The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-07 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

GURDON V. DADCOCX. •
In this cause, -which had come before the Court on
Petition, and had been argued at considerable length
during the fast two days, Lord LANGDALE gave juug-
'Tient in the course of the day, when the hearing was
brought to a close.
It was an application on behalf of the personal re-
presentatives of the receiver, appointed under a decree
the Court, over certain estates, situated in Buck-
loghamshire and Oxford:Jibe' that the halance of a sum
of money paid by them into Court, and amounting to
972/. 19s. should be repaid them, they also standing
in the relation of creditors to the estate.
Lord LANGDALE said he could not grant the appli-
cation now made on petition, as the petitioners were
eTedithis of the estate. He should therefore dismiss
it Without costs, but without prejudice to the pe-
titioners to bring the case before the Court upon bail.

'—iCE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir JAMES WIGRAM.)
RYAN V. LOWRY.
His HONOUR gave judgment in this case this morn-
Mg. The case came before the Court upon a mo-
tion for the production of documents containing the
schedules to the defendant's answer. His Honour
Said that the facts, as far as they were material, were
these :—John Slater and Benedict Slater were part-
ners in business, as sawyers and timber-dealers,
and carried on business in Steel-street, Liverpool.
Ihe property in dispute was the subject of three
Mortgages. William Stringer was a mortgagee for
4,G00/., James Murphy for 1,5001., and Thomas
Lowry for 5001., on the same part of the premises as
William Stringer. On the 9th of May, 1829, a corn-
Mission of bankruptcy was issued against the Slaters,
and Mr. Whitnall was the assignee. On the 28th of
December, 1829, a trust deed was executed, to which
the Slaters, Whitnall (the assignee), and other per-
sons, were parties ; and the general Creditors of the es-
tate had either signed or acceded to that deed.
The clear intention of that deed was to supersede the
bankruptcy, and to distribute the property instead of
;:c4(.lllaving it administered under the commission. The
rz.business was to be carried on under certain inspectors,
",''j and the deed manifestly contemplated that the whole
"Of the property should eventually be sold, and applied
under the bankrupt laws, in the payment of debts.
1833 the defendants, James Stringer and William
lann, became the purchasers of the property, and
they had since carried on trade on the premises. The
Property was afterwards transferred, assigned, and
srfi t conveyed by several deeds, so as effectually to vest the
Pit, Property in the purchasers. Mr. Whitnall, the as-
• signee, was since dead, and the plaintiff Alexander
sa.' • Ryan was the present assignee under the commission,
qi,4
:.an4 also a creditor for-$Ol. upon the bankrupt's estate.
dot
,i•it*iiv.the Nil was filed by, Alexander Ryan, on behalf
and the others, insisting that the deed of
• ilia 28th of December, 1829, was still a subsisting
and operatiVe -deed that the sale to the plaintiffs
was void, and it prayed execution of the trusts
°f the deed of 1829, either avoiding the defendants'
?;ti Purchase, or adopting it if the sale was good. The
'2- •tlefendants, by their answer, insisted upon the validity
!: of their purchase; they had set fbrth a number of
ildoeuments in their schedule, and the motion was made
4t° Produce those documents. There were four classes
of documents in dispute. The defendants resisted the
production of the purchase deeds on the ground that
they were evidence of their own case exclusively. He
!,, • was called upon to decide whether the ground upon
which they resisted the production was sufficient or
riot. his Honour then referred to several cases
bearing on the point, from all of which he said it was
clear that a defendant might resist the production of
documents which were evidence of his own case ex-
clusively. If that were not the case the defendant
Would be absolutely without the means of defence.
The plaintiff contended that the defendants' purchase
,was void, on the ground that the deed of the 11th
December, 1829, entitled the creditors to have the
estate wound up . for their benefit. If the defendants
Claimed under that deed, questions might arise which
did not arise in the present case. The defendants, in
tact, contended that the deed of 1829 was inoperative,
and that they had a title notwithstanding, and in op-
Position to that deed. The plaintiffs insisted that the
documents in question were not exclusively evidence
Of the defendants' case, that they were also evidence
the plaintiff's ; and if upon the admissions
'II the answer it appeared that that point was esta-
blished the documents must be produced. He had
acted on that principle in the late case of Smith v. the
Ptilie of Beaufort, and that principle was borne out
"Y other cases. But did the answer give colour or
apport to the plaintiff's argument. He was of
T4ien that unless the particular frame and object of
f; ae snit, considered as a suit to impeach a deed for
d, entitled the plaintiff to inspect the documents
ch he impeached, the present motion as far as
retarded
the purchase deed must fail. He
7as satisfied that the plaintiff could not be
tntitled, only because that was the pro-
object of the suit. With respect to the
to have accounts produced, that assumed that
te plaintiff would succeed at the hearing in voiding
defendants' purchase, or at least in making him
liable to account.. The rule was, that the Court could
not,
upon, a motion for the production of documents, or
'Pon exception, try whether a demurrer would or would
11,(4 have bee; allowed. Without going into the au-
thorities he thought he could not enforce the produc-
ti°4 of those documents which related exclusively to
e account. With regard to the miscellaneous docu-
ments,
ino objection could he made to their production.
QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Lord DENMAN and a
Middlesex Special Jury.)
HEMP V. RING.
This was an action brought to recover damages for
an alleged malicious sueing out of a fiat in bankruptcy,
b 143: defendant against the plaintiff. The case, after
lasting some little time, went off, and the plaintiff was
tiouguited.