Star.
London, England, 1809-06-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE:

COURT eta CHANCERY, JUNE 16.
HARRIS V. PASMORE.
This was an application on the pact of an infant to
have the receiver upon his estate removed on account
of misconduct.
Sir S. RoNnuei stated the case on the part of the
Plaintiff, and read several afEdatits from the mother
of the Plaintiff and others, setting forth the extraor-
dinary neglect of the receiver, a Mr. Tremanger,
who had suffered the infant's estate to be delapida-
ted, and plundered to a very considerable amount,
not less thin about 20001. as was alledged. An
action, it appeared, had been brought against a Mr.
Newton, who acted under the receiver, and who had
suffered this delapidation to take place, and a vetdict
of 6001. damages had been obtained by the infant,
which, owing to the case not having been completely
before the Jury, was said to be far below the actual
damage sustained.
Mr. RICHARDS and Mr. MARTIN for the receiver,
Tremanger, rested his defence upon the ground that
he had placed implicitconfidence in Newton, and that
the waste of the estate had been effected without his
knowledge. He had no object, however, in conti-
nuing to act as receiver ; and his only motive for de-
fending was, that he might not be removed without
doing justice to his own character.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that the parties
came near each other when the Receiver consented to
resign, and an order might be drawn up to that effect.
Sir S. ROMILLY observed, that the removal of the
Receiver, in any way, was all that could be required.
on the part of the infant ; but on public grounds, and
for the sake of other suitors in that Court, he con-
tended warmly that Mr. Tremanger ought not to be
allowed to resign, but that he ought to be dismissed.
There could nut, he said, be a stronger case of mis-
conduct on the part of a Receiver. A wood of his
own, in the immediate neighbourhood of that of the
infant, had been well taken care of. The property
of the one was the family child—that of the other, the
parish apprentice. The Receiver must have observed
this.
The LORD CHANCELLOR desired the Receiver to
pay all the costs, and directed the Order to be drawn
up as discharging him.
JUNE 17.—EX-PARTE BOULTON.
This was an application on the pail of the Bank-
rupt, Boulton, to have the Commissions superseded,
on the ground of ". No Trader," &c.
Mr. HART stated, that the petitioner had formerly
employed a Mr. Sowerby, an Attorney at Richmond.
The Attorney sent in his bill, amounting to from
4001. to 5001: which the petitioner thought exorbi-
tant, and therefore insisted on its being taxed. This
the Attorney requested of him not to do, offering to
refer the matter to any Gentleman of the petitioner's
own choosing. The petitioner acceded ; but some
delay having arisen from a circumstance not material,
Mr. Sowerby sued out a commission of bankrupt
against the petitioner, who was a farmer in York-
shire, under the notion that he was a cattle-dealer.—
The question, Whether he was a trader, under the
Bankrupt Laws ? had been argued before the Court
of King's Bench, and decided in the negative.
Mr. RICHARDS and Sir S. ROMILLY stated that this
was a mere mistake of the law on the part of the At-
torney ; and that he had reasonable ground for acting
as he did.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought this no very proper
case fcr granting relief, the Attorney having been the
petitionin Creditor, the Solicitor under the commis-
sion, and the Assignee. He ordered the Commission
to be superseded, and the Attorney to pay the costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 17.
GRAMARE V. DE yaws.
The defendant having obtained a rule, called upon
the plaintiff to shew cause, why a verdict of £2O da-
mages, 'which he had obtained for medical assistance
afforded to the defendant should not be set aside. The
plaintiff was not a surgeon, and by sevf•ral Acts of
Parliament, a penalty of £5 a month was imposed on
all persons practising as surgeons without being ad-
mitted into that profession, for the whole time they
had continued in practice. It was contended that
although the plaintiff was not a surgeon, yet having
bought articles for the defendant, who had no money,
and dressed him in a manner distinct from the busi.
ness of a surgeon, he had a right to maintain his ac-
tion for money paid, laid out, and expended, as well as
for work and labour.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH observed, that no evidence
had been given at the trial to prove that the plaintiff
was not a surgeon.—Rule discharged. •
UNDERHILL V. WALFORII.
This was a rule which had been obtained by Mr.
Carrow, to shew cause why the verdict obtained in
this cause should not be set aside, and a new trial had,
on the ground that a person of the name of Hawkins,
whom the defendant had n t bcen able to subpoena,
but who had been seen in the Hall just before the
trial commenced, and whom he intended to examine
as a witness, had been suddenly taken away by
the party on the other side, and amused with drinking
till the trial was over. It being proved that the per-
son in question was a madman, just escaped from his
keeper, and who came after his wife, that had been
subpoenaed as a witness, Lord ELLENBOROUGH ordered,
that the rule be enlarged, in order that the plaintiff
should have an opportunity of examining the man,
should he recover his faculties ; and that in the mean
time the money claimed by the actions be brought
into Court within ten days, else the rule to be dis-
charged.
MONPRIVATT, ESQ. V. S/ITTH AND PILILLIM LATE
SHERITI 07 MIDDLESOX.
Mr. GARROW stated, that this was an action of
trespass brought by the plaintiff, who was owner of
die Public Dairy, Cleveland street, Mary-la.-Bonne,
against the late Sheriff of Middlesex. The plaintiff
laid his damages at '2OOOl. That in July last a writ
of furl facia: having been issued against the goods of
one Ledwell, to v:hom the dairy formerly belonged,
the Sheriff seized the stock of cattle then on the pre-
mises (Monprivatt having previously purchased them
by bill of sale), but being afterwards dri.ren back,
were then seized by the assignes under a commission
of bankrupt against Ledwell, and were sold for the
benefit of the creditors.
The defence was, that Monprivatt's title was
fraudulent, and that they were conveyed by Ledwell
for the purpose of defeating his creditors.

On the cross-exaltioation of the plaintiff's witnesses;
it appeared that Ledwell was uncle to Monprivatt,
and had married Mrs. Monprivatt, who was the 'mo-
ther of the plaintiff; that Ledwell being in distressed
circnmstances, acknowledged a judgment to one Ca-
tharine Murray, his servant, for £650, upon whictrin
execution was issued by Mr. Bishop, who wasattor-
ney for all the parties to the transaction. Monprivatt,
who ha just been released from the King's Bench,
by the consent of Murray and Ledwell, took a bill of
sale from the Sheriff of the cows and the rest of the
property seized on a valuation of about £lso.—Mur-
ray being the plaintiff in the execution, as such en-
titled to the produce of the levy, acknowledged by
Mr. Bishop the receipt of the consideration, which
on the face of the bill of sale appeared to have been
paid by Monprivatt, and this acknowledgment being
a sufficient discharge to the Sheriff, it thus was ren-
dered unnecessary that any money should actually
pass, and the property was delivered to Monprivatt,
who thereupon became the apparent owner, and the
business was carried on nominally by him. In order
to prevent detection, Monprivatt sold a part of the
cows, and bought others in their stead : and for the
value of the latter only he sought to recover by the
present action ; attempting to prove, by various
salesmen, the actual purchase and payment of the
price with his own money ; but this was in reality a
mere change of stock.
Mr. PARK was then proceeding with the defence,
when Mr. Garrow interrupted him, and stated, that
if his Lordship was of opinion that the whole trans-
action was tainted, he had no desire to take up the
time of the Court ; and his Lordship declared, that
upon the plaintiff's own spewing he must put that
question to the Jury, Mr. Park declared himself at
the same time most ready to call witnesses, and was
confident of the result, Mr. Garrow consented that
the plaintiff shobld be called. —Plaintiff nonsuitcd.