Star.
London, England, 1807-08-18 00:00:00

iAi

COURT OF AIICIT=ORRY, AUGUST Is.
IMPART& !WY LW 5111 SANER UPTCY OF WOODWARD.
This was a petition on the part of Mr. Parry, whn
had formeily been in copartnerfhip with the
rupt, to be admitted to prove under the commilfion
in the following circumftances :
Woodward carried on builnefs at Liverpool, and
in the year 1805, having bills to the amount of
zoool. and upwards to receive from the African
Company, he applied to a perfon in London, of the:
name of Coke, to accommodate him with accep-
tances to the amount oft tool. as a remit), for which
he gave him an order on the African Company for
•the bills, the property of Woodward, lying in their
hands. Coke wrote a letter to Woodviard, engaging
to accept bills to the amount required, and having
produced his order to the African Company Wood.
ward's bills were delivered over to him. Parry in the

mean time, and before Coke had accepted the bills,
took out an attachment from the Lord Mayor's

Court, agamil his partner, Woodward. which be
lodged in the hands of Coke, who having applied to
Woodward for infltutlions, was defired to pay the

amount over to Parry, and not to accept the bills
when prefented to him. He accordingly did to,
taking however a band of indemnity from Parry.—
Whet the bills drawn on him by Woodward, were
afterwards prefented to him, he declined accepting
them, and they were regularly proteßed, &ft for
non acceptance, and afterwards for non payment.—
It happened, however, that Woodward had, along
with the•bills lodged with Metres. Clark and Rofcoe,
Coke's letter engaging to accept them. They brought
their ation against Coke, and the Court held that
the letter was a ftifficient acceptance of the bills.—
Coke was of cootie obliged to pay the money to Mr.
R4Scne, which he afterwards rec.vered back from
Mr. Parry. in thefe circumßances Mr. Parry shim.
ed under the Commiflion taken out againtt Wood-
ward, but the Commiffioners refuted to allow him to

prove.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY having Bated the cafe on
the past of the petitioner,
Mr. ALEXANDER argued on the other fide, that
Parry was not bound to have granted the bond of
indemnity, which alone made it incumkent on him
to repay the money. He was no creditor at the time
of the bankruptcy, and therefore was not entitled to

prove.
The LORD CHANCIML,NR held, that the money
having been paid over to Parry, under a millake, and
he not being entitled to keep it, his debt had never
been paid ; of courfe, that he was a creditor of
Woodward's a' the time of the bankruptcy. He,
therefore, fent it back to the Commiffioners, with in-

firultions to alilw Mr. Parry to prove his debt.

RK•tARTI IIIUISIMAKBIL 1N TN[ BANKRUPTCY 0,
PANDER NORM.

This was alfo a petition for leave to prove tinder
a Commitlion of Bankrupt. The ground on which
the Commiffioners had rejefted the claim was, that
the petitioners were alien enemies.
Mr. ALIi•NDE a, in fupport of the petition Rated,
that it appeared from the affidavits that the debts
claimed on were contraeed in the courfe of trading,
which had been rendered legal by licences from his
Majefly. Thefe licences, he contended, had the died
of convening the petitioners from alien enemies into
alien ft lends.
• The Lotto CHANCILLOI Paid, that fuch licence was
not granted to foreigners but to fubjeas of this coun-
try. It was neither more or lefs than a licence to
merchants of this country to trade with the enemies
of our Sovereign 1..,)rd the King. The effed of it was
to proteEt the goods in trartfitu from capture by the
(hips of this country, and to legalife policies of infur-
ance made on fuch goods. But it did not capacitate
an alien enemy to profecute for the price of any goods
he might thus difpofe of, nor put him in any other
fit uation than he would have Rood in, had no licence
been granted. The petition was of courfe difraitred.
IN emirs WATLIS, IN THI, lIANILRUPTCY OF STORES.
This was an application on the pail of the affignee,
to have a debt to the amount of 37901. claimed on
by Mr. Samuel Wall, expunged from Stokes's come
miffion ; on the ground that, from the mode in which
that fum was contra/led by Stokes, it did not refolee
into a debt, but into a felony, under the Aft of the
39th of the King, to prom& bankers, merchants, and
others, againti the fecreting and embezzling of their
effekls, by clerks and fervants.
This matter had lot merly been before Lord Chan-
cellor Ea sz IN e, who, being of opinion that a cafe of
that nature could not be properly judged on affida-
vits, fent it to the Commiffioners, to take the necef-
faty evidence, and to report to his Lord(hip.
It now appeared, from the Report of the Comm&
(loners, that Stokes had for tweitty years been riding
clerk to Mr. Wall, during which period he regularly
made two journics a year to North and South Wales,
and collelted for him in each journey, fume to the
amount of 40001. or soool. : That, fur the !aft eight
years, he had alfo carried on an extetifiee trade on
his own account : That he had been in the habit, a
few days after his return from each journey, of exhi.
biting a Ratement• of his accounts, and of paying
the balance probably in fix weeks ; •though, after
he had commenced bufinefs for himfelf, Mr. Wall
often indulged him for a longer per: d, and his
debts, in this way, to Mr. Wall, might Ire-
quetnly amount to 4001. or poi.: That Mr. W.'s
Son having lama), obferved that many of their old
cullomers were more than common in arrear, wrote
to one of them, and found that ht had already fet-
tled with Stokes ;this produced an explanation, when
Stokes admitted that feveral ether accounts were in
the fame fituatiun, but that, after having completed
his then enfuing journey, he Would make up a regu-
lar Rate of matters between them. By this Rate-
ment he confrffed firms to the amount of t7ool. but
it ultisisately appearedt that in all they amounted to
upwatds of 4.001.
Sir Santos I. RoMILLt and Mr. Haat., in fupport
of the application, contended, that banters, mer-
chants, &c. having at their own defire obtained an Ad
rendeting it felony for their clerks or fervants to fe-
crete or embezzle their property, were not now enti•
tied to ezercife an optics) either of profecuting crimi-
nally, where there were no effects to reimburfe them,
ter of dairying for it as a debt, where there was any
'tance of their recovering. There could not be
doubt, that, in the prefent cafe, a felony had been
committed in the eye of the fiatute.
AILTINIL PIGOTT and Mr. CULLS* contended,

that
, . r • . •.• 9.1 •
there was here no felony,' btit a Pimple debt.--7
Mr. Wall had never ruppofed that the bankrupt. has
any felonious ihrentiOn, elfe he Would meter have
allowed him to make the concliding journey, atter
every thitig now &Hedged againft him had beep dir.
Covered. At all event., if the petitioner, who; it
was to be obferved, was only one of the aftieees,
filled that the bankrupt was wrilty nr fel .ny, why
not indirl him before a competent tribunal.
Sir S. Ross in reply. ridiculed it .e idea of pro.
.fecuting criminally. where the oftentible prifecutor.
,was fo mukh intetellid in. the eiculpatir n of the ac-
cufed. Sirch,profecutioni, however, he contended;
were never ordered for the purport of accertaining
inferi rr objects of civil import, but only wse:e the
public intereft wai fuppided to be concerned.
The LnitDCHAstat.t.na thought the circirm fiancee
fo firong, that °nigh Mr. Wall would undertake a
trial for the debt before a CoUrt of Law, I.e mutt
order the claim to be expunged: He accordingly.
ordered en tlfue to be tried, daring that it might be
fairly limed, that the objed was to determine who;
titer the claim refolved into a debt or a felony.
IMPARTI CAmillita. iN THE SANKRUPTCY Or
aswioa.
This was a petition from Mr. Campbell, as Truf.
tee for the children of the bankrupt, to be admitted
to prove a debt of toool. under the Commiffi m.
The bankrupt, many :years ago married Mifi Rn-
bina Kennedy, daughter of a Gentleman of tome
property), in Scotland, who had granted to hit
daughter a bond of prr.irifion for 10=1. and upwards.
No c 'ntrad was entered int t previou. to the mar.:
riage, but it was flipulated iretbally, that the fortune
of the wife lhould be fecured to herfell and children.
Sometime after the marriage, and bet., re the batik.
rupt had received more than tool. of his wife's for.
tune, he executed deeds in fairour of the petitioner.
fecuring to his wife and children wool. fince which
time it appeared, that the whole provision granted to
her by ner father, to the altount of upwards of
(tool. was paid over to the bankrupt. The Corn.
miffioners, however, holding the tr tilt bond in fart ur
of the petitioner to be a gratuitous deed by the bank.
rupt to his children, retitled to allow the petitioner
to prove under the Commia.n.
Sir S ROMILLY, in fupport of the claim, refe rd to
the cafe of Stevens and Oliver, in ad Brown, where
it was held that a proviGon in favour of the children,
made in folvent circomtlances, was good, even though
not made out of the wife's fortune. Here an exprefs
ftipulation had been made previous to the marriage,
which though not then carried into elfef I, had been
completed at a period when the hufband hed received
only tool. of the rum, in confiJeration of which the
bond in queftion was granted. There wag an affidavit
too, that at the time the bond was granted tire bank-
rupt was worth mood. after payment of all his.
debts, and continued in affluent circurnftances for
eight years afterwards.
The Loan CHANCILLOR Seilked to know if the
hufband could have Cued for the proviGon fetded on
his wife by her father t
Sir S. Roseau faid the concurrence of the will
mull have been neceffary.
His Lordihip took time to look into the cafe of
, Stevens and Oliver.