Star.
London, England, 1808-04-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APRIL .111.
J. AND It. RAMSI3OTHAM AND CO. v. JOHN LEWIS AND

JAMES WEST.
This was an action on a bill of exchange, drawn by
Messrs. Moffat and Brown, on the 12th of Novembcr,
1807, at two months, on the Defendants, and accepted

by them : the amount was 4961. 4s. Sd.
Mr. G.% TtliOW, for the Plaintiffs, said, that his
clients were bankers, with whom Messrs Moffat and
Brown, indigo-blue manufacturers, opened an account
on the 216th of June, 1806. On the 16th of Novem-
ber, 1807, the hill in question was written in short in
the bankers' book, and on the following day, the
bankers' account was over-drawn on the credit of that
bill. Subsequently, Messrs. Moffat and Brown failed,
When they weroindebted to the Plaintiffs in the sum
of 11171. On the authority of the recent case from
Birmingham, of Giles v. Perkins, the Learned Coun-
sel contended, that the Plaintiffs had a lien upon this
bill. He said, that he himself had unsuccessfully
moved for a new trial on that occasion, the Learned

Judges being of the opinion for which he had now to')
contend.
Two witnesses, of the names of Porter and Graham,
proved the signature, the acceptance, and the indorse-
ment to the bill.
Mr. PARK, for the Defendants, said, that the ques-
tion was not whether his clients were liable to their
own acceptance, but if the Plaintiffs were clothed with
the right to sue for the amount of this bill ? Messrs.
Moffat and Brown had committed an act of bank-
ruptcy prior to the time when Brown indorsed, in the
partnership firm, this note to the Plaintiffs, and'on the
authority of the case of Fox v. Hanbary, such indorse-
ment was invalid and nugatory.
Lord ELLF.NBOROUGII.—" Your case is, that the
indorsement was made after the dissolution of the part-
nership by bankruptcy."
Mr. PARK resumed, that his Lordship knew that the
Lase of Pinkerton v. Adam was also in point. There
the man became bankrupt six days prior to the indorse-
ment, and it was held, that so circumstanced, he could
convey no property to the Plaintiffs. The doctrine in
Raikes and Perrot, and in Fowler and Paget, was also
applicable. in the present case, the act was com-
mitted on the 20th of October, when Mr. Moffat kft
the kingdom to elude his creditors. The bill was not
paid into the hands of the Plaintiff's until the 16th of
November following.
Mr. Brown being called as a witness, was objected
to by the Counsel fir the Plaintiffs, on the ground
that he was not released by the Defendants. This
objection being over-ruled, he deposed, that he left
the bill with the Plaintiffs for the purpose of being
discounted, or at least of being allowed to draw upon

its security.
Newman, the groom of Mr. Moffat, gave evidence
to the departure of his master for the Continent in
October. On his cross-examination by Mr. GARROW,
he said he was ignorant that his master intrigued with
Mrs. Lucas of Cheapside ; but he knew that Mr.
Moffat kept company with her, and had heard that
she went off with him when he left the kingdom. He,
himself, was sent by his master to Shrewsbury, where
Mr. Moffat said he would meet him:
Mrs. Cordingly said, that she knew Mr. Moffat ;
that she went to Harwich, and that on some Sunday
in October last, she accompanied him and Mrs.
Lucas, with a child, on a voyage to Gottenburgh.
She acted in the capacity of a servant, and the Gen-
Aleman and Lady went by the name of Rawlinr.'
Mr. Galtnow.—" It is, I suppose, admitted that
they cohabited together ?"
Mr. PARK.—" Yes."
Mr. R. Staley, the cleric of Messrs. Moffat and
Brown, was next called to prove an act of bankruptcy
committed by Mr. Brown, which was stated to be'on
the 27th of November last.
Mr. GARROW, in reply, argued, that the defence
Was insufficient. It wai supposed that the indorse-
ment was bad, because it was made after the bank-
ruptcy of Moffat and Brown ; and the act of bank-
ruptcy said to be committed, was the departure of
Mr. Moffat from the realm ; but, although this gen-
tleman left England for an immoral purpose, he did
not abandon his country to defeat his creditors; he
forsook it under the impulle of passion, to run away
.with another man's wife, where he might indulge his
lawless purposes without interruption. Yet if he had
the design to delay his creditors, and had concealed
his intentions from bis partner, it would not operate
so as to produce the bankruptcy of the partnership.
Mr. Brown was so far deceived, as to suppose Mr.
Moffat went to Ireland to marry a woman of large
fortune, competent to redeem the concerns of the
partnership. On these grounds, the learned Counsel
trusted, that his clients were entitled to the verdict.
Lord ELLENBOROLVII said, that the only question
was, if the departure of Moffat from the kingdom
was, or was not an act of bankruptcy ? By the evi-
dence it appeared, that he went abroad to live in adul-
tery with tars. Lucas, where they passed under the
name of Rawl*, while the servant, for the purpose
of concealment, was sent ta Shrewsbury. Did he,
or did he not so leave the kingdom, with the intent,
or to the effect of defrauding or delaying his credi-
tors ? In Rawlins and Perrot, the party was under-
stood to intend, what in effect was the delay of his
creditors ; there he left England with a young lady,
and the bills he had to pay, unprovided for the fol-
lowing day, were held to construe his intention.—
Woodyear's case was that of murder, and it was
therefore presumed that he went with an intention
not to return to this kingdom. In this case, there
Rprars to Lave been no pressure for money at the
time Mr. Moffat forsook the country.
Verdict for the Plaintiffs 5041.
DISH v. DneiIAMANT.
The Plaintiff is a Lottery Office-keeper, the De-
fendant is a Dentist. It aprpirethat Defen-
dant, On the occasion of the of Lord Lau-
derdale for Paris, had determined to speculate in
scrip, And had ordered his Broker, the Plaintiff, to
purchase for him to the extent of 30,0001. The dif-
ferences amounted to about 24001. against the De-
fendant, which he refusing to pay, this action was
brought. Before the Plaintiff had concluded his
evidence, by mutual consent, the decision was refer-
red to Mr. CONST, Counsel for the Defendant. His
• Lordship observed, that no bargains in stock for time
were valid, unless the persons with whom the con-
tracts were made, were at the time of the engage.
/neat in pessesion of the stock. It seemed also to be

~~ t