Star.
London, England, 1808-11-05 00:00:00

EX-PARTE MEDLEY, IN MATTER OF BULLOCK.

This was an application on the part of the assig-
nees under the Commission awarded against James
Bullock, a bankrupt, to have a debt of 16001. proved
under the Commission by Richard and Thomas Rey-
nolds, expunged, on the ground of fraud and collu-
sion between them and the bankrupt, and that, in fact,
no such debt existed at the time of the bankruptcy.
.

Sir S. ROMILLY, for the assignees, stated, that in
the year 1805, the bankrupt being in embarrassed cir-
cumstances, stopped payment, and entered into an
agreement with his creditors to pay them in three dif-
ferent instalments He accordingly granted to the
Messrs. Reynolds, with whom he had formerly been
connected in business, three different bills of 5001.
each, one of which had since been paid, and R. and
T. Reynolds having paid away the other two, they
had been claimed on under the Commission, by the
person holding them. The claim of 16001., there-
fore, now made by R. and T. Reyrolds, was alto-
gether imaginary and fraudulent, every debt or claim
due to them against the bankrupt, in which the bills
which composed this 16001. were comprehended,
having been included in the 15001. for which bills
were granted by the bankrupt at the time of his tem-
porary failure. That this was the fact appeared by a
letter from the Reynolds' themselves, in which they
admitted that they only held these bills as security
for any after dealings they might have with the bank-
rupt, and that such dealings did not amount to one
half of the sum.. which they had claimed under the
Commission.—No appearance was made for R. and
T. Reynolds.
The LORD CHANCELLOR ordered the claim to be
expunged, and the. Reynolds' to Fay the costs-of the
application, reserving to them to prove before the
Commissioners any debt against the bankrupt which
they might be able to substantiate.

EX-PARTE CAMB, IN THE MATTER OF WOOD, A BANK-

RUPT.

Mr. Coox stated this was the petition of
Climb, George Hall, and John Newport, creditors of
the Bankrupt, praying that the commission might be
set aside ; or that Mr. Walters, the present Assignee,
might be removed; or if not removed, that he should
be obliged to account for the amount of a quantity
of goods which he had received from the Bankrupt,
at an under value, after he had committed an act of
Bankruptcy, and before the commission issued. Mr.
Cook stated, that the. Assignee, Mr. Walters, who
was the petitioning Creditor, had received a quantity
of goods from the Bankrupt, a few days prior to his
striking the docket against him, to the amount of
6701. for which he was to pay 20 per cent. less than
the original invoice ; that he was also an agent for
the Bankrupt with the Board of Ordnance, and after
the commission of bankruptcy had been taken out,
received a sum of money from that Board, which he
had not accounted for. The Learned Counsel con-
tended, under these circumstances he could not con-
tinue as the Assignee, and ought to be made to ac-
count, even if the Court were of opinion that the
commission ought not to be set aside, and that there
was not collusion between Walters and the Bankrupt.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY and Mr. HART, on the other
side, stated, that there never had been any collusion
between the bankrupt and Mr. Walters, and that he
had accounted before the Commissioners, and the
goods he had received from the bankrupt were sold
for the benefit of the whole of the creditors. As to
the circumstances with the Ordnance Board, he had
also explained them to the Commissioners, to their
full satisfaction, before sixty of the bankrupt's credi-
tors. There had been a regular agreement executed
between him and the bankrupt, on his becoming his
agent with the Ordnance Board. The bankrupt Lived
at Sheffield, Walters in London-. He used to send
the goods, intended for the Board, ti Walters, who
advanced him money for them ; *hen they passed
the Board, Walters received the money for them, de-
ducted five per cent. for his agency, and the balance,,
if any, was paid tdthe bankrupt. There was a parti-
cular clause in this agreement, which kept that busi-
ness separate from any other, and the money alluded
to by Mr. Cook, as received by Walters, bad been

poll ht abut* to the bankrupt. 13uy the hitt w•A's,
the petitioners were Sheffieldmen,"and wished to
the affairs of the bankrupt into their twists, to the
prejudice of Walters, whose debt, proved under the
commission, amounted to 10,0001. one half more than
the debts of all the other creditors. They contented
there was no ground for the petition, and his Lord-
ship ought to dismiss it, as frivolous arid vexatious,
with costs.

Mr. Coot replied. He contended, if his Lordship
would not dismiss Walters from being the assignee,
he- ought at least to ablige him to account.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion there was
no foundation for the charges in the petition; ho
therefore dismissed it with costs.

COURT OP RING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 4.
WOLFE AND WORKMAN V. TOMLINSON AND TANNER.

Mr. Serjeant SHEPHEftD stated, that this action
was brought by the plaintiffs, who are residents in
London. One of the defendants, Mr. Tanner, was

a ship-builder at Dartmouth. The plaintiff; transact-
ed business for him as agents ; he had a number of
contracts with Government for building ,hips, con-
sequently he required large advances from Mr. T.
which he did not think convenient to comply with—
however, the other defendant, Mr. Tomlinson, agreed
to become his partner by advancing at different times
money to the amount of £lO,OOO, for which he was
to receive 51. per cent. interest, independent of a share

tithe profits in his contracts with C.;overnivnt. Ac-
cordingly a deed was prepared, which wis signed
about the beginning of January, 1804. The plaintiff
continued to do the business as usual till some time

in 1807, when Mr. Tanner became a bankrupt, at
which time he was indebted to them £24,901.
The contract of a partnership was proved by Mr.
Riviugton, who was, with Mr. Workman, the other
plaintiff, the subscribing witness.
Mr. Croster, of the Navy Office, proved the differ.
ent contracts for building eleven ships.
Thomas Masheter proved that Bills of Exchange,
drawn by Tanner, had been paid to the plaintiff
during the copartnership, to the amount of 852,503.
Mr. Lamb, an attorney, proved that Tanner had
not much business prior to the copartnership, and
that he was not at the time in good credit.
Several witnesses were called, who did business fi r

ship-builders in the country, at one and some times
one and a half per cent.; the reason why they charged
so much was, on account of the trouble they had iu
obtaiii;ng Bills from the Navy Office.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL, for the defendant, Mr.
Tomlinson, contended, that no case was made out

against his client, for the plaintiff had failed in prov-
ing they were entitled to the Commission of one per
cent. as he could prove they had no trouble whatever
in receiving the bills through the Navy Office, besides
he could prove usury in the concoction of the whole
transaction, inasmuch as they charged 3001. per ann.
for advancing Tanner money. which seldom exceeded
2001. besides the interest. The plaintiffs had ori-
ginally borrowed from Mr: Tomlinson '2OOOl. for
which they agreed to allow him 51. per cent. interest,
and one-third of the 3001. on Tanner's business, pro-
videdhe did not call in that sum in less than six
months notice. After this he borrowed 40001. more,
and then introduced Mr. Tomlinson to Mr. Tanner;
and it was by their advice he became a partner. On
the former withdrawing himself he got judgment
against the latter for about 18,0001. which was set
aside by tic d4endants in the Court of King'sßench,
tin he would produce their affidavits, where they had
deliberately sworn, that the deed of partnership tie-
tween Tomlinson and Tanner, was merely, fur the
purpose of cloaking usurious transactions, the terms
of which were for the former to receive 5 per cent.
interest for the sum of 10,0001. advanced, and 5 per
cent. more on the amount of the Navy Bills paid to •

the latter on account of his contracts with Govern.
ment ; so that there could be no doubt that the plain.
tiffs, who were accessary to this business originally,
knew that it was founded on usurious principles, to
which they had successively sworn ;'and must be well
aware they could not recover in this action—indeed
there could be no colour for it ; besides, the commis-
sion which they charged, but modestly denominated
4, salary" was another proof of the usury. The affi-
davits made by Wolfe and Workman in the King's
Bench, in the case of Tomlinson v. Tanner, were
put in and read.
Mr. Bimer proved that he transacted the business at
the Navy Office for Tanner, to the amount of 18,8211.
for which he charged a per cent. and handed over
the bills to the plaintiffs.
Mr. Cunningham, a Clerk in the Navy Office,
proved that he paid in 1804-5 and 6, tq Mr. Tanner,
and the former witness, 37,6831. and that the plain-
tiffs had been there but six times for bills on account
of Tanner, amounting to 90001.
Two letters from Wolfe and Workman were pro-
duced, which proved the inducement Tomlinson had
to become the partner of Tanner, and the nature and
extent of the original loan of 20001.
Mr. Oliphant, one of the Jury, asked if the defen-
dants were to have nothing for the risk of advancing
money?
Lord ELLENsonovou—" Certainly not, and if that
doctrine was held, there would be an end to the statute."

After a long reply from Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD,
wherein he laboured to shew that the deed of copart-
nership was valid to all intents and purposes, and that
the 3001. charged for salary was for active services
performed,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said it was for the Jury to con-
sider whether the partnership was legal, for profit and
loss) or for the purpose of covering a latent transac-
tion, which had usury in its concoction. It was clearly
proved by the plaintiffs' affidavits•that the fact was
known to them, and the partnership must necessarily
become void, because it was not formed ter legal pur-
poses. The second,question to consider was, whether
the terms held out to Tcmlin son, and the 3001. charged
as commission, was not equally usurious ? for it ap.
peared it was for the advance of money. It could not,
, therefore, be as a commission, as it was proved they
had no trouble or exertion that warranted the charge ;
independent of that, their own letter of the 18th of
January was conclusive as to the usury, as the onus
laboris was merely being six times at the Navy ()thee.
It was also proved, from the same letter, that Messrs.
' Moffat and Co. ofiered to do the business for one-half
per cent.
The Jury retired for near three hours, and returned
with a verdict for the plaintiffs, damages Je2S,'.X.)O,
• subject to a reference.