Star.
London, England, 1813-08-20 00:00:00

LAW NtZLLMPNCfft

COURT Oir tHANCERV, AUGUST S.

FX PARTE LADY

VANE TZMPIEST.

Mr. Hater moved, that a manager Might be ap-
pointed to superintend the extensive collieries belottg-
ing to the infant daughter of the late Sir H. Vane
Tempest. This was a motion of the utmost import-
ance to the infant, as upon his Lordship's immediate
compliance with it, depended the very exigence of
those extensive works. The Registrar had started a
doubt on the subject of this application, alleging that
it was nut.usual to make such an order till after ap-
pearance. Mr. Hart submitted, however, that there
could be no objection to a person's asking that a ma-
nager might be appointed to take care of his or her
own estate; and that the rule alluded to by the Re-
gistrar could not -apply to an application in behalf
of an infant, which only went the length of requesting
that her property might not be suffered to go to ruin.
Mr. MONTAGU said he was instructed to consent to
the present traction.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR observed, that the rule
alluded to by the Registrar applied only to cases where
there were adverse interests, in which case there could
be nu appointment of the kind till appearance had been
entered. But where this was asked on the part of an in-
fant who had just succeeded to estates in which there
was property of this description, there could be no
question as to the right and propriety of making such
an order. His Lordship was perfectly well acquain-
ted with the works in q uestion, and was thoroughly
convinced that to interpose a single week's delay in
carrying them on, might cause their eternal ruin.—
His Lordship therefore granted the order.

EY•PARTE WATSON, IN THE MATTER OF WATSON AND

NELSON.

Mr. SHADWELL stated this to be an application on
the part of Elizabeth Watson, on behalf of her chil-
dren, to be allowed to prove against the estate of the
mother, and her partners, a debt of E 17,000, due by
the partnership of Watson and Nelson, to the children
of Mrs. Watson. It appeared that the deceased hus-
band of the petitioner had carried on business, first':
in partnership with his father, and afterwards on his
own account, to a very great extent ; and that, at his
death he left a large personal property to his widow
and children. After the death of her husband, the
petitioner entered into partnership with the other bank-
rupts, the Nelsons, when the stock in trade belonging
to the petitioner's late husband was valued, and found
to amount to upwards of E 30,000. Five-ninth parts
of this sum was brought into the new firm of Watson
arld Nelsons, by the petitioner, Mrs. Watson, as her
share of the partnership stock ; and the remaining
4.9ths, amounting to upwards of al 3,000,was entered
in the books of the concern, as the property of the peti-
tioner's children, being part of „the provision made for
them under the will of their deceased father. This
debt, with interest, amounting to the sum of £17,000,
the petitioner, Eliz. Watson, had offered to prore, in
behalf of her children, under the commission which
had since issued against her and her partners in trade;
but the Commissioners having been pleased to reject
the proof of such debt,the present petition to his Lord-
sbip for liberty to go in ac.d prove the debt became ne-
cessary. It was impossible, the Learned Counsel con-
tended, not to see ;hat this was a debt specifically set
aide, and designated as due to these children, from
the very day of the formation of this new► partnership.
It was entered in the partnership books as such, and
had been uniformly considered as a debt due by the
• Partnership concern to the eight children of the pe-
titioner, Elizabeth Watson, andher deceased husband.
The Loan CHANCELLOR asked, was there any per-
son on the other side ?

Being answered in the negative,
tits Lordship said he thought the present debt was
proveable. It was to be regarded as a loan of so
much money by these children to a partnership in
which their mother was concerned. It.appeared,
from the moment of commencing that partnership,
to have been separated and divided in the exact pro-
portion of /cur to five from what, till then, had con-
stituted one common mass, in which the mother and
children were jointly interested, and while the s.9ths
were by the mother thrown into the partnership fund
as her share of the capital or stock in trade, the
remaining 4-9ths Were entered in the books of the
partnership as a debt, due and owing by them to the
children of their partner, Mrs. Watson, and ber de-
ceased
husband. The interests of the children had
not been ant nded to so effectually as they might have
been. This, however, was no reason why they
should not be allowed to prove at all. It ap-
peared that some of the children were now major.
Let the proof be made by the eldest son, for himself
and the other children. His Lordship hoped the mo-
ther would beware of again entering into trade.

=PARTE CARROLL, IN THE MATTER OF LATHAM.
Mr. LEACH said it would be in the recollection of
the Court, that a considerable dispute had existed as
to whether Mr. De Tastet was entitled to a large
quantity of rum, geneva, wine, and bills of exchange,
for which orders had been delivered to Mr. De Tastet
.by Parry (the partner of Latham ), after he had corn-.
inittea a felony, and the day betore he absconded.
Mr. Carroll the present petitioner, had been ap-
pointed assignee, in order to contest this question
with Mr. De Tastet. Mr. Carroll had a conversa—
tion with Mr. De Tastet .as to those goods, and it
was agreed that the rum, which was the principal
article, should be sold, and that the net. proceeds
should be paid into a bank in the joint names of Mr.
Carroll and Mr. De Tastet, and Mr. Gorst was
agreed upon as a proper person to sell the rums.
but Mr. Carroll understanding that, notwithstanding
that agreement, Mr. De Tastet did intend to sell the
property, and to make use of the proceeds for his own
private purposes, thought it right to present this pe-
tition, pra) log, that for the protection of the credi-
tors, the goods might be sold, and the proceeds paid
into Court. Since the petition, an action of trover
had been brought, and a verdict had been given for
Mr. De Tastet as to the rum; but against him as to
the geneva, brandy, wine, and bills of exchange. The
affidavit of Mr. Dawes, the solicitor, stated, that
Mr. Carroll was dissatisfied wills the verdict, and
thought, that it ought to have been against Mr. De
Tastet for the rum, as well as the other property, and
had directed the deponent, and the deponent intended.
to move for a new trial, within the first four days ot
the next tot m. This being the ease, Mr. Leach said,
the necessity of protecting the property still continued.
It Mr. De Tastet was satisfied with the verdict, he

toold have no objection to hand over, for the benefit
of the creditott at large, the goods fur which the ver-
dict was against him t and if he were dissatisfied,
and intended to more for a riew trial, it was for the
interest of all parties that the goods should be in the
mean time sold, and the money paid into Court. His
client was very well satisfied that Mr. Gorst, who had
been named by Mr. De Taster, should have the sale.
Sir SAMUEL Rositu.y and Mr. Brit. said, Mr. De
Tastet had no objection to the sale, but did not wish
the goods to be sold as by an officer of the Court,
who must sell them for what they would bring.
They also said it was rather strange to ask Mr. De
Tastet to give up those goods for which he had a
verdict.

The Loan CHANCELLOR asked, if Mr. De Tastet
was satisfied with the verdict, and allowed himself to
be bound by it?
Mr. BELL said, he was much dissatisfied with the
verdict.
The Loan CHANCELLOR then declared,,that as the
trial satisfied neither party, it was the same as if no
trial had taken place.
It was finally agreed that Mr. Gorst should be au-
thorised to dispose of the goods as he should think
prudent, and to pay the proceeds into Court.

AUGUST 19.
EX PARTE CARRUTHERS, IN THE MATTER OP PANTON.
This was a petitiot praying for leave to prove a
debt of upwards of £l7OO, the proof of which had
been resisted, on the ground of its being an usurious
transaction.

It appeared, that Mr. Carruthers was a bill-broker,
and some time ago he received from a Mr. Bromar,
a partner of the bankrupt, but since dead, two bills,
in order to get them discounted for him. He in-
dorsed them, and received the money for them at the
Bank of England, which money he paid to Mr. l3ro-
mar, charging him 5 per cent. interest, and f per
cent. commission.

It was contended for Mr. Carruthers, that he was
acting, in this case, in his acknowledged character
of a bill-broker; and that he had only charged the
usual commission. On the other side it was said,
that the Bank of England never would discount bills
for bill-brokers ; and that it was therefore most pro-
bable, that in this transaction Mr. C. was acting en-
tirely by himself.
The LORD CHANCELLOR would not say in which
capacity Mr. Carruthers was acting during the course
of this transaction, but he left it for a Jury to say
whether the matter was usurious or not.

EXPARTE NICKSON, IN THE MATTER OP GOUGH.

This was a petition on the part of Mr. Nickson,
the lessor, praying that the Assignees of the lessee, a
bankrupt, should be restrained from appropriating,
as representatives of Mr. Gough, the bankrupt, I,r
the benefit of the creditors, certain quantities of hay,
straw, and manure of various denominations, the
lease having determined according to the provisions
of the Act, by the refusal of the Assignees to
accept it.
Sir S. ROMILLY and Mr.HEALD contended, for the
lessor, that he was entitled, under covenants express-
ed in the lease, to those several articles in question at
the expiration of the term. Here the case had de-
termined by the bankruptcy of the lessor, and the
refusal of his Assignees to accept it ;—the lessor,
therefore, was entitled to the benefit of the covenant.
If- the Assignees were allowed to dispose of those
articles which were necessary to the due cultivation
of the premises, the lessor would thus be unfairly
placed in a worse situation, in respect to any future
tenant, than he had been in respect to the bankrupt.
Mr. LEACH, on the other side, doubted, in the first
instance, whether the Court could interfere in the
case, but admitted, at the same time, that if the Lord
Chancellor would decide the question on this petition,
it would be better for the parties. The peculiar de-
termination of the lease, he contended, was not con.
templated in the covenant, which prohibited the lessee
from removing those articles from the premises. Its
determination was viewed as proceeding from the due
effiuxion of time, or the consent of the parties; in
either of which cases the lessee would be prepared for
the event, and have the articles consumed on the pre-
mises, this being the benefit reserved by covenant for
the lessor. If any articles of hay, straw, manure, &c.
still remained, they should not, he admitted, be re-
moved; but it would become a question whether they
were not to be paid for ? But the determination of
-the lease by bankruptcy did not give the Assignees
any of the advantages under the covenant which the
lessee would have had in either of the two former
cases. A case of such hardship peculiarly called for
the interference of a Court of Equity.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, lie was unwilling
to decide the question on petition, and accordingly
suggested a case to be submitted to his Lordship, co-
vering all the points involved in the petition, restrain-
ing the Assignees in the mean time from removing
any part of the articles in question, and directing a
valuation to be made of them.

EX PARTE OLIVER, IN THE MATTER OF OLIVER.

The Bankrupt in this case, who bad been commit.
ted by the Commissioners to the jail of Newgtte, for
giving an account in his examination as to an item
in his accounts, to the amount of £4OO, which the
Commissioners did not believe, and who had been
ordered to be brought up by Habra: Corpus, for the
judgment of the Lord Chancellor, on the propriety
of the commitment, was brought into Court last
night at six o'clock, in the custody of Mr. Newman,
Keeper of Newgata. The warrant of commitment
being read—
Sir S. ROMILLY, for the bankruptreontended, that
he had in every case conformed to the Act of Parlia-
ment of the 15th of his present Majesty, which says,
that if a bankrupt gives a full and complete answer
to the questions of the Commissioners, whether they
believed it or no, he shall not be commitfEd to pri-
son. In this case, when asked what had become of
£4OO which was unaccounted for, the bankrupt said
directly that be had given it to a man who followed
him, and told him he would divulge to the world his
criminal ccnduct with a married woman, unless he
gave him £5OO. He admitted that it was strange this
man should give thesumof se4oo, without any security,
that the secret should be still kept ; but Courts of Jus-
tice every day shewed cases of a similar nature, where
persons paid very considerable sums of money to
avoid threatened exposures, for crimes of which they
evep knew themselves to be entirely innocent. It
would be, therefore, a most cruel thing to ,condemn
a man to imprisonment for life on the bare disbelilt
of the Commissioners, in a story vhick he had, 9•

•rofrttltlately for hithseif, prevented the passibility
his strer being able to prove the truth of.
Hr. LEACH and Mr. MONTAGUE, for the'Assignees,
argued, that the story was most improbable, and
that, in the case of Ex Marto NOLAN, it had been de-
cided that the Commissioners were, in the first in-
stance, the judger of the probability or improbability
of a bankrupt's tale. In the case above cited, the
bankrupt was asked what had become of £3000?
His answer was, that he had it.in Bank-notes, in his
pocket-book, and that, while travelling in the mail,
the coach was overturned, and he lost it. Now, the
present story was quite as incredible. The bankrupt
had said that the husband of the woman was a matt
in an inferior situation in life ; and it was, therefore,
very probable that a fourth part of the sum would
have bought his own secrecy, even if this person had
divulged it.
Sir SAMUEL Rosnwr, in reply, said that the story
appeared to him now perfectly probable ; for it was
no wonder a man should give £4OO to suppress a
tale, which, if disclosed, would have destroyed the
peace and happiness of his own family ; and on this
ground also, it was no wonder that he should destroy
the notes which had been sent to him by his accuser,
for fear of their falling into the hands of those nearest
to him. Mr. Leach had certainly formed a most
unjust idea of men in inferior life; why should not
their honour and happiness, and those of their fami-
lies, be as justly dear to them as those of persons in
the highest rank of life?
The LORD CHANCELLOR CORCUITECI with Sir S. Ro
milly, that the story was by no means so improbable
as it had been represented. But, however delicate
the question, when once the bankrupt had stated how
he had disposed of the MOO, the Commissioners, he
thought, should have made him disclose what the
woman was, with a view, if possible, to arrive at the
truth of the story, for the benefit of the creditors. He
was therefore of opinion, that the Commissioners
should certainly proceed to a farther examination on
this point. With respect to discharging the bank.
rupt from confinement, he found the cases on that
head so conflicting, that he would take till to-mor-
row to consider them. In the mean time, the bank-
rupt was remanded, and ordered to be brought up
morrow (this day).
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, CALCUTTA,
JAN. 28, 1813.