Star.
London, England, 1806-06-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE,

SUTTON V. wISLF Y.
111 OUT Paper of the Kith our limits only enabled us to sive a
tort outline of the above important Trial; we now indent our
Readers with a fuller account of it.
COURT OP KING's BENCH, JUNE 9.

This was a fpecial cafe referred from the lath Sim
mar Affiz s, at Chelm.ford„ upon an ifftie direfted
by Lord ELDON, to try whether the Plaintiff, Mr.
Daniel Sutton, an Attorney, at COICIICiiC), was juf
tilled in fuing out a Commiffinn of Bankruptcy as
Petitioning Creditor, againft the Def n lava, Mr.
Weeley, a gentleman living in that neighbourhood?
It appeared that Mr. Weeley was tenant for life, tin-
der the will of a gentleman of the fame name, of an
eflate near Colcheller, called Weeley Hall, confin-
ing of upwards of tOOO acres, and of the annual
value of about isool. A large part of the en.ite he
kept in his own occupation and made bricks, which
itwas admitted he made and fold with a view to profit
he kept what is generally termed a Public Sale
Kiln, but all the materials from which the bricks
were manufallured, viz. the clay, land, and (Irate,
were procured from hi. own elate, and nothing was
purchated except the fuel. The quellion for the
opinion of the Court was, whether Mr. Weeley was
liable to a Commiffion of Bankruptcy as a trader
within the meaning of the Bankrupt Laws
Mr. POOLIT contended that Mr. Weeley was a
trader. He infilled that he obtained credit as a com-
mercial man, upon the profits which he was loppof-
ed to make as a brickmaker ; that his file was ex-
tenCve, and that making and felling bricks was
as much a trade or bufinefs as any other manufac-
ture. He kept a vifible Rock or fund like the capital
of any other trader, and in proportinst to the extent
of it, induced trait and credit as any other trader
did upon any other kind of Rock or capital.—Thin
WAS the principle of the Bankrupt Laws. He cited
the cafe of exparte Harrifon before Lord Tit int-
Low, and the cafe of Wells v. Parker, in Error from
the Court of Common Pleas. He contended that
there cafes had completely eflablithed that a brick.
maker was a trader. He alto cited the cafe of Port
w. rf,aton, in which Lord Chief Juftice Paarr held
the fauna 4.,arine.
Mr. Wirstottra., for the Defendant, denied the
pofition, that the mere obtaining credit could make
a man a bankrupt. He cited the whole Statute of
3.4 Henry VIIL from which it appeared, that the
principle of the Bankrupt Laws was not obtaining
credit, but obtaining .1 a capital or fithhance of
other mess' goods.on credit." ,To make a bankrupt.
there mull be both a buying and a felling, which are
the terms of the modern flatuter ; in this innance it
could not be laid that the Defendant was a buyer and
a feller, as thole words are undernnod with regard
to other traders, nor did the Defendant obtain a ett-
piral of other moos' goods ; it was true that the De.
tendant fold gomk, hut how could he be laid to have
bought them firil ? he hought nothing but the fuel,
and it was not very eafy to underfland how the coal,
which heated the kiln, could be reprefented as part
of the briar fold, cr as corarofing Mr. Weeley's ca-
pital. A confution had been introduced from not at-
tending to the de:ifions. In exparte lisirdion it ap-
peared that the luit.kmaker boug,bt every thing. viz.
the clay and land as well as the fuel ; he was there-
fore a buyer of the raw inaterials, and a feller of the
manutaetured article. In Parker v. Wells, it was
the opinion of Lord MANSFIFLO. in oppolition to
that ut Lord Loocitsortooo it, that reatmg a hi ick
ground was the fame a; burying the clay by the load;
but Mr. Wacky did nor obtain iris materials either by
buying or renting. He was a land-owner, enjoying
hi. own original foil and freehold. Upon the principle
contended for by the flaiwiff, any Nobleman or Gen-

Clem in. of the largefl landed chafer, may be !hipped
ut the char:titer of land-owner by a coal•merchant's)
bill of 51. or tot. and brought under the fcourge and;
opprellion of any malevolent creditor. under the ab•
ford cant of his being a dealer and chapman.
Lord ELL a ;mantic if, in delivering the judgment
of the Court. laid, that the (Lamle of the 34th Henry
VIII. difcloled the leading principle of the Bankrupt
Laws—that it was neceffar y to make out againft the
Defendant that be had ufed the trade of merchandize.
Now, a merchant is a man who buys that he may
fell again ; but it cannct be laid that a man wl o
makes bricks from clay, railed out of his own free-
hold ellate, is a buyer of any thing to fell again :
neither can he be Paid, in the language of the Ilatute,
to obtain fuhrlance of other men's goods on credit.—
The Defendant flood in a fitnilar fituation with the
lime burner, the fmelter of iron and lead, or the pro-
prietors of allura works :—Thefe perfons do nothing
more than bring the materials of -their own foil and
freehold to market in a merchantable (late ; they only
purfue the proper mode of reaping and enjoying the
produce of their land. It is the fame with the brick-
maker, who obtains the materials from his own foil.
The cafes could not be dilliriguithed. His Lordthip
further added, that he was not prepared to fay whe-
ther the Court would concur with the datrine of
Lord Mansfieldor with that of Lnrd Loughborough,
AS kid down in parker v. Wells, if a cafe fimilarly
circumitanced were to occur again. It was futhcient
to fay, that this cafe was entirely different. Mr.
Weeley could not be made a bankrupt, and judg.
ment mull be entered in his favour.
MONDAY, JUNG 16.

THR ASSIGNIRI OF DELPINI, V. THR RAIL OF BAL•

RV MORE.

Mr. Pala nbferved that he had obtained * Rule
for a new trial in this cafe, on condition of paying
itoool. into Court—the time for doing fo expired that
day, and the Plaintiff's Attorney threatened to fign
judgment and take out execution if the money was
not paid into Court instantly. The Noble Lord had
remittances in bills fromlreland to the above amount,
but they could not be accepted until this day, and
fume little time would be necefErry fur dircounting
ahem; for thefe real•ns he hoped the Court would
enitupe the time For payment of the money into Court
until Friday, which was ordered accordingly.

THE KINO V. tINJaMIN GRANOIR.
This Defendant was brought up for judgment,
having been conviEted• of a nuifance, in throwing a
.quantity of mud into the River Thames, and thereby
impeding the navigation.
Mr. Gue/isv, on behalf of the Defendant, GU, he
was molt anxious to remove this nuifance ; but found
the greaten difficulty in procuring a place to depofit
it; the whole contained about three thoufand tons,
out of which he had already removed about 80, to
an clime of his own in the Ifle of Dogs, but the City
Surveyor objeeed to it as an improper place, as the
ebbing or flowing of the tide might carry it all back
again; however, he had now procured a place to
which he could remove this nuifance. It certainly
would be attended with confiderable expenceandtrou,
hie, but all he now requited of the .Court was, that
their Lordthips would allow him reafonable time to
accnmplilh this.
Sir W. Gssas and Mr. Garteovt, on the part of
the Profectstors, the Lord Mayor and Corporation
of London, obferved, that the only with they haal,
was to have this nuitance removed ; it was a mattes
of very great importance to the navigation of the Ri-
ver, and the longer it remained, the greater the evil.
The Court conceiving the Defendant was inclined
to comply with the willies of the party, direeled that
a proper perfon fhould be appointed, who ffiould fay
what time it would take to dear this mud away, and
that an attachment fhould lie in the proper office, to
be ailed at the expiration of fuck term, in cafe the
nuifance continued.