The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-22 00:00:00

for the sum of 125,0001. 13s. 11d., the whole of which he
had improperly drawn from the bank, and used for his
own purposes. The Learned Gentleman this day re-
sumed his argument, and cited, in support of it, the
case of ex parte Fordyce, reported in Mr. Carter's Trea-
tise upon the bankrupt law.
Mr. 13Aosit.e.wE objected that the rule of law was quite
clear in these cases, which said that if there was no
" concealment" in the books of the partners that sums
were drawn out by one partner, however improperly he
might have used the sums so drawn, then the partnership
was • clearly liable ; but the books of the partnership,
which must be supposed to be accessible to all of them.
not only contained the account of the sums so drawn,
but also the interest charged upon them, and there being
neither " fraud nor concealment," the whole of the part-
ners were liable. 4
Mr. litxoN having been heard in reply, and a further
conversation between the Learned Gentlemen having
ensued,

Mr. Commissioner lloLtiovp said there .could be no
doubt in this case. The joint estate could not • prove
against the separate estate, unless in cases of fraud
being committed by one of the partners in abstracting
moneys from the partnership without their knowledge
or consent ; or in cases of fraud,, without their adoption
of that partner's conduct by some subsequent re-
cognition of it. In this case regular entries had been
made of all the sums of -money drawn out of the
partnership funds by John Wright, for a period of nearly
four yeart and a half before the, bankruptcy. In 1837
he drew out upon his separate account about 36,0061; in
1838, 29,0001.; in 1839, 31,000 L; in 1840, 30,9001.; and
in the month or so before the issue of the fiat nearly
4,700 L All this appeared upon the face of their ac-
counts, and however bad the case might appear to be,
the joint estate could not be allowed to prove against the
separate estate, according to the principle laid down in
the case ex-parte Smith, reported in 4 Deans and Chitty,
p. 169,.and other cases. The claim was disallowed.
Mr." Hamilton said that the assignees, though ex-
tremely anxious to declare a dividend, were unable to do
so, either upon the joint or separate estate, although they
hoped very speedily to be enabled to do so upon both.
The Learned CommissiollEit asked what the amount of
the dividend was likely to be now ?—The official assignee
said that he had 60,0001. assets in hand upon the joint
estate, but out of that sum at least 25,000/. would be re-
quired to pay ss. in the pound upon the new proofs
already admitted, and certain, other claims which were
still unsettled.

Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD—CaIi you pay ss. in the
pound upon the separate estate ?
The Official Assignee--No, Si; ; nor half that sum.

Several creditors —thought, it would be desirable that
some dividend, if it were only a shilling in the pound,
should be now declared/upon the separate estate.
A somewhat lengthened conversation ensued, the
result of which was, that ss. in the pound was directed
to be paid, so as to equalise the new and old proofs, and
Is. 6d. in the pound upon the separate estate (as we un-
derstood) of Mr. Biddulph Wright.

ARCHES' COURT, Jan. 20.
REED I'. EVERALL AND CRESSWELL.

This is an appeal from the Consistory Court of Nor-
wich, in a suit for subtraction of Church-rate, promoted
by the Churchwardens of King's Lynn. The party pro-
ceeded against gave in a defensive allegation, which was
rejected by the Court below. He subsequently offered
another allegation, stating as new matter, that when he
had been summoned before the Magistrates for the
amount of rate due, neither the rate itself nor a copy of
it had been produced by the Churchwardens, and conse-
quently that no legal claim for the rate had been made.
The Judge of the Court of Norwich rejected that alle-
gation on the ground that, as the former allegation had
been rejected, a fresh allegation containing new aver-
ments, was not admissible. Against this decision an
appeal had been brought and was now heard. This
was the point at issue, but the whole case was involved in
great obscurity.
Dr. Addams appeared for the appellant, and Dr. Hag-
gard for the churchwardens.
Sir HERBERT JENNER said that as this point had been
taken up by the party proceeded against, he was bound
to consider it, and he thought it was worthy of attention.
The position which Keed occupied seemed anomalous.
He stated no grounds on which he opposed the validity
of the rate, and yet he went before the Magistrate and
the Ecclesiastical, Court, refusing to pay it. But as there
appeared to be some informalities in the mode of proceed-
ing, the case ought not to be dismissed at once, and the
allegation must be admitted.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 21.
IN THE MATTER OF JOHN RANGELEY.

The insolvent, whose case had been previously inves-
tigated before the Court, and was reported in 2he Sun,
came up again for judgment this morning. He was de-
scribed as enffineer to the Patent Safety Rotation Com-
pany, and the inventor and patentee of certain improve-
ments in railway locomotion.
The COURT ordered' him to be discharged.
IN RE HICRMAN.

The insolvent was a jeiveller and silversmith, carry-
ing on business under the firm of Hickman and Turner.
It appeared that, the insolvent bought the good: will
in certain premises and stock in trade from the opposing
creditor, for 750/. which eventually turned out to be a
bad speculation, and having offered to rescind the bar-
gain, which was refused by the opposing creditor, -he
caused himself to be arrested by a friend, when he filed
his petition, and gave up his property, in order that an
equal.dividend might be made amongst the creditors.—
Discharged.