Star.
London, England, 1830-01-27 00:00:00

T.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ROLLS' CO Jan. 26.
0111811 D AND OTIIIIIS V. WILLS Aso 11011XAN.
The plaintiffs in this biU were the trustees under the marriage
settlement of Mrs. Norman, the daughter of the defendant, Wylie.
blr. Wylie advanced .E5OO on the marriage of his daughter, and
her husband basis' a bond for .62000 given by a Mr. Hurst, that
bond was assigned to the plaintiffs, as trustees, under the settle-
ment, but the latter suffered the bond to lie in the custody of Mr.
Wylie who handed it over to Mr. Norman, on a tepreeentatioa
from the latter that Hurst. the obligor, was in embarrassed circum-
stances. Norman obtained about £1,500 in varies. ..cantles from
Hurst, but afterwards became bankrupt, and the bond was thus
lost to the trustees. This bill was filed to compel Mr. Wylie to ac-
count for the bond, it having been lost to the trustees through his
negligence.
Mr. PnaseaToll and Mr. ROOM appeared for the plaintiff. The
amount of the bond bad been proved against Norman's estate, but
nothing had been received upon it.
Mr. BATLZY appeared for the defendant, Mrs. Norman.
Mr. Bzczraserna appeared for Mr. Wylie, and submitted, that
stetting had been lost to the trust ; for that, if the bond bad re-
mained in Mr. Wylie's bands it would have been unproductive,
for Hurst was a bankrupt and his estate would pay nothing, as the
,plaintiffs well knew.
Mr. Pasteaavos, after'stime farther disnission, proyond that an'
inquiry should be made as to what loss had accrued to tin trust is
consequence of Mr. Wylie's handing over the bond to Norman.
His Hoooar the bisersa of the lios.z.s, said that it was the same
as if a sum of mousey belonging to the trust had been paid away,
and directed, with the concurrence of both parties, that it should
bi neural to the Master to enquire whether any and what moles
er neuritics bad been received by Norman in satisfaction of the
bond. and whether the Trustees had at the time received any notice
from Mr. Wylie of his parting with the bond, and might by the
exercise of proper diligence have made any of the securities received
for it available to the trust.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Jan. 26.
VIIIIVVIT V. HAMMOND.
In this case, which was one of assault. the evidence was of a very
contradictory nature ; but Lord Tanzman, in his summing up,
Ind given an opinion in favour of the plaintiff, leaving it, however,
so the Jury, to say which side they considered the most entitled to
credit. The Jury found for the defendant.
• Mr. J. Wasians now moved for leave to set aside the verdict,
first, un the ground of its being against the direction of his Lord.
ship ; and neat, en the ground that it was also against the evidence.
Lord Tasersanan=-Wby the evidence was very contradictory,
Mr. Williams, you know. Would you make that a ground for
your motion?
Mr. Wausau—lt was so, my Lord. The other point then,
my Lord ; the veldtt not being satisfactory with your Lord.bip's
directions.
Lord Tratessuna-w-It is not for me to say that lam net sit'
with the verdict. Though I should have given a verdict the
way, yt the Jury bad the itridsocf, contradictory ash wan,
weigh, and they foetid Upon it for the defendant. MN yen prim
the matter ?
Witadaus--.After tliv opinion thus ozgeseed, I wpt nut,
course, my. ,Locd.-044e refined,
tea AO. e. near, Ma. aim ursine.
This. it wlp be r.:ailletiosi, was swamies brunekialfirs die del
(ensign's, who compose the Fourteenth List of Cutunaissionen of
Bankrupts, for having illegally committed tbe prisoners to New-

gibe, for refseing,as they set forth in their warrant of commit-
=to sneerer a certain cased= relative to an entry in the ledger
der thi bead " Russian Stock." The plaintiff bad been been•
ad cad ages three former occasions, and had been as eften dischar-
gplby bisber authorities, and in this instance was discharged by
dhs Court of Exchequer, after the circumstances had undergone
,u sours, which occupied the space of two dsys. An action was
*NOM wink the defendants by the plaintiff for compensation in
damagefor the imprisonment be bad suffered. The trial took
plate at the late Sittings at Guildhall, and a verdict found for the
plaintiff, with damages for £250.
Mr. F. Pomocx now moved for a rule Nhl for leave to sbew
cause whthis verdict should not be set aside, and a none&
The en-
tered. Learned Gentleman said it was not so much for the
sake of the present defendants, though they submitted that they
were justified in acting as they bad done, as for any future similar
occurrence, that this application was made.
Lord Tanteaosa—There never can be such another.
Mr. F. Poucca—The decision must be of great importance.
Lord Trarthatnni—There was not any question, Mr. Pollock.
Mr. Pott.oce—The defendants are of opinion there was.
Lord Tetteasossi—Can any man pretend to set up his individual
opinion, that there was a question, when the Court of Exchequer
has, after a discussion of two days, according to your own account.
give° its solemn judgment, and expressed an opinion that there was
no question? It is out of all reason. The time of the Court is of
more value than to attend to propositions of such a nature.
Mr. PoLLocz was about to go on with his motion, when
Lord Treraisoin said—Do you think the opinion of a person
upon a thing in which be is the defendant can be so taken as to set
aside that of the Court of Exchequer, as expressed after so length-
ened an argument upon aU the points of the cue?
Mr. Pou.ocx—Certainly not, my Lord, but be should fail Is lit.
duty, were he not to state the grounds upon which he was instsmillod
to move their Lordships. He must apologise for occupying &offal
of the Court, for again presenting the position of the defewinite
opinion upon the matter. They considered that, in asking thellektiff
to read the account in question, that they asked a poetics° ; and do
answer gave by the latter was such as to show that he considered
it as one. The Learned Gentleman then went into the parti-
culars of the point. The question, as contended, which was put.
arose out of a desire on the part of the defendants to learn
some particulars respecting certain entries in the ledger G. under
an account headed" Russian Stock." After having been told by
the plaintiff that the account contained an account of transactions
in Russian Stock for his brother Leon as wen as for himself, the

Commissioners desired him to tern to the account in ledger G.
page 101, and read the entries under the head of Russian Stock.
The plaintiff declined to do this. saying that all the entries did not
refer to the bankrupt's estate, and upon being pressed for some
time, he requested to be allowed to consult his Counsel. Having
done so, he said that, acting under the advice of his legal adviser,
he still declined, upon the ground stated, to read the account
through. Repeated requests having been made by the Commis-
sioners upon this point, they committed the plaintiff. His clients
submitted that this very answer was sufficient to show that the
plaintiff himself considered it as a question.
Mr. Justice Balmer—How is it a question put? the plaintiff is
told to read certain entries, which they are capable of reading
themselves.
Mr. Pou.oca—Well, my Lord, I should submit that that is in
substance a question. It appears so to me, my Lord.
Lord Tsirreanze—lt is not a question ; and you will find that,
in the Count of that examination, there are perhaps a dozen or more
in the sante way.
Some more discussion having been gone into,
Mr. Post.ocz said be should ground kis application upon this
point, that the plaintiff understood it as a question.
Lord Tarrson= said the power given to Comtr.issioners of Bank-
rupts to commit persons summoned before them rested on two
points : first, if they refused to give an answer to any legal question
which might be put to them, and secondly, if any such person
should refuse to produce such books as might be called for, those
books being necessary to the investigation of the bank.
rupt's affairs. It did not appear upon the face of the
warrant for committal in this case, that anything of the sort was
complained of. that the party bad refused to do either of the things
required by the act. 'there was no authority given to these Com.
missioaen to order a person to teed the books; they were only to
be produced. It never could be held that telling a person to read
a book was asking a question. It was perfectly absurd to suppose
so. if there were any gentlemen who thought so ;if there were
any who were of opinion that this was a question, he would advice
them to correct such opinion, and then they would be the better
fitted to act.
Mr. Justice Ban= said this could not be considered as a ques-
tion. If they bad asked him to produce the book, sad he bad not
done so. then the commitment would have been for not prodoaing
it, and the warrant would lave shown it. The plaintiff could not,
therefore, be rightfully committed in this instance.
The other Judges having concurred,
The Rule was refused.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.