Star.
London, England, 1813-08-26 00:00:00

S LU 4 against the Winner.

Pcbtsraiisissi.—Yesterday morning, a man of the
name of Duper, forty years of age, undertook, for a
Wager of kW, to go on foot from London bridge to
South End, and back again, in two hours and ten
ininines, the whole distance being eighteen miles.
He started. at five o'clock, stopped to bait at New
CroSs Turnpike, proceeded on his journey, and
reached South End in exactly one hour, and, after
stopping a few minutes to refresh, set off on his re-
tutu, and arrived at the starting post at four minutes
after seven, winning by six minutes. Odds were
against him at starting four to three. A good deal
of money was won and lost upon the occasion:

LW, INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, AUGUST 24.
BETORE THE LORD..CIIANCELLOR.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, sitting in his prltfate
Room, gave judgment in the following cases :
EX-PARTE SMITH, IN THE MATTER OF FISHER:
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated, that this was the
petition of Smith and Co. playing that they might
be allowed to prove a debt of £4,650 under the bank-
rupt's commission. It appeared, by the petition,
that Fisher carried on business on his own account
solely, arid also in partnership with two persons of
the names cf Oreaves and Sharp, under the firm of
Greaves, Sharp, and Fisher. Fisher applied to 'the
petitioners to lend him a sum of money, and they
agreed they u ould lend him their acceptances. His
Lordship thought the credit Was given to Fisher
alone, and not to the firm. of Greaves, Sharp, and
Fisher, although the money had been applied to the
Use of Greaves, Sharp, and Co.; and no entry of the
transaCtinn appeared on the books of Fisher. The
fact of the application of the benefit having been
made to Greaves, Sharp, and Fisher, and not to
Fisher alone, was not knowd to Sniith and Co. till
after the bankruptcy of Fisher had taken place:—
Tivo bits were drawn oit Smith and Co. by Fisher,
to the amount of £4,650 ; and a day or two after,
Smith and Co. received two bills drawn by Greaves;
Sharp, and Fisher, for £4,650, as a security for the
other bills. The petitioners paid their acceptances
before the baitkritptcy, and before the acceptances of
Rowlandson add Co: became due. The question,
therefOre,' was, whether Smith and Co. bad lent the
acceptances for the use of Fisher only; or for the use
of•Greaves; Sharp, and Fisher ? If the former was
the ease; Fisher would be personally liable for the
whole debt; and Smith and Co. would hold the bills
drawn on Rowlandson and CO: as a collateral secu-
rity.' It appeared to his Lordship, that the money
Was adVanced to Fisher for his sale advantage, and
On his credit and that therefore the petitioners ought
to be permitted to prove the amount of the debt un-
der the commission of Fisher, according to the prayer
of their petition: If the parties should be discon-
tented with his decision, they would know the grounds
bn which he had decided it, and might have it te-
heatd if they thought proper.
EX-PARTE PERRY, IN THE MATTER OF /;EIIRY.
. The Loan CHANCELLOR said, that this was as dif-
ficult a case as he had often met with. He should,
however; glee his present impression upon the sub-
ject ; and if dissatisfied with that opinion, the parties
might have it reheard. His Lordship stated this to
be the petition of Fraaces Perry, executi ix of
Perry, deceased. It stated, that William Petry and
Edward Perry carried on business together ; that in
1799, they purchased certain premises, and those
premises by deed nerc conveyed to ‘Villiam and Ed-
ward Perry, as tenants in common in tee. The pre-
mises wer:: mortgaged to a person of the name of
Moorsby, redeemable on the payment of tBOO pi:n-
eipal, and the interest thereon. His Lordship re-
marked, that the petition did not state the nature of
the coVehants in the mortgage deed. ‘Villiam Perry
died on the 21st cf Sepienwer, 1801. Frances Perry,
his executrix, and Edward Perry, continued the bu-
siness in partnership till 1804. They then came to
a determination to dissolve the partnership. It. was
agreed; that Edward Perry should take the peti-
tioner's part of• the business, and should pay the pe-
titioner whatever het share should be valued at, which
was £1,547. 7s. 6d. It was also agreed, that Ed-•
ward should take all the debts due to the partner-
ship, and that he should well and truly pay the debts
of the partnership, and within a moderate time ; and,
in particular, the indenture of dissolution recited the
mortgage in question ; and the petitioner was to be
secured from all debts whatever. Edward Perry

• 9 • • •
eontintieti to earl* oat the btliined Julie Last, and
had paid all the money du for interest on the re:
cited niartgage, till the. year 1312 ; but the principal
still Continued due on the mortgage: In Julys a com-
mission of bankruptcy issued otit against Edward
Petry: Under the toMmission; Edward Perry's I
moiety had been sold and the prayer of the petition
was,_that the proceeds of such share should, ih the
first instance, be applied to pay off the whole mort-
gage debt, His Lbrdship said, there was ito doubt
but that Moorsby, the mortgagee, *as entitled to re'
cover the whole of his mortgage money from the
heir-at-law of William Perry, and that such heir-at.
law had a right to be reimbursed that money by the
Executrix, as in ordinary cam'. In this case, the
Executrix sells her share in the business, and Edward
Perry. for that and other considerations, agteed
tb pay off the whole cf the money due on the
mortgage, and from that time down to the month
of March he had paid the interest on the mort-
gage. The rents, it appeared, had been paid, one
half to the petitioner, and the other half to Edward
' Perry, It had been contended by the Counsel that
the produce of his moiety should be applied to the
payment of the whole inortgage debt, on the ground
that the petitioner had a lien upon the estate.
On the other hand, it had been contended by Mr.
Richards, that it was a mere covenant, and gave no
lien on the estate ; that it did not form a debt, and
could not be proved under the commission. His
Lordship was of opinion that it could not be proved
under the commission, btit did not think that was the
question. He thought the question war, whether
the moiety of Edward Perry should be applied to
the payment of the whole of the mortgage money?—
If Edward Perry had not become a bankrupt, and
the heir at law had filed a bill in Equity for the re-
demption of the mortgage, and the executrix of Wm.
Perry had preferred a petition, praying that the now
bankrupt should be considered as the sole mortgagee,
she having paid him her share of the mortgage mo-
ney, it was his Lordship's opinion that the prayer of
such petition would have been granted, and he
thought the assignees could not stand in a better situa-
tion than Edward Perry himself would have stood.
It appeared therefore to him, that as the agreement
might have been enforced against the party himself,
it might also be enforced against the assignees.

EXPAItTE GIBBON, IN THE HAMM OF NESBITT%
EXPARTE BRILEY, IN THE MATTER OF NLABITT.

The Loan CHANCELLOR stated, that the question
on these two petitions was, which of the petitioners
had a right to receive the sum of ie2614 Bs. 7d.
being the amount of a dividend declared on a debt
proved under the firm of I'. and J. Spaw and Co. J.
Spaw and Bryce carried on business together. and
had large transactions with the bankrupts as bankers.
and Nesbitt and Co. were indebted to Spaw and Co.
in £2,596. 3s. 4d. John Spaw died on the 12th of
February, 1799. S. Spaw and Bryce, as surviving
partners, were entitled to all the debts due to the
partnership. S. Spaw, (subsequent to an indenture
which his Lordship would notice), in die name of
himself and Bryce, proved the debt under the com-
mission cif Nesbitt arid Co. S. Spaw died in 1811,
after hating received one dividend of 1 Os, in the
pound, leaving Bryce the surviving partner—Bryce
was consequently the hand, to receive at law any
debts due to the partnership. S. Spaw appointed
Bigley his executor: a commission was afterwards
sued out against Bryce. Since the banki riptcy of
Bryce, a dividend had been declared on the debt
due to Spaw and Co. amounting to Ran.. Bs. 7d.—
This sum of money remains in the hands of the assig-
nees of Nesbitt and Co. Gibbon and others, the as-
signees of Bryce, one set of the petitioners, claimed
in that character ; and Bigley, the other petitioner,
claimed it as the executor of S. Spaw, stating that in
consequence of an assignment made by Bryce to S.
Spaw of this debt, he, Btgley, had the equitable
right. It was, however, contended on the other hand.
that the assignment was without any consideration,
and merely to enable Spaw to collect the debts of the
partnership—and it-would depend OR the state of the
accounts, whether the assignees of Bryce or the exe-
cutor of Spaw would be entitled to the Amount of the!
dividend. His Lordship said, that if it were not for
three or four words thrown in, he should have had no
doubt but that the assignment was merely for the
purpose of collecting the debts. His Lordship then
read the assignment, which, after reciting the will of
J. Spaw, and stating that there were several debts
due in the West Indies, and other places in that
part of the world, and that S. Spaw was about to
go there, and that S. Spaw did, therefore. request
Bryce to assign over the debts to him, he Bryce. did
assign over all debts, &c, to the said S. Spaw, but
then it was said to be for the use of the said S. Spaw,
his heirs, &C. His Lordship said, it was those words
i only that raised any doubt ; every other syllable
aimed at the purpose of collecting the debts. These
words were probably inserted from following some
precedent ; and he was on the whole. of opinion, that
the assignment was made merely for the purpose of
collecting the debts of the partnership. Bryce was,
therefore, the proper hand to receive the dividend;
and the proper order in this case would be, that the
legal right to the dividend being in Bryce, it should
be received by him • but it should be received as part
of the partnership effects in the concern, and should
be accounted for accordingly. •
I:XI'A RTE FLETCHER, IN THE MATTER OF FLETCHER.

This was a petition by the bankrupt to supersede
his commission, oh the ground that there was no act
of bank: uptcy or petitioning creditor. On a former
occasion the Lord Chancellor made an order, that
it the Commissioners found Fletcher to be a bank-
rupt, be should not be gazetted without informa-
tion toeing given to his Lordship. The commission
had been sued out the 13th of March, and the
LORD CIIANCLLLOtt asked, why Fletcher had not been
proved a bankrupt from that tine to this day' (the
'bl•dt August)
It was stated by the Attbrney for the petitibning
creditor, that his Lordship had made an order to ttop
any proceedings under the commission.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said, be had not made any
such order ; but had merely directed, that it should
not be gazetted till he Was made acquainted with the
tact of Fletcher having been Made a bankrupt. His
Lordship now directed, that the commission should
be superseded with costs.
His Lordship being then asked to assign the bond,
refused, stating that he was not very toad of assigning
the bond ; for the assignment of the bond was proof
, that £2OO was due, and it could mot,be disputed i

• .
11e ' • but t party tritglikbring an action on the case, and,
instead of 42Q0, tn;ght recavel.datnages to the Amount
of al if,he could prove that he had sustained
damage to that amount. He it to be (14-
tinCtly, understood, that the reason lie superseded the
bankruptcy was, that although the commission was
sued itt March, yet the party had been proved a bank-
rupt even in the month df August, although the par-
ties had been three dr four times before the Com Mis.
sinners for the purpose ; and for that reason he Omit,'
have superseded the bankruptcy, although they Might
be able se prole him so be a bankrupt.
XE24I; ASSIZES:
sevens Loan ELLENDOROUOU AND A SPECIAL JURY.