The Sun.
London, England, 1845-10-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Oct. 22.
(Before Mr. Commissioner EvArts.)
WESTRUP AND COCKSEDGE'S BANKRUPTCY.

The bankrupts in this case were flour factors and biscuit
manufacturers, carrying on business at New Crane Wharf and
Northfleet. Cocksedge has obtained his certificate, and
Westrup now applied for his.
The application was opposed by Mr. Cook, and supported
by Mr. E. James.
The grounds of opposition were, the generally fraudulent
conduct of the bankrupt towards his partner Cocksedge, and
the consequent sacrifice of the creditors. It was al-
leged, that although the business was in an insolvent
state when Cocksedge was induced to join it, West-
rup made representations that his affairs were in a flou-
rishing and progressive position. Under these circum-
stances Cocksedge, after having advanced a considerable
sum of money, purchased for upwards of 3,0001, the re-
tiring partner's share, and it was then stated that a firm of
the name of Fmnis and Fisher owed the concern 1,750/. It
however subsequently appeared that such was not the case,
and that the firm of Westrup and Co. were its debtors fur
500/, which sum Westrup act' ally paid them. This con-
duct was alleged to be grossly fraudulent towards Cocksedge,
who, in the course of hit partnership, had allowed about
32,000/. to be raised by mortage on his property in Bury
St. Edmund's, a great deal of which had gone for the pur-
poses of the firm. The bankruptcy was for 18,0001., and a
dividend of ls. 6d. in the pound had been paid. There were
other allegations against Westrup, but on this charge of
fraud rested the weight of the case. The prayer of the op-
ponents was that the bankrupt be refused his certificate
altogether, as he was not a fit person to be allowed to enter
into business.

Mr. JAMES said he hoped witnesses would be called to
prove these allegations. '1 he opposition, though represented
to be that of creditors, was in reality the opposition of
Cocksedge. Cocksedge ought at least to be called, and his
examination would soon show what weight there was in the
allegation of fraud.

Mr. Commissioner EVANS s.id the charge of fraud was
borne out by the proceedings. He, therefore, saw little use
in having Cocksedge examined. He would, however, give the
bankrupt Westrup the opportunity to examine Cocksedge by
granting an adjournment, but the expenses could not be paid
by the estate.
➢ir. JAMES regretted to hear that from the Commissioner.
He hoped by examination to have removed the charge of
fraud from the bankrupt.
Mr. Commissioner EvArts said it appeared clearly on the
proceedings that the bankrupt Westrup had represented
Finnis and Fisher to be debtors to the concern for 1,700/.,
whereas, on the contrary, they were creditors for 500/., which
5001. had been paid; and nothing of this was brought to
light till it was investigated by the official assignee. Cock-
sedge knew nothing of this, and if he was called it was not
likely they would hear that he did. To have consented to
join such a person in a state of affairs of this description
would have proved him a fool—an idiot. Although it might
be said that Cockseige had been in some measure indiscreet,
still be ought to be protected. He would therefore not make
the adjournment without Westrup bore the expenses.
Mr. JAMES said, the bankrupt could not afford to do that,
and it was pressing hard upon him to require it.
Mr. Commissioner EVANS replied that as be considered the
bankrupt's conduct to have been grossly fraudulent, he should
make no other proposition. Even had Cocksedge consented
to the fraud, it remained with the Court to consider what the
conduct of the bankrupt had been in his dealings.
Mr. JAMES feared there was little use in proceeding with
the case if his Honour had made up his mind.
Mr. Commissioner Evaxs said, the frond was so self-evi-
dent that there was no other alternative. If the creditors
were satisfied, they could release the bankrupt. There was
the otter open of adjournment, if he chose to accept it.
Mr. JAMES hoped the Court was not giving a hasty de-
cision.

Mr. Commissioner EVANS said that was scarcely possible.
He had had the case under his attention since October, 1844,
and every time it came before him he was the more convinced
of the fraudulent. nature of the bankrupt's conduct. Under
these circumstances, he felt it was his duty to the public to
refuse the certificate.—Certificate refused accordingly.
PETER BORDENAYE'S INSOLVENCY.
In tL•is case the insolvent was described as a gentleman
without occupation. He had incurred a large amount of
debts without assets to satisfy them, and as it appeared his
prospects in life never warranted the accumulation of liabili-
ties arrayed against him, the Court ordered his petition to be
dismissed forthwith.