Star.
London, England, 1814-11-03 00:00:00

LAW INT.ILLIGENCE,

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 1.
PIIICKLTT V. FENIOS.
Mr. HART begged to reca this case to the recol-
lection of his Lor6:-.ip. It h.,' .Ir Al a c,m.td:r.k:,h
sum of money arising from the fees of Deputy N 1.1,4
steal of the Admiralty. His Lordship bid a

to look into the brief; and to settle the arms

issue to be tried at law, for deciding the question be-
tween the parties. The Plaintiffs were assail:4s that
the words of such issue should be adjusted, so that
the trial might take place, at all events, in the course
of the Sittings after nest term ; but they were afraid
the case had escaped hit Lordship's attention.
The Loan CHAbiCELLOII, assured Mr. Hart that nei-
ther the case in question, liar several other cases
which he had reserved for judgment, had escaped his
attention. The faces, however, of many of the Coon:

sel engaged in those cases, had escapei the glance of
his eye at the time when, towards the co►►clusion of
the late Sittingsvhe was prepared to have siven judg-
ment in them, and experience had taught him, that
to give judgment in any case, in the absence of the
I Counsel on either side, was to ensure a rehearing of

that case, or, at least to ensure his hearing of that
case again. He was happy, however; to state, that
there was not a single case which he had reserved tor
judgment, in which he had not made up his mind,
and in which he was n;it ready to state the grounds
of his opinion ; which he should take an eatly oppor-
tunity of doing.

NOV. 2.-.-LIXAS V. FLETCHER.
The bill in this case, as stated by Mr. LEACH and
Mr. RoupELL, prayed a discovery in respect to cer-
tain estates, of the value of £20,000 and upwards,
which the defendant keld by virtue (if a devise, and

having passed the necessary recovery. The estates
in question originally were the property of A Mr. Elli-
son, who devised them to Mr. J. Henfing, and he be-
coming in distressed circumstances applied to Fietcl:er,
who advanced, taking the security of these estates, as
it was stated, a sum not exceeding ACM*. l'he
will executed by Mr. Ellison gave the estates to Ann
Fleming, and her heirs ; the remainaler-man was J.
Heming. After his death, the defendant,
in conse-
quence of the security, became entitled to the estates.
It was contended this day, that the wilting which
the defendant held, and under which he claimed to
retain possession of the estates, was not a valid one,
for that the money actually lent was not inure thane
seventh of the real value of the property. .
The questions, therefore, for the consideration of
the Court were—first, whether a good recovery had
passed, and secondly, wl.ether the tenant us //recipe
could legally hold possession, the recovery being under
these circumstances a bad one ?
In bar to these allegations, the defendant answered
by his plea, that the wi kings or deeds were duly and
legally executed, and that in the original contraction
of the debt and agieement there was al fraud. it
was contended, therefore, on his part, that the Court
could not order a discovery of the title of the estate,
nor could they compel him to deliver them up for the
purpose prayed in the bill:
Oa the centrary, the Learned Counsel who argued
in support of the bill maintained, that theCourtwould
not aid a defendant thus answering:; more especially
as the value of the estates were so much above the
money advanced, and for which the title-deeds were
deposited as security only.
The VICE•CIIANGALLOIS deferead giving judgment
on the case, which was of such importance, wad
another day.
COIiRT OF KING'S BENCH, NOV. 1.

YORK AND ANOTHER V. 3:HINSON AND PRITCHARD.
This action was brought by the Assignees of Messrs.
Hancock and Allen, of istol, contractors, late bank-
rupts, to recover aE t 934. Os. l
• Johnson and Pritchard had, in an account currenr,
delivered in 1813, admitted themselves to stand in-
debted to Edw. Allen, in a balance of 'CIA. Os. lad.
and also for three disputed sums of /COO, OM, and
se:soo, making together the sum sued tor. The three
latter sums were to abide the result of an application
to a Jury, to determine whether Hancock was a tra-
der within the meaning of the b inkrupt laws Han-
cock and Allen had been contractors ; and it was
proved, according to the testimony et a cl.Tk or
agent, that independent of the pun chases which they
made to fulfil their contracts, they purchased coals on
a venture. The fact of Allen being a trader was ad-
mitted. Hancock's daughter proved Lis commissiat
of acts of bankruptcy, aad added, that he Lad ether
occupations besides that of a Coves nment contractor,
for he had 46 something to du with the Church"—he
was a parish clerk !"
Mr. Toreixo, in defence, s.;id that he would not
question the fact of Allen and Hancock haviag been
navy contractors • but he must contend that there was
not sufficiently clear proof of Hancock having been
a trader within the meaning of the bankrupt laws,
and ttleretore that the plaintiffs. wit being legally as-
signees, could not be entitled to recover the debt due
to Mr. Allen from the gelendants. In the celebrated
case of Sir Thomas Lyttleton, where were the opinioni
of Hale and Rainsfurd, it WAS held that buying stores
for the fulfilment of a contract to virtual the Neer,
was not trading ; nor did the selling of any vedud-
dancy of provisions, to private individuals, originally
purchased for the victualling of the fleet, const tote
a trader. Purchases distinct from such as were made
for the fulfilment of the navy contracts, must be
proved, otherwise trading within the melanin; of the
bankrupt laws was not established. Applying that
decision, which had never been disputed, to the pre.
sent case, he must submit that the evidence of any
dealings, exclusive of those made tor the contracts,
rested on such a slender foundation, that it might be
establishing a very danger, its precedent to admit it.
Lord ELLENDOROUGH pettectly agreed in the doc-
trine laid down in the Cate quoted, that the mere sel-
ling of the redundancies of those articles originally
purchased in furtherance of the fulfilment in ttie navy
contracts, did not establish trading within the meaning
ot the Bankrupt Acts. That to constitute Such trading
purchases and alt.ll„,rether independent of the
contract,, must be clearly proved. It the Jury be-
lieved the evidence ot the w inicss, who stated that
they made purchases, of some coals in particular,
qtLte independent of the contracts; the trading within
the twailing ot the Statutes respecting Bankrupts was
estatsi s!led ; and !;is Lordship could see no reason for
disbelieving such t riwss. returned
The Jut y, beLevi ii; the witness, a Inn diet
for the iilatutilf—Paniages sCI,93S. 16,1.