
.itfhor udsisucrayu,nttihneg pthlaeinbtiiliff. having
a AugusitiuiPtrecerwi.t
foreigner Lisle, the drawer of the bill, who is
tic, -- ' stated dial he had arranged the Winne-
n with a person named Coates, who acted as the
'tent for Meego.
Zell, and m both cases Meego gave a cheque on
There were two bills for 1,000/.
,he,urs. Haenmersley, his bankers, for the full sum,
. -I deducting the regular discOunt; but the cheque
bl'ati handed to Coates" who had it cashed, and kept
~4.°L 10 per cent. more on each of the bills. The
:nit4tl:ll% stated that his object in raising the motley
pres:'e bills was to establish a theatre for the re-
el, of French plays.
plis°4;o?tainined by Mr. GURNEY.—I was in the
month 01 La Force in 1813, and continued until the
those of August 1816. 1 was not in prison during
quite base yeari on a charge of fraud or swindling;
in wr: contrary. I was a state prisoner. I was
until 6m-r:t 'gain in June 1817, and remained there
I was Y IfiBlB. I don't i ecollect on what charge
hwindr 74 -4ed- I believe it was something of
Prese' in—
; I know it was something about me re-
levrenting myself as belonging to the firm of Le-
taini an.d r
v d,,, -0., eminent bankers in Paris. I co.:-
44)(4Q of 13
j ' acue t bills in the name of Lefevre to the
offeriee 6,0004 or 10,0001; I was tried for that
by a "' and sentenced to two years' imprisonment,
cour it3ettY court at which I did not think it neces-
, Sary to
defend myself • but upon my appealing to a
of hiegand h jurisdi myself;
I was honourably acquitted,
-aw dds ' • • I t
,d. 1
ear e 000/. damages for being unjust y arres -
n ame to Enland in ken
aloe of Count 1818, and might have taken
tto in de Lisle; don't remember doing
0.1... any particlar instance. I remember having
.44,td engraved in the name of Count de Lisle. I
findlli, Ilorsemonker-lane gaol in 1519. I did not
(1.,„41Y way there at all-...i
4 t ) When '
hoots. Yr In gaol was taken there.
I mended shoes and
that I .a
The Queen of France did the same, so
senor ask snot ashamed to confess it. The Coun-
shall nots 111 things .hurt
his own ohwisnt re
si,
ese to my temper, but he
seed. (Laughter.)
French
iged 2 proceeded to give the follow-
The witness,
wit, obrY °f
toles life :.....At the age of nine years I
fly from France on account of the
ite"luticm ; but after some years returned

;lf
~: f

4

. '