The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-20 00:00:00

MEETINGS OF CREDITORS.

COUNTRY DlARY.—TuEsnav, JULY 24.
Bingley, G., New York (U. S.)--Royal hotel, Birmingham
Blogg, W., Norwich—Norfolk hotel, Norwich
Corbett, J. Austrey—Quecn'a Head, Ashby
Farrner, W., Bath—Greyhound, Bath
Fea and Co., Kingston-upon-Hull—Dog and Duck, King-
ston-upon-Hull
Field, J. and Co., Skelmanthorpe—Court of Requests, Hud-
dersfield
Green, D,, Upton-upon-Severn—Otlice of Mr. Bird, Upton
Hhiling, S., Birmingham—Royal hotel, Birmingham
Hinchcliff; J., Holmfirth—Court-house, Huddersfield
Hudson, T. York—Burland's house, York
Jennings, S., Birmingham—Royal hotel, Birmingham
Jones, T., Shrewsbury—Red Lion, Chester
Kilner, W. and Co., Huddersfield-01lice of Mr. Peace,
Huddersfield
Kinll, H., Cheltenham—Commercial rooms, Bristol
Lee, Leicester—White Hart, Leicester
Lomax, J., Stockport—Bulkeley Arms, Stockport
Melling and Co., Liverpool—Mr. Wood's, Liverpool
Phillips,H., Stepney-house, Yorksh.—Elephant and Castle,
Scarborough
Skyrme, W., Worcester—Rummer, Bristol
Spencer, R., Liverpool—Mr. Prest, Liverpool
Thompson, J,, Mappleton—King's tavern, Derby

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 19.
PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY.

Mr. LOVATT applied, at the rising of the Court, for per-
mission to make a motion under that part of the new Bank •
ruptcy Act which directs the enrolment of proceedings
under a commission, and declares that unless they are so en-
rolled, they shall not be received. as evidence in any Court
of Law. • _ _

The LORD CHANCELLOR directed the motion to be made
on Saturday morning, which would be in time for the Assizes.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

icnr.lis AND OTHERS V. CONGREVE AND MACLEAN.

This was a case in which five persons named lichens,
Moxon, Parker, Morgan, and Fryer, shareholders in the
Arigna Mining Company, filed a bill against Sir William
Congreve and General Maclean, Directors of the Company,
in order to compel the refunding of 15,0001., alleged to
have been fraudulently divided among certain persons of the
Company.
Mr. HEALD, for the defendants, applied for leave either
to strike out certain parts of an answer which his clients
had put in to a bill filed by the plaintiffs, or to take the
whole of the said answer off the file. The grounds of his
application were these :—Three of the plaintiffs originally
filed a hill against the defendants to compel them to refund
the sum of 15,0001. which had been fraudulently divided.
To that bill the defendants had put in an answer, in which
they admitted the obtainment and division of the sum of
15,0001. as charged in the bill, but denied that the plain-
tiffs had any equity, and for these reasons—the plaintiffs
purchased the shares under which they made their claim
from clerks and servants of the company, who had re-
ceived such notice of the transaction respecting the 15,0001.
that they could not complain ; and the plaintiffs consequently
were in the same situation, having purchased the interest of
these persons. The plaintiffs finding this objection to
be good, added to themselves two other plaintiffs, Morgan
and Fryer, who were original shareholders, and who
had no notice of the fraud. Having thus made good
their claim in equity, they proceeded with the suit,
and endeavoured to avail • themselves of the admis-
sions which the defendants had made only to the first
three plaintiffs. Leave Was therefore asked to strike out
some points of the answer, or to take it off the file
altogether. The Learned Counsel contended that his clients
had been entrapped into admissions of charges which
they knew could not be supported, and which came from
persons whom they knew had no remedy in equity, even if
the charges they made were true. It was with know-
ledge of the want of equity of the first three plaintiffs, that
his clients had made admissions, and it was on account of
this want of equity that they had made such admissions.—
If they had been aware that other plaintiffs were to be added

—that new plaintiffs, possessing a very different interest
from the original plaintiffs, were to be introduced—they
could have qualified their answers very materially, and
could have added such explanations as would have altered
the appearance of those answers altogether. His Honour
was very well aware that many things were frequently ad-
mitted in an answer, not hecause they were true, but be-
cause they were not material, and, consequently, it would
not be worth while to enter into lengthy explanations re-
specting them. This was the case in the present answer;
and he therefore trusted that his Honour would allow that
answer to be withdrawn, in order that another, more suit-
able to the case, as it had been altered, by the introduction
of new plaintiffs, might be put in.
Mr. HoitAcE Twist followed on the same side.
Mr. HoRNE opposed the application.
Mr. SUGDEN also opposed the application.
Mr. HEA LD replied. •
The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the de-
fendants must be bound by the admission of their solicitor,
that the answer was to remain as against all the defendants,
and by the proceedings which had been taken subsequent
to that admission, In his judgment, the defendants would
not be dealt at all hardly by if it was refused them to with-
draw their answer. If there were any circumstances of
an explanatory or extenuating nature—if there were any
circumstances that could mitigate the effects of such an
answer as the defendants had put in, be should certainly
take them into his consideration when the cause came be-
fore him for,hearing. He therefore felt himself bound to
refuse the present motion with costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 19.
ROBINSON V. STANBRIDdE.
This was an action of contract, in which the plaintiff
sought to recover the value of a quantity of tallow, which
the defendant had contracted to purchase from him.
In his defence, the defendant insisted that the con-
tract was merely a time-bargain on the price of the tallow.
The contract was not produced, but it appeared from
the evidence of the witnesses called, that a time-bargain
with respect to stock had been entered into between the
parties just about the period of the alleged contract for

tallow.
The LORD CHIEF hinter summed up, leaving the case
in the hands of the Jury on the facts they had heard stated,
observing, however, that should they be of opinion that
this contract was a time-bargain in tallow, he did not
think the transaction sufficiently illegal to prevent the
plaintiff from recovering. That he was compelled to hold
such an opinion he certainly much regretted, because he
was one of those old-fashioned politicians who were now
denominated illiberal. He thought, kowever, that a day
would come when those illiberal opinions would be proved
to be founded on truth, and when, by the operation of those
principles of trade which were now deemed liberal, it
would be found that we had descended from 'the brilliant
situation to which our old and honest principles of trade
had raised us. • By the old system a real transfer of pro-
perty always took place; this was not the case with the
present, which had communicated itself to ,every branch of
trade, and had rendered this once mighty city one great
gambling-house. This injurious practice created a fictitious
value upon articles of necessary consumption, and the
public were therefore compelled to pay the price of this
abominable.spirit of speculation. With these remarks, he
would leAre the case to the Jury.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
• The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then said he would give the
defendant leave to move to set it aside on the ground of the
illegality of the transaction.

PLUCKWELL D. CARTER.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE (with whom was Mr. PAY NE)
stated that this was an action of slander brought by the
plaintiff, the master of the Tottenham workhouse, to re-
cover compensation for the injury that his character might
sustain from the aspersions Mrs. Carter had cast upon it.
She had said that he had applied the provisions of the
workhouse to his own purposes. The Jury would see
that such an imputation was highly injurious, and he
trusted they would give such a verdict as would convince
the world that the aspersion was without foundation.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages 201.