The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-02 00:00:00

Iti-PARTN NOLTY IN THE AIATTER OR CROWDER.

His LORDSHIP occupied a great part of the morning in
giving judgment in this matter. It came before him npou
a petition of appeal, which prayed that an order made
by his Honour the Vice-Chancellor might be. reversed.
The short history of the case was, that Crowder, Perfect,
and Clough, carried on business as factors and consignees
at Liverpool. Mr.' Clough went abroad, and had au-
thority to purchase , cottons to a certain extent. When
abroad, he entered into speculations to an enormous
extent with the House of Nolte and Company. He re-
presented to Nolte and Co. that be appeared on behalf of
himself and his partners in Liverpool, and that his Liver-
pool house would guarantee the transactions he entered
into. One question, therefore, which arose was, whether,
upon certain letters that were produced, Crowder, Per-
fect, and Company, had either in express terms ratified
that guarantee, or had given Mr. Clough authority to
give it, or whether they themselves, by the adoption of the
transaction he had entered into, had matured that guaran-
tee into a contract, that the Liverpool house would be
answerable for all the transactions that took place between
the parties? Cotton to a large extent had been sent to
England for sale, with a view to enable the parties here
to meet bills that had been drawn for the payment
of those cottons. The • cottons were sold at a
great loss. Messrs. Crowder, Perfect, and Co.,
because bankrupts ; another commission was taken out
against Mr. Clough and two other Gentlemen of the name
of Lazarus and Weaman, with whom he had entered into
partnership ; and a separate commission was taken out
against Mr. Clough ; and the great question for the Court's
decision was, Whether the house of Nolte and Co., were
entitled to prove against the house of Crowder, Perfect, and
Co.? Upon the best eonsideration his Lordship could give
to the matter, after reading the whole of it over and over
again, he was of opinion, that Nolte and Co. were entitled
to make such a proof. He therefore reversed the order of
the Court below.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

ER-EART"R MACHEATH IN THE MATTER OF MACHEATH,

This was the petition of the bankrupt, praying that the
commission sued out against him on the 14th of April
1826, might be superseded, on the g..ounds that he was
not upon that day indebted in the sum of 1001. to Mr.
Cooke, the petitioning'creditor, and that lie had not in fact
committed any act of bankruptcy.
Mr. ROUPEL, who appeared in support of the petition,
stated; that Cooke's debt purported to be due on a bill of
exchange, which, however, did not bear date until after
the date of the commission. - This fact would appear on
referring to certain proceedings in the Court of Common
Pleas.upon an action of trespass, brought by the bankrupt
against Cooke and his assignees, for turning hins forcibly
out of his bonze.
oppesed the petition, and declared the ap-
plication to be the most infamous proceeding that ever came
under his observation. The bankrupt, as was said, brought
an action for trespass, and certainly the verdict was in his
favour, but the damages given to him as a compensation for
the grievous injary complained of were one farthing and no
more. But the matter did not rest there ; for the Court after
wards set aside this verdict, and directed a nonsuit to be
entacd up. Thu case was alguel at considerable length;
and the Lord Chief Justice, in pronouncing the decision of
the Court,,observed to Mr. Sergeant Wilde, who was one
'of the Counsel -for the bankrupt, that the Jury at
the trial believed all his witnesses to be perjured.—
it would appear that the bankrupt was not de-
terred 'by this declaration of his Lordship, for he
subsequently preferred an indictment against his assignese
and the messenger under the commission. The trial came
on in last February at the Clerkenwell Sessions, when the
bankrupt, as if he anticipated what mast be the result, did
not show himself in Court, and the defendants were ac-
qUitted. The bankrupt, whose whole conduct was
characterized by vexatious attempts to herrass and annoy
his assignees into terms, gaye notice of another action.
He thought that by subjecting these gentlemen to ruinous
law expenses, he might in
.the end succeed . is extorting
such terms from them, as justice .would never have com-
pelled them to give. Under these circumstances, the
learned gentleman trusted that his Honour would not con-
sider the bankrupt entitled to any indulgence from the
Court.
of Corunion'Pleas. No opinion could
judicially on that point upon that
the Vzcz2Cnika:ctmeLpsiolninhag,iivninogt jbueetlgnmdeentet,rmsaiinde,tilibayt
n
the
aiave ba
been
:Pnn t°gh(i ey-te-liC,
trial, inasmuch as the question had not been put in
issue. The bankrupt, however, had the opportunity
of trying it, and the question for his Honour's consideration
now was, whether a bankrupt, who had not availed him-
self of the opportunity then afforded, was now entitled to
the interference of this Court.

His iioNourt was of opinion that the bankrupt, in hav-
ing neglected the former opportunity, forfeited the right to
call on the Court for indulgence. He must therefore dis-
miss the petition, and leave the bankrupt to try the validity
of the Commission at law.